The reliance on tens of thousands of non-ICE law enforcement personnel for immigration enforcement signals a major shift in how ICE operates—outsourcing a core function previously led by its own officers.
Between Aug. 5 and 28, 42,153 personnel from various agencies supported ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). This included 28,390 federal officers—from the U.S. Marshals, FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Homeland Security Investigations—as well as over 13,000 state and local law enforcement officers. By comparison, ICE employs about 6,100 permanent ERO officers specializing in immigration enforcement.
Cato Institute analyst David Bier noted that this redeployment significantly diverts resources from their original missions, as reported by the Latin Times.
Separate ERO records provided to his organization indicate that roughly 14,500 federal criminal law enforcement officers—typically engaged in criminal investigations—were detailed to civil immigration enforcement. In comparison, ICE reported that 8,501 state and local officers were deputized under the 287(g) task force model, which authorizes them to make immigration arrests in coordination with ICE; more than 2,000 of these officers remain in training.
Bier noted, “Only one in five officials engaged in mass deportations are actually ICE ERO removal officers.”
The breakdown cited by Latin Times underscores the range of agencies involved. About one in five U.S. Marshals and FBI agents—normally dedicated to fugitive apprehension and federal crimes, respectively—supported ERO operations. Roughly half of DEA personnel, who typically address drug-related offenses, more than two-thirds of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives staff, who handle firearms and explosives regulation, and nearly 90% of Homeland Security Investigations personnel, who focus on transnational crime, also assisted in ERO activities at points this year.
At the local level, ICE is expanding 287(g) agreements, which allow local police and sheriff’s offices—typically responsible for state and local laws—to also enforce immigration law. ICE is also recruiting municipal officers and sheriffs’ deputies with signing bonuses and loan-repayment incentives. This has drawn pushback: after a targeted recruitment email in August, Polk County (Fla.) Sheriff Grady Judd accused the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of “poaching” local talent. The National Sheriffs’ Association also warned, as reported by the Latin Times, that this tactic could strain ICE’s needed cooperation.
DHS defends broad recruitment in support of ICE
Responding to these concerns, DHS maintains that wider participation is necessary to enforce federal law and safeguard communities. As reported by Latin Times, in mid-September, DHS stated that ICE had received more than 150,000 applications from Americans seeking to help arrest and remove what the agency calls the “worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from America’s streets,” and that ICE issued over 18,000 tentative job offers.
The 287(g) task-force model remains a cornerstone, granting qualified state and county officers—who otherwise serve in local law enforcement but now operate under ICE supervision—the authority to make immigration arrests. The figures—8,501 deputized and over 2,000 in training—reflect an operational ramp-up blending federal oversight with local enforcement. This collaboration pools resources, including communications, prisoner escorts, and transfers, and coordinates efforts at courthouses, checkpoints, and administrative offices.
The unprecedented mobilization of over 40,000 non-ICE officers, compared to about 6,100 ERO agents, makes clear that immigration enforcement is now driven largely by external personnel. This reveals a fundamental change in ICE’s operational model, underscoring the agency’s new reliance on partnerships to achieve enforcement goals.
Reflecting these differing views, Bier argues that this realignment represents a significant diversion from other criminal-justice priorities, while federal officials claim it is a coordinated, temporary surge aimed at meeting removal goals.
Source: Latin Times
