The Trump administration is planning a major shakeup at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by reassigning senior officials across the country, driven by frustrations over the agency’s failure to meet ambitious daily arrest targets for deportations.
According to multiple sources familiar with internal discussions, the administration is considering reassigning at least a dozen directors of ICE’s 25 field offices nationwide. Senior officials believe these leaders are underperforming and not adequately supporting the intensified deportation campaign. The plans have not been finalized, but some officials have already been informed of potential reassignments, which could affect roughly half of the agency’s field offices. This move aims to address ongoing tensions between the White House and ICE over enforcement performance.
The impetus for this shake-up is the White House’s lofty goal of 3,000 daily immigration arrests, set earlier this year. However, ICE has largely fallen short of this target, with daily arrests typically hovering over 1,000 and peaking above 2,000 on some days. As of recent data, the agency has carried out more than 260,000 arrests under the current administration, averaging approximately 900 per day. This persistent gap has fueled internal frustrations, prompting the consideration of leadership changes to boost arrest numbers and align with the administration’s deportation priorities.
In response to these shortfalls, the administration has increasingly relied on Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials, particularly Border Patrol agents, to bolster enforcement efforts. Part of the discussions involve replacing heads of certain ICE field offices with Border Patrol officials, reflecting a strategic shift towards more aggressive operations. This integration aims to leverage Border Patrol’s experience in high-intensity scenarios, though it raises concerns about blending agencies with distinct functions under the Department of Homeland Security.
Border Patrol agents, under leaders like Gregory Bovino, have been deployed to Democratic-led cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles, where they have conducted operations at sites like Home Depot parking lots and car washes. These actions have triggered significant local backlash, with protests and accusations of heavy-handed tactics against immigrants without criminal records. The visibility of these operations has sparked public outcry and legal challenges, complicating enforcement efforts and highlighting the contentious nature of the administration’s immigration crackdown.
Internally, tensions have arisen between ICE and Border Patrol, with some ICE leaders frustrated by the methods and opposition generated by Border Patrol operations. One official noted that while ICE focuses on arresting criminals, Border Patrol agents are targeting individuals in public spaces, leading to perceptions of overreach. Conversely, administration officials see Border Patrol as better equipped to achieve the high arrest targets, viewing their approach as necessary to meet the White House’s demands amid resource constraints and political pressure.
The Department of Homeland Security has not announced any personnel changes, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin stating that the administration remains ‘laser focused on delivering results and removing violent criminal illegal aliens.’ White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson emphasized that the team is working in lockstep to implement the president’s policy agenda, pointing to results in border security and deportations. These statements underscore the administration’s commitment to its immigration goals while downplaying internal discord.
This potential shake-up is part of a broader pattern of leadership changes at ICE, which has not had a Senate-confirmed director since 2017. Previous heads of key units, such as Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations, have been reassigned in recent months, reflecting ongoing instability. The moves highlight the challenges in meeting deportation goals amid resource limitations, public scrutiny, and evolving enforcement strategies, with implications for the future of immigration policy and agency operations.