ICE announces arrests of noncitizens convicted of serious violent and sexual offenses

ICE and DHS do not publish a precise legal definition or checklist for who counts as “worst of the worst.” In practice, the label is a political/communications term used for a small subset of noncitizens whom ICE has arrested and who are:

• Removable under immigration law (for example, after an “aggravated felony” or other deportable offense), and
• Convicted of or sometimes just charged with crimes DHS describes as “heinous,” such as homicide, rape, child sexual abuse, serious violent assaults, gang or terrorism-related offenses, or major drug trafficking.

The official “Worst of the Worst” pages say these people are those “convicted or accused of heinous crimes that put the American public at risk,” but they also show that DHS sometimes applies the label to people whose most serious offense is non‑violent or even just an immigration or low‑level drug/traffic charge, meaning the criteria are broad and discretionary rather than a narrow legal category.

Public documents do not explain exactly how ICE calculated the “more than 1,300% increase in assaults” and “8,000% increase in death threats” against its officers, or specify the baseline numbers used.

The only on‑record details are in ICE and DHS press materials, which simply state that ICE officers “have faced a 1,347% increase in assaults and an 8,000% increase in death threats” without giving the underlying counts, the years being compared, or the data source. Some secondary reporting says the comparison is to the last year of the prior administration, but ICE itself has not published a technical methodology. As a result, the exact measurement method and time period cannot be verified from available public information.

Most of ICE’s “worst of the worst” arrests involve people who have already been prosecuted and convicted in criminal court for the underlying offenses. The typical sequence is:

• Local or federal criminal prosecution and sentencing for the crime (for example, rape, child sexual assault, manslaughter, drug distribution).
• After or near completion of the criminal sentence, ICE takes custody based on immigration grounds (such as an “aggravated felony” or multiple crimes involving moral turpitude).
• ICE issues a civil Notice to Appear and starts removal (deportation) proceedings before an immigration judge, or executes an existing removal order.

In those situations, the person usually faces immigration proceedings only, not new criminal charges, unless there is a separate federal immigration crime (like illegal re‑entry after removal) or a new offense discovered at the time of the ICE arrest.

The January 8, 2026 DHS press release does not name any specific ICE operation or task force for these particular arrests; it attributes them generically to “ICE” officers arresting “worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens.”

Based on ICE’s structure, arrests of removable noncitizens with serious convictions are normally carried out by Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) through field offices and programs such as the Criminal Alien Program, Fugitive Operations, and sometimes 287(g) jail partnerships, but the government has not tied these five named arrests to any one branded operation.

Coordination between local police/jails and ICE in serious felony cases generally happens through a mix of information‑sharing and formal agreements, and it varies by state and even by county:

• Information sharing and detainers: When someone is booked into a local jail, their fingerprints go to the FBI and DHS databases. If DHS identifies them as removable, ICE can issue an immigration “detainer” asking the jail to notify ICE before release and, in some places, to hold the person briefly for ICE pickup.
• 287(g) agreements: In Texas and parts of North Carolina (and some localities elsewhere), sheriffs or police have 287(g) agreements with ICE that deputize certain local officers to perform limited immigration functions in the jail, such as screening inmates for immigration status and starting ICE paperwork. Texas has recently expanded requirements for counties with jails to enter into such agreements.
• Limits in some states: New York State and New Jersey have statewide or local “sanctuary” or “trust” policies that restrict honoring ICE detainers without a judicial warrant or a qualifying serious violent conviction, though cooperation can still occur in defined serious‑crime situations and through federal‑state task forces.

So, in a serious felony case, ICE typically learns about the case through fingerprints, then either places a detainer or works directly with the jail or a 287(g) partner agency to take custody when the person is released from criminal custody.

Noncitizens arrested by ICE have important, but limited, rights in enforcement and removal proceedings:

• Due process and hearings: Except in expedited‑removal situations, they have the right to written notice of the charges (a Notice to Appear) and to a hearing before an immigration judge, where they can present evidence, call witnesses, and apply for relief (such as asylum or cancellation of removal), and to appeal an adverse decision.
• Right to counsel at own expense: They have the right to be represented by a lawyer, but immigration cases are civil, so the government does not provide a free public defender. ICE and the immigration court must give a list of free or low‑cost legal service providers, and detainees must be allowed to contact attorneys.
• Other basic rights: They have the right to an interpreter in court, to remain silent and not sign documents waiving rights without understanding them, to receive and send mail, to make legal phone calls, and, in many facilities, to access law libraries or self‑help materials.

These rights exist regardless of whether the person has prior criminal convictions, though people with certain serious convictions may have fewer options for relief from removal and may be subject to mandatory detention with no bond.