ICE says officers arrested multiple convicted noncitizens accused of violent and sexual crimes over the weekend

“Worst of the Worst” is a DHS/ICE branding and data‑display effort, not a separate legal program created by Congress. DHS uses the phrase to highlight non‑U.S. citizens whom ICE has arrested and who have serious criminal charges or convictions.

Key points:

• DHS launched the “Worst of the Worst” website (wow.dhs.gov) in December 2025. It aggregates information about “criminal illegal aliens arrested by DHS during enforcement operations since the start of the Trump Administration,” and lets users search by state, country of origin, and crime type.
• DHS statements describe the focus as noncitizens “charged or convicted of a crime in the United States” and emphasize serious offenses such as homicide, assault, rape, child molestation, drug trafficking, and robbery.
• ICE operationally identifies such people through its existing enforcement programs (like Enforcement and Removal Operations’ Criminal Alien Program and at‑large arrest operations); “Worst of the Worst” is essentially the label DHS applies when it chooses to showcase those cases on its public site and in press releases.
• DHS has not publicly released a precise legal or numeric threshold for who is labeled “worst of the worst” beyond being a removable noncitizen with serious criminal charges or convictions.

So, people are “designated” as part of “Worst of the Worst” at DHS’s discretion, based on ICE arresting them and their having significant criminal histories, but there is no codified, transparent set of criteria beyond that description.

DHS does not explain in this or related public materials exactly how the claimed 1,300%, 3,200%, and 8,000% increases in assaults, vehicle attacks, and death threats against ICE personnel were calculated.

What is known:

• The January 12, 2026 ICE press release simply states that ICE “is facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them, 3,200% increase in vehicle attacks, and an 8,000% increase in death threats” without specifying:
  • the baseline year or number of incidents,
  • the comparison period (e.g., since 2021, 2024, or earlier), or
  • the underlying data source.
• An earlier December 8, 2025 DHS release tied to the same “Worst of the Worst” campaign similarly says “assaults against officers [are] up more than 1,150% and an unprecedented surge in vehicle ramming attacks,” but again provides no methodology, timeframe, or counts.

Because DHS has not published the underlying statistics or methodology, the exact baseline and time period used for the 1,300%, 3,200%, and 8,000% figures cannot be determined from publicly available information.

For the people named in this ICE operation, immigration consequences (removal/deportation) are the core outcome, but criminal prosecution can also occur, depending on each case:

• The DHS release indicates all 15 individuals are noncitizens with prior convictions in U.S. courts (e.g., murder, sex abuse of a minor, assault, burglary, drug offenses). Those criminal cases are handled by state or federal courts, not by ICE.
• Once a noncitizen has completed any criminal sentence or is released from local custody, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations typically takes custody for immigration enforcement.
• Under ICE’s Criminal Alien Program, “once [an] alien’s criminal sentence is completed, the alien will likely enter ICE custody for administrative immigration violations,” and ICE then seeks a removal order and deportation.
• In some situations, ICE and federal prosecutors also pursue new immigration‑related criminal charges (such as illegal reentry after removal) in addition to civil removal, but this is discretionary and case‑specific.

The press release itself does not specify, person by person, whether any new criminal prosecutions will be pursued; it only confirms that they have been arrested by ICE for immigration enforcement after prior criminal convictions.

In the press release, “criminal illegal alien” is a political phrase built from two legal concepts used in immigration enforcement:

1. “Alien” / “Noncitizen”

   • U.S. immigration law defines an “alien” as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”

2. “Illegal” / “Unlawfully present”

   • DHS and most legal references use “illegal alien” or “unauthorized immigrant” to describe a noncitizen who is present in the country without legal authorization (for example, entering without inspection, using fraud, overstaying a visa, or violating the conditions of lawful status).

3. “Criminal”

   • In DHS usage, a “criminal alien” is a noncitizen who has been convicted of one or more crimes. CBP explains that “criminal aliens” are people with criminal convictions on record; convictions can be in the U.S. or abroad.

Combining these, DHS’s phrase “criminal illegal alien” in this press release refers to a non‑U.S. citizen who:

• lacks lawful immigration status (is removable under immigration law), and
• has been convicted of at least one criminal offense.

This is a descriptive term used by DHS in communications; it is not a separate, formally defined category in the Immigration and Nationality Act, but it draws on the statutory definition of “alien” and DHS’s operational category of “criminal aliens.”

Tricia McLaughlin is the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Role and authority:

• According to her official DHS biography, she “oversees the Department of Homeland Security’s public outreach, including its media, digital, strategic and crisis communications efforts, and serves as the principal advisor to Secretary Noem on all external and internal communications.”
• As Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, she does not run ICE operations. Operational control of ICE is held by the ICE Director and the leadership of ICE’s sub‑components (such as Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations).
• Her authority is over messaging, public communications, and how DHS presents and explains ICE’s actions to the public and the media, which is why she is the quoted spokesperson in this press release.

So, McLaughlin is DHS’s top communications official, not an operational commander of ICE enforcement activities.

ICE coordinates arrests with local law enforcement and courts through several established mechanisms that apply across states like Texas, California, Maryland, and others listed in the release:

1. Immigration Detainers and Jail Notifications

   • Under the Criminal Alien Program, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) places immigration detainers on noncitizens who are in federal, state, or local custody and whom ICE believes are removable.
   • When the local jail or prison plans to release the person (after criminal proceedings or sentence), ICE uses the detainer information to take custody directly from the facility, in a “controlled environment,” rather than making a street arrest.

2. On‑site Jail/Prison Screening and the Institutional Hearing and Removal Program

   • CAP and the Institutional Hearing and Removal Program let ICE work inside federal and many state/local facilities to identify noncitizens, start immigration cases, and sometimes obtain removal orders from immigration judges before the person finishes their criminal sentence.
   • Once the sentence is completed or the person is otherwise released, they are then transferred to ICE custody for removal proceedings.

3. 287(g) Agreements (Delegation of Authority)

   • Under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE signs agreements with state, local, and tribal agencies; trained local officers are authorized to perform certain immigration‑related functions (such as checking immigration status and initiating ICE holds) under ICE supervision.
   • DHS reports more than 1,000 such 287(g) partnerships nationwide, used specifically “to identify and remove criminal aliens who are amenable to removal from the United States.”

4. At‑large Operations and Court Coordination

   • When individuals are not in custody, ICE conducts “targeted enforcement actions” using law‑enforcement and intelligence‑driven leads. These operations can involve cooperation with local police (for example, joint task forces, information‑sharing, or making arrests near courthouses) and must respect local and state laws about access to jails and court facilities.

The press release does not give operational details for each individual arrest, but in the jurisdictions listed (Texas, California, Maryland, etc.) ICE generally relies on these nationwide programs—detainers, in‑jail screening, 287(g) partnerships where they exist, and coordinated or independent at‑large arrest operations—to interface with local law enforcement and courts.