C (2:45)

I think it's all optics, right? And I've reported on Trump from the very beginning of his entrance into national politics. He was not somebody who was personally passionate about immigration enforcement to the extent that he was going to hang his career on it. You know, Trump began to embrace immigration enforcement when he saw that speeches Stephen Miller had written for him in 2016 moving forward were very popular at his rallies, he was getting a huge response from people who'd come to watch him talk about his policy agenda. And so he moved closer and closer to this issue as im of immigration, as he saw that it was helping him win support and win power. And I think that's same reason why we're seeing the modulation of the message that's happening now, because we have video and photo evidence of the harshest versions of this enforcement campaign, and they're incontrovertible. And he can see the public questioning these efforts and is responding in kind.

A (3:55)

Well, let's take a step back and talk about ICE as an agency. What was ICE created to do originally and how different does it look today?

C (4:06)

So to talk about the history of ICE, quickly go back to 911 and a terrorist attack that shook the nation. And the Bush administration decided they had to do whatever they could to prevent another such attack. A 911 Commission that was formed came up with this idea of a Department of Homeland Security. So DHS was created for the first time, and within it, this new federal agency, ice, was established at the same time. Since then, the mission has been the same, but there's this disconnect that has existed throughout this period where, again, DHS and by proxy, ICE were created to prevent a future terrorist attack. And yet ice's work has always involved not focusing on terrorism and counterterrorism, but focusing on arresting and deporting immigrants in the United States without legal status. What has changed over this period of time is not so much the mission, but certainly the size and the budget of ice. ICE is now the highest funded federal law enforcement agency in the country, thanks to the one big beautiful bill act that President Trump ushered in and convinced Republicans in Congress to support last year. Another big change I want to point out in ice, which is really a more recent change, is the way that its policies are described and marketed to the public. So even in the first Trump administration, you think about its most controversial policy, family separations. That policy was described in innocuous bureaucratic terms as merely enforcing the law. We hear nothing like that today. We're hearing language that is mocking undocumented immigrants, that's taunting them, teasing them, really playing up the violence of the way that immigration enforcement has looked. Under the second Trump administration, there's sort of no mention of accountability for officers who are carrying out these policies, really of prioritization of the rule of law. I mean, Greg Bevino, before he was reassigned would talk about all immigrants almost as if they were guilty from the very beginning. We've also seen really overt white supremacist language being published right out of the ICE press shop, on Twitter and in commercials that they've published trying to recruit new agents, using language that makes explicit references and overtures to groups like the Proud Boys and followers of QAnon. All of that is very new for this agency.

A (6:34)

And you mentioned Greg Bevino there, who up until recently was commander at large for Border Patrol. How does Border Patrol click into this story fit in with ice? There are distinct agencies.

C (6:46)

There are distinct agencies. The Border Patrol is much more older. It predates the Department of Homeland Security, but it essentially handles immigration enforcement at the border. So while ICE focuses on the interior of the country, people are who are already here and who are eligible for deportation. The Border Patrol, it does what the name suggests. It works at the border and is intended to determine who can enter and who can't. An important part of that distinction is that people who haven't officially entered the United States have fewer rights and protections under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held this historically. And so Border Patrol officers are used to operating with more freedom when it comes to search and seizure, when it comes to detaining people. And we've also seen that it's an agency that has more of a history of violence, frankly, of bad conditions inside detention centers. I've reported on some really, really troubling conditions in border facilities, specifically because this is an agency that's used to dealing with people who don't tend to be English speakers, who don't tend to have legal representation, don't really have the ability to defend themselves, in addition to having fewer rights and protections legally. So to have those officers move into American cities dealing with a much different population, I think is also a big part of why this immigration enforcement push has been so intense and looked so different from what the public is used to.

A (8:13)

And to go back to ICE for a moment, who are these agents? What do we know about recruitment efforts, the types of people who are now carrying out this work on the ground in these operations?

C (8:24)

We don't know a lot about these new recruits, nor, I think, does the Trump administration. So what we know is that going into the Trump administration, ICE had about 7,000 deportation officers on the ground. They claim to now have hired 12,000 more people, doing so by offering big pay bumps, signing bonuses up to $50,000, and through these campaigns that I mentioned that make overtures to everything from patriotism to outrage Right. White supremacy and trying to recruit people as quickly as possible, because the administration has described hiring as critical to be able to carry out its deportation goals. As part of that, though, the vetting for new officers has been limited. So training for new ICE officers is now less than half the time that it once was. That's to get these new officers on board as quickly as possible. And the background checks that are being done to the extent that they are are very questionable. So a lot of questions about the level of training and skill and even just knowledge of the backgrounds of who these new 12,000 officers are.

A (9:34)

And what exactly. What's your understanding of what their directive is? Because at the beginning of the second Trump administration, there was a lot of talk about targeted efforts and targeted operations. But as the numbers bear out from detention facilities, we know that many people are being detained who do not have criminal records, which is originally what the administration would say was their target. So what are they being directed to do?

C (10:03)

I think the general directive to anyone working in immigration enforcement right now is deport as many people as possible, no matter the cost. So these arrests since Trump took office have never been targeted. And that's because of a disconnect between the numerical promises that the president made on the campaign trail and the reality that there simply aren't a million people, as he promised to deport each year, who have horrific records of criminality and violence that just doesn't exist. And so about 70% of people who are in ICE custody who have no criminal record at all. And I want to point out of the 30% who may, that a lot of times those criminal records can be misdemeanors for illegal border crossing, things like traffic violations. Very old crimes have reported on people who were picked up and detained by ICE because of a criminal record that was 20 or 30 years old. I think the officers working on this campaign were emboldened when the Supreme Court decided in a an opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, that race and ethnicity and even accent could be factors for consideration when stopping people. And so we've seen video of ICE agents acknowledging that they're stopping and questioning people because of their accents, because of the color of their skin. One of the big ways that they're arresting people is by showing up at places like Home Depot, where they know undocumented day workers tend to work and look for work. So it's sort of the opposite of a targeted enforcement campaign, and that's because of this directive, arrest and deport as many people as possible.

A (11:41)

Do we know if there's been any sort of internal resistance within DHS or ICE from people who. Who feel like they are being asked to do something that is markedly different from what they were asked to do originally or before.

C (11:56)

So this is a big difference from the last Trump administration into this one. The people who were leading any kind of resistance effort under the first Trump administration to some of its more controversial policies, those people are gone. And Stephen Miller was very open about this as soon as Trump won his most recent election. He said anybody who was skeptical of the administration's goals need not apply. Lots of people who were viewed as more human rights oriented, I'll say, in the Department of Homeland Security, they lost their jobs either through doge cuts or other layoffs to the Department of Homeland Security. And in general, what I'm hearing is that there's a culture that is just completely hostile toward anyone who's raising questions, not even pushing back, but just simply raising questions about the goals this administration has laid out and then the strategies that it's using to pursue those goals. So all of that resistance that once existed, that was really a moderating force against some of the administration's harshest impulses, that's all gone.

A (13:00)

You know, my other question for you, Caitlin, as you're talking about deportations being really the number one goal, is where did we end the year 2025? Like, how did the numbers actually shake out for the year? Because my understanding was we were at least on track to be detaining many more people than we were before, but not necessarily deporting them.

C (13:23)

So, as is always the case with immigration, the answer is a little complicated, but I'm going to try to break it down. At the end of last year, the Trump administration was touting more than 600,000 deportations, which sounds like a really high number. It's lower than the highest number under the Biden administration, which was over 700. But there's a big shift within those data points, right? Because during the Biden administration, you had large numbers of people crossing the border, and most people who were removed during that period were people who'd never actually entered the United States. During this current administration, we've had more than 300,000 people from within the interior of the country picked up and put into deportation proceedings, ultimately removed those people. It's very different to deport them. So we're talking about pulling people from their communities who have relatives, who have employers, friends, and a really significant ripple effect when those removals are carried out. Another difference between the Biden administration and the Trump administration is people who are in immigration detention. So when Biden left office, you had about 35,000 people in detention. Now you have more than double that number. And a big part of that is because the One Big Beautiful Bill act granted 45,000 billion for the expansion of immigration detention. Those expansions are happening very quickly. The courts are still slowing deportations down, in that once someone is detained, if they're lucky enough to have access to a lawyer. Most people don't, but some do. You can fight your case, and you can see if there's any possibility of recourse to either stay in the United States permanently or at least remain detained for a long period of time, because deportation cases can take years to resolve. And so I think that's why you see this doubling, doubling in the number of people who are detained, and less of an impact when you're looking at the removals number. The administration has caught onto this and is trying to look for more ways to remove people without allowing them the opportunity to go before a judge. So they're trying to expand the use of things like expedited removal, which is basically just a legal way of deporting someone without giving them their day in court. You know, the expanded use of extradited removal has been challenged, and I'm sure will continue to be. And, you know, we're back in a situation just like during the first Trump administration, when there's really this effort that can only be described as throwing spaghetti to the wall to see what sticks. You know, they try everything all at once in hopes that collectively, even though individual policies are likely to be challenged and some of them likely to be terminated as a result of those challenges, the hope is that collectively, it will get them closer to the goal that they've laid out.

A (16:07)

Which seems to be working, it's fair to say, right?

C (16:10)

It does, yeah.

A (16:11)

How much of ICE's enforcement efforts actually depend on cooperation from local law enforcement? And how much, like, what have we actually seen take place across the country in different operations?

C (16:26)

So I think the best way to describe it is the language that ICE itself uses. It describes its partnerships with local police agencies as a force multiplier, because when ICE is working closely with local police, they basically have a pipeline of people who are eligible for deportation. These pipelines are often facilitated through agreements. They're known as 287 agreements, and those have exploded under this administration. I think there are more than a thousand in place now. These are agreements where local police collaborate with ice, either by deputizing their own officers to work on immigration enforcement or simply granting access to their records and their jails for ICE agents to come and pick people up so that anyone who interacts with local police is screened based on their immigration record and can be easily and quickly handed over to ice. This makes ice's job a lot easier. Right. The problem with these agreements is that, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of times they're handing over people who have been booked on very minor criminal infractions, a traffic violation, perhaps, driving without a license, which is de facto an obligation for immigrants without legal status living in states that don't offer them driver's licenses. So these low level infractions can very quickly escalate to deportations when these relationships are in place. But you can see why ICE loves them because it makes their job so much easier.

A (17:56)

Well, let's talk about what happens when serious harm occurs, including people being killed. But whether that's during protests or arrests or in detention, what accountability mechanisms exist right now for immigration enforcement agents?

C (18:12)

Fewer than existed previously is the answer to that. So in the past, Congress created levels of accountability to prevent these kinds of violent incidents when something happens. First of all, you of course, have the police involved. So a violent incident is investigated either by the local police or by federal police, depending on who has jurisdiction. Then you have the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General. Beyond that is when you get to these layers that no longer exist. So Congress created offices like the Ombudsman for Detention, like the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, offices that were intended to do investigations into incidents like these after the local law enforcement and after the IG had done theirs, to really get to the bottom of what happened and then to also look at policies and procedures to prevent violent incidents from happening again in the future. But one of the things that happened after Trump took office is that those extra offices, those extra layers of investigation, were eliminated through doge cuts. And when ICE was handed the biggest paycheck it ever received in the one big beautiful Bill act, there were no added measures for accountability, which is really significant. You know, the job of appropriators is to give money to federal agencies, but also to lay out requirements for how that money is spent. And that's where accountability in the federal government happens. So typically when ICE received its appropriations money, you would see lots of requirements in there, things like reporting requirements, you know, reporting to Congress how many people were injured and use of force incidents, how many people were killed. And you can even see in appropriations bills, recourse, you know, repercussions for people who violate policy in ways that result in harm. I was amazed when I read the one big beautiful bill act that there was nothing of the sort included. It effectively handed ICE and other elements of the Department of Homeland Security blank checks with no rules attached.

A (20:17)

What would it look like if Congress were to add stipulations? Because, again, we're talking midweek, and this is the conversation that's happening on Capitol Hill right now is over, in fact, more funding, approving more funding for ice. And it does seem like this is turning into a sticking point with plenty of lawmakers saying there need to be more stipulations attached.

C (20:36)

Absolutely. So a new appropriations bill would make a big change, I think a taller order. But another thing that Congress could do is update the immigration law itself. Right. To change who ICE is pursuing in the first place. So I think the public is really coming to grips right now with that misalignment we talked about between who Trump promised he was going to arrest and deport and who's actually being pursued. And even before these violent and deadly incidents, the public was turning away from support for this policy as it became clear who. Who was actually being deported. Congress also has the ability to control that. Congress can tell ICE don't go after people who don't have any criminal record, don't go after people whose last criminal conviction was more than 10 years ago or more than 20 years ago. Don't go after people who pay taxes or who have jobs. All of these things are within Congress's ability to change.

A (21:36)

You know, I've been confused, frankly, in all of this hearing in the past couple of weeks, how there have been certain things that ICE has done, certain memos that seem to me to totally upend longstanding legal precedent. And I just don't know how that's supposed to work. Is that how things work? Like, for example, there were reports of a leaked ICE memo suggesting that officers now don't need a judicial warrant to enter a home. That's a big change. That is completely different from advice that immigration lawyers have long given clients that advocates have long given shared for people. You're right. You can ask for a warrant. You should see a warrant before you open your doors. Is that all it takes, a memo that ICE can issue to change something like this?

C (22:24)

Yes. With an asterisk next to it. I mean, it's easy to forget that the law and legal precedent is a living thing.

A (22:30)

Sure.

C (22:30)

So historically, and this all stems from the fact that ICE is enforcing civil law, living in the United States without Authorization is a civil infraction. It's not a criminal infraction. And so, as a result of that, ICE agents have always had less legal authority than a police officer. But you're right, this new memo, this new interpretation by ICE lawyers of the law seems to determine that actually, we were wrong all along, that the law does allow ICE officers to enter people's homes without warrants. So. So that seems to be what they're arguing is legal as of right now. Now, the reporting around that memo, I think, suggests that even ICE is unsure whether this is a dubious interpretation of the law, because they're not handing out the memo. Normally, when a new memo comes down, it goes out in an email to everybody who works for this agency. What the reporting suggests is that this memo has only been shown to people in person. They're handed a piece of paper, they're allowed to read the memo, and then the memo is taken away. No one has a physical copy of. So that doesn't really sound like a policy that the administration fully stands behind. But what it will take to determine whether or not this new interpretation holds up to the law is a legal challenge. You know, courts will have to decide. It will no doubt be appealed, potentially all the way up to the Supreme Court, who could determine that it is legal.

A (23:53)

Hmm. Oh, that's really interesting. You know, I meant to ask you this as we were talking a little bit about how these issues end up in the hands of courts and how this backlog can also be created from that, but sort of separately from that. I mean, where do the courts fit into this in the sense of, you know, we heard the mayor of Minneapolis saying, we want ICE out in completely unequivocal terms. They've requested for a federal judge to step in and rule on whether ICE should pause its operations. Can a federal judge actually pause ICE activity? Walk me through what would happen in a case like that and what comes after.

C (24:35)

The courts can absolutely slow the Trump administration down. Federal courts have probably been the most impactful, if not the only force that's managed to try to contain, whether it's the use of force or things like tanks in the streets, the deployment of the National Guard. You know, we've seen the courts weigh in and limit what the Trump administration can do. I think there are far more effective than local law enforcement. For example, you know, the mayor of Minneapolis has talked about how trying to challenge ICE through its own measures is challenging, because, for one thing, we're in sort of untrodden legal territory. But also, as he put it, they have bigger guns than we do. So you can see how other ways of trying to contain ice's work could really end badly. So the courts can and have played a significant role in controlling what the Trump administration. But where do the courts end? They end at the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court obviously has a conservative majority that has thus far mostly favored what the administration is trying to do, whether that's related to immigration or not. But until then, yes, federal courts have and I think will continue to push back against some of these more blatant and really obvious violations of constitutional rights and of legal precedents.

A (26:06)

You know, as someone who is paying attention to what's been happening in this sphere and this agency's actions almost around the clock, I'm sure it feels like for you, what should people be paying attention to that isn't making it to the top headlines?

C (26:23)

So I wrote a story called Hundreds of Thousands of Anonymous Deportees, because I realized that it was as if. If individual cases were becoming household names. Individual people who'd been picked up by ICE and who were viewed as especially sympathetic, but who also had access to national media, had a spokesperson who was willing to come forward. You know, Americans were talking about these cases in ways that I really have never seen before. They became famous cases. But I noticed that people seem to be thinking of them as unique, when, in fact, fact, if you spend a day in immigration court, as I did, you will see that they're everywhere. That people who've been in the United States for decades, who have no criminal record, who are beloved members of their community, either because they're active in their church or they're business owners, or they've been their boss's greatest employee for 20 years. These folks are going through immigration court every day. Most of them are going through court without a lawyer, which makes them far less likely to win their cases. I saw people who are being removed after all these decades in the United States and all these local community ties that they'd established because they simply didn't have the ability to be represented by a lawyer to try to fight back against their case, and they weren't getting the attention that these other individual cases were. So I think the administration is adding to this kind of myopic view of the enforcement campaign in that they're talking about one particular city at a time. You know, first it was Chicago, then it was Los Angeles, then it was New Orleans, now it's Minneapolis. ICE is working like gangbusters across the country. And so it's really important to not Forget that what's happening in Minneapolis is likely happening elsewhere, too, and that we're just not seeing it. I would say that's something I think people should keep in mind.

A (28:16)

I want to return to the idea about public outrage and public opinion. Can you speak more to that? And I think it might even help people who are listening right now who have felt like they are sitting and watching and feeling a bit far away from all of this or a little disconnected from all of this. And frankly, that goes even for people who might have supported immigration enforcement efforts at the beginning of this Trump term, but are not happy with the way that it's unfolding right now.

C (28:45)

That's right. Even some of the president's staunchest supporters are. Are really coming out and criticizing ice's work now. This moment reminds me a lot of the years I spent reporting on family separations. You saw Republicans in Congress, some of the furthest to the right Republicans you can imagine, saying that this policy was abhorrent and that it needed to be outlawed, and then it was gone. The Trump administration got rid of it. I was reflecting over the weekend that I felt like we were heading into such a moment. I was starting to see especially Republican elected officials signal their discomfort after Alex Preddy's killing. And that, to me, seemed like a signal that the Trump administration might be about to change course. It's still very much an open question, you know, how big of a change are they going to make? Are they going to completely revamp ice's goals and give this deportation campaign a different look and feel and even language associated with it, or are they going to put into place a temporary pause, hoping that the intensity of criticism dies down and then really continue business as usual? We don't know for sure, and I think, frankly, nor does President Trump. I mean, he's at the same time very attached to his immigration enforcement agenda, like we discussed, because he believes it's the root of his popularity, but he also realizes that it's the center of why people are critical of him. And so I do anticipate a shift. And what I don't know is how. How big it's going to be or how long it's going to last.

A (30:22)

Yeah. Yeah. Caitlyn, thank you so much for your reporting on this, for sticking with the story for as long as you have. It really helps to hear from someone who has as much context and depth of reporting as you do.

C (30:34)

Thanks so much. I appreciate it. Thank you for having me.

A (30:40)

We'll include a link to Caitlin Dickerson's reporting for the Atlantic our Show Notes page. And every weekend you can find new episodes of Apple News in conversation in the Apple News app. Just tap on the audio tab, that's the little headphones at the bottom to find.