Two decades after its creation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) remains one of the most powerful — and least understood — agencies in the United States.

Origins: A Post-9/11 Creation

The agency now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was established in 2003 under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), following the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which reorganized 22 federal agencies into a new department tasked with counterterrorism, border security, and immigration enforcement.

Source: DHS (text of H.R. 5005)

From the start, the Act drew serious pushback on civil liberties grounds. The ACLU wrote to Congress, raising concerns about overbroad exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, weakened whistleblower protections, and undefined powers for national surveillance.

Source: ACLU

The restructuring split the legacy functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) among new agencies: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and ICE. That fragmentation blurred enforcement, adjudication, and investigation lines in ways critics say paved the path for ICE’s mission creep.

From the beginning, ICE was designed to wield both investigative and enforcement authority—not simply to process immigration cases. Its law enforcement arm, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), functions much like an internal federal investigative force with broad discretion.

Source: JustSecurity

Powers & Jurisdiction: Broad Authority, Weak Oversight

ICE has significant statutory authority to arrest and detain noncitizens inside the U.S. Its powers derive largely from immigration statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226 and 1357, which allow ICE officers to detain individuals pending removal and issue administrative warrants without needing a traditional judicial warrant.

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Unlike many federal law enforcement agencies (e.g. FBI, DEA), ICE’s internal oversight and external checks are comparatively weak. Many of its detention operations occur in privately run or state-contracted facilities, and audit reports have repeatedly flagged discrepancies, inspection lapses, and transparency gaps.

Source: GAO report on immigration detention inspections

One major tool of ICE’s reach is the 287(g) program, through which ICE delegates certain immigration enforcement powers to state or local law enforcement agencies under agreement. Some jurisdictions use 287(g) to carry out arrests and investigations jointly with ICE, while others have formally withdrawn from participation.

Source: ICE.gov on 287(g)

ICE’s power also overlaps and sometimes conflicts with local law enforcement. In sanctuary jurisdictions, local agencies may refuse cooperation; in others, they quietly assist through data sharing or indirect enforcement.

Source: Migration Policy Institute

Funding & Growth

Since its founding, ICE’s budget has expanded substantially. For FY 2025, Department of Homeland Security documents show a request of $9.7 billion for ICE, supporting 21,479 positions and 21,439 full-time equivalents (FTEs).

Source: DHS (ICE FY 2025 Overview)

Within DHS’s overall FY 2025 request—$107.9 billion in total resources, including $62.2 billion in net discretionary funding—ICE’s share is largely directed to enforcement operations, detention capacity, and investigative work.

Source: DHS Budget in Brief (FY 2025)

For full component-by-component figures and explanations, see DHS’s Congressional Budget Justification portal.

Source: DHS Congressional Budget Justification (FY 2025)

Accountability & Oversight

Multiple federal audits have flagged structural weaknesses in ICE oversight. The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an unannounced inspection of the Stewart Detention Center and found significant deficiencies in medical care, grievance handling, and facility conditions.

Source: DHS OIG Report OIG-23-38 (July 2023)

In addition, a May 2025 GAO review documented that while many immigration detention facilities technically passed inspections, almost every inspection identified one or more deficiencies—ranging from environmental health, sanitation, to medical access.

Source: GAO – Immigration Detention: DHS Should Define Goals and Measures

Unlike agencies such as the FBI, ICE lacks a strong independent inspectorate with consistent public reporting standards. Freedom of Information Act requests are often delayed or denied, and documented complaints frequently result in little action. Civil rights organizations have called for stronger congressional oversight or structural reforms to rein in ICE’s discretionary powers.

Source: ACLU – ICE’s Detention Oversight System Needs an Overhaul

Recent Controversies

In 2025, ICE has been under intense scrutiny for its aggressive expansion and detention practices. The agency is reportedly racing to build migrant tent camps after receiving a $45 billion funding boost, aiming to increase its bed capacity from 40,000 to 100,000 by year’s end.

Source: Reuters

At the same time, ICE detention centers are operating at or near maximum capacity. Officials say the system is capped at around 47,600 detainees, placing pressure on the agency to expand infrastructure rapidly.

Source: Reuters

ICE has also struck deals with private prison firms to open new facilities. In March 2025, ICE and GEO Group agreed to open a new immigration detention center in central Michigan—renewing concerns about profit motives in the incarceration of migrants.

Source: Reuters

The expansion push is coupled with political and legislative pressure. Under the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Congress granted roughly $45 billion toward ICE detention infrastructure and enforcement operations.

Source: American Progress

Public opinion is also fracturing. A recent Pew Research Center survey found Americans remain split over ICE’s tactics—especially workplace raids—though a majority oppose law enforcement’s role in mass deportation operations.

Source: Axios (citing Pew)

Another flashpoint is the expansion of local police cooperation through the 287(g) program. Recent analysis shows state and local agencies doubling their participation under the Trump administration, raising alarms about the widening footprint of ICE enforcement across communities.

Source: The Markup

Some states are resisting. For example, Illinois sheriffs are navigating legal limits under the state’s TRUST Act, which bars many forms of cooperation with ICE absent a criminal warrant. Still, some sheriffs say they disagree with its restrictions or see pressure to comply.

Source: Capitol News Illinois

Broader Implications

ICE’s evolution reflects the broader trend of post-9/11 governance: expanding executive enforcement authority under the banner of security. What began as an anti-terrorism initiative now functions as one of the most far-reaching domestic policing operations in the country.

Critics argue that the agency’s combination of investigative reach, discretionary detention power, and opaque oversight makes it uniquely resistant to democratic accountability. Supporters counter that such tools are essential for enforcing immigration law in a globalized era.

Either way, ICE has become emblematic of the tension between safety and liberty — and a case study in how institutions built for crisis can outlast their original purpose.

Sources: Brookings – 100 days of immigration under the second Trump administration; Brookings – Managing migration under pressure

Two decades on, the debate over ICE is no longer just about immigration — it’s about how much power Americans are willing to give the state in the name of security.