ANALYSIS: ICE Detains More Than 10,000 People in Five Days—an Alarming Record

From 1,000 to 2,000 arrests per day in just a few months

According to reports obtained by several media outlets, including Fox News and The New York Times, the White House has reportedly explicitly instructed ICE to double its arrest rate, from about 1,000 per day earlier this year to a target now set at around 2,000 per day. This shift reflects direct political pressure coming from the highest levels of the executive branch.

This pressure is not new. As early as 2025, Senior Advisor Stephen Miller had publicly mentioned a target of 3,000 daily arrests—a figure that seemed difficult to achieve at the time but which gives an idea of the trajectory sought by the administration’s hard-line faction.

An administration that claims to be targeting crime

Sources within the Department of Homeland Security claim that nearly 70% of those arrested had been charged with or convicted of a crime in the United States. This statistic, highlighted by the administration to justify the scale of the operation, should nevertheless be viewed with caution, as it has not been independently verified.

Several recent cases documented by local media partially contradict this narrative, including arrests of individuals with no criminal record and posing no apparent threat to public safety—which fuels criticism regarding whether this campaign is truly targeted.

I remain skeptical of this 70% figure, which has been put forward without independent verification, as the recent history of these immigration enforcement campaigns is rife with examples where official statistics do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

The Arrest of a Nun That Has Caused a Scandal

One case in particular has made a strong impression in recent days: the arrest of a Catholic nun, an incident that prompted an unusual public reaction from Republican Representative Monica De La Cruz of Texas, who openly criticized the operation. This kind of discord within the ruling party itself illustrates just how much certain methods are beginning to cause unease beyond the usual partisan divides.

This type of incident is not an isolated one. In recent months, several Republican elected officials representing districts with large immigrant populations have expressed discreet but genuine reservations about the scale and perceived brutality of certain ICE operations on the ground.

A Shift in Tone Promised After the Minnesota Tragedy

Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin had promised a shift toward less high-profile operations after a 2025 operation in Minnesota resulted in the deaths of two U.S. citizens—a tragedy that sparked nationwide bipartisan outrage. That promise now seems difficult to reconcile with the scale of the current escalation.

The contrast between public pledges of restraint and the operational reality documented this week highlights a gap that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore—even for the usual supporters of Trump’s immigration policy.

I believe that this promise of restraint, made in the wake of a preventable tragedy, already rang hollow at the time, and the current escalation only confirms that this administration’s reassuring words carry little weight in the face of the cold, hard numbers.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Sets a Clear Limit

In a decision handed down on July 2, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, ruled by a narrow 2-1 vote that ICE detainees must be granted a bail hearing within a maximum of 90 days. Judge Leslie Southwick, author of the majority opinion, cited the historic significance of this centuries-old founding charter to justify this limit based on the right to due process.

This decision marks a significant legal setback for a mandatory detention policy implemented in July 2025, which reinterpreted thirty-year-old laws to justify prolonged detention without bail, including for individuals who have been residing in the United States for decades.

A Precedent That Could Spread

This ruling directly affects the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but it could inspire other federal circuits across the country, especially given that hundreds of lower-court judges had already ruled this policy unlawful even before this appellate decision.

The administration could take this decision to the Supreme Court—a legal battle that promises to be lengthy and whose outcome could permanently redefine the constitutional limits of immigration detention in the United States.

I welcome this court ruling as a welcome reminder that even amid a general political hardening, certain fundamental constitutional principles still hold, at least for now.

A Worrying Rise in Deaths in Detention

According to a report published in late June by Human Rights Watch, deaths in ICE detention have risen sharply since Trump returned to power. At least eighteen people detained in these centers reportedly died during the first five months of 2026 alone—a rate that, if it continues, would far exceed the total for the previous year.

The year 2025 had already seen approximately thirty deaths in immigration detention—a twenty-year high, according to several independent analyses. Many of these deaths reportedly occurred after detainees had been transported to the hospital, raising questions about the quality of care provided within the detention centers themselves.

Capacity Stretched to the Limit

With an immigration detention population exceeding 63,000 people, several centers are reportedly operating beyond their normal capacity—a situation documented by immigration lawyers in several states. This overcrowding automatically increases health risks and tensions within the facilities.

Federal authorities reject these criticisms, asserting that standards of care and safety continue to be met despite the rapid increase in the number of detainees—a claim that human rights advocates strongly dispute based on documented cases.

I believe that such a rapid increase in the detainee population, combined with a documented rise in deaths, should in itself be sufficient to justify a temporary moratorium on this escalation, pending an independent review.

Los Angeles, a Testing Ground for Current Tensions

One year after the controversial raids in Los Angeles—which sparked massive protests and a National Guard deployment—the same tensions are resurfacing nationwide with this latest escalation. Criticism at the time, which condemned indiscriminate arrests targeting workers with no connection to criminal activity, is directly echoed in the testimonies gathered in recent days.

Immigration courts in California continue to be the scene of arrests carried out right in their hallways—a practice documented by The New York Times that targets people who have come in good faith to attend their own hearings.

A tactic spreading beyond California

What began as an operation focused on certain major cities has gradually spread across the entire United States, including rural areas where ICE’s presence has historically been more low-key. This geographic spread of the current escalation reflects a clear intent to enforce immigration policy uniformly and to the fullest extent possible.

Community organizations report widespread fear in several neighborhoods with large immigrant populations, with tangible repercussions on attendance at schools, hospitals, and even places of worship.

I note with concern that this gradual normalization of an omnipresent immigration enforcement presence is transforming the daily lives of entire communities, far beyond those who are directly detained.

The Quiet Boom in Private Prisons

This surge in the immigrant prison population directly benefits several private companies that operate detention centers, whose contracts with the federal government have seen their value skyrocket since the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill. These publicly traded companies have seen their stock prices rise sharply as ICE’s arrest targets have increased.

This dynamic raises an unavoidable question: To what extent do these private financial interests influence—even indirectly—policy decisions regarding the scope and pace of this immigration enforcement campaign?

Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation into these financial ties, denouncing what they describe as a structural conflict of interest between massive funding for detention and the profits generated by private companies in the prison industry.

An Economic Model That Worries Human Rights Advocates

Several human rights organizations believe that this model, in which detention becomes a source of private profit, creates perverse incentives that encourage a proliferation of arrests rather than their justification on a case-by-case basis. This structural critique extends far beyond the debate on immigration alone.

The debate over the privatization of immigration detention—a long-standing issue in the United States—is taking on a new dimension due to the unprecedented scale of current funding, which could permanently entrench this controversial economic model.

According to several public policy experts, the issue of private profit tied to immigration detention warrants an independent parliamentary review, free from the partisan pressures that typically polarize this debate.

I find it particularly troubling that a system intended to serve public safety generates such substantial private profits—a blurring of roles that deserves far more rigorous scrutiny than Congress has provided thus far.

A political gamble with grave human consequences

This surge of 10,000 arrests in five days is not merely an operational adjustment: it reflects a deliberate political choice by the Trump administration, funded with tens of billions of dollars, and implemented despite documented abuses, a rise in deaths in custody, and growing judicial resistance.

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling imposes a welcome limit, but it alone will not be enough to slow down an administrative machine that seems determined to break arrest records, even if it means sacrificing certain fundamental constitutional safeguards in the process.

What to Watch for in the Coming Weeks

The outcome of a potential appeal to the Supreme Court, the trend in the number of deaths in custody, and Congress’s response to these revelations will be the most telling indicators of this policy’s actual trajectory in the coming months.

I conclude this analysis convinced that the true test of this administration will not be the number of arrests it can claim, but its ability to respect the constitutional limits that the courts, one by one, are beginning to remind it of.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist