The recent budget battle that shut down the Department of Homeland Security for 75 days centered on how the Trump administration has staffed and directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement. President Trump, fulfilling a 2024 campaign promise to solve the nation's immigration crisis, pushed through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which allocated an additional $75 billion to ICE over four years—far exceeding its usual $10 billion annual appropriation. This funding effectively shielded the agency from annual congressional oversight.
But has this massive infusion of cash produced good outcomes for the country? Trump has repeatedly blamed his predecessor for immigration woes, yet ICE under President Joe Biden deported over 271,000 people in fiscal year 2024—about 22,000 per month—the highest number in a decade, and did so with a smaller budget and fewer officers.
That pre-Trump ICE didn't overwhelm cities like Minneapolis, didn't create massive detention centers with rising death tolls, and didn't routinely enter homes without warrants or apprehend U.S. citizens. The contrast with today's agency is stark.
The Department of Homeland Security claimed in January 2026 that ICE deported 675,000 people in Trump's first year, with an additional 2.2 million self-deporting. But former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem often exaggerated or misrepresented enforcement outcomes. Her claim that deceased immigrant Alex Pretti brandished a gun was debunked by video evidence showing he posed no threat. Noem later backtracked, but her credibility was damaged, contributing to her dismissal.
New DHS head Markwayne Mullin has a chance to restore factual reporting. The baseline for immigration arrests should be the 22,000 per month achieved under Biden. Early reports suggest quotas of 3,000 per day—90,000 per month—led to inappropriate apprehensions of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. Of the 400,000 immigrants arrested in 2025, less than 14% had charges or convictions for violent crimes.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act turned ICE into a paramilitary unit with expanded enforcement powers. The question remains: at what price? Resistance is growing from affected communities and lawmakers who see unconstitutional tactics. As critics note, in addressing immigration, 'far' matters more than 'fast.'
Sheldon H. Jacobson, a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, applies data-driven risk analysis to public policy. He argues the current approach prioritizes speed over due process, risking long-term harm to immigrant communities and constitutional norms.
