ROI: Return on ICE Investment – What are Taxpayers Getting for their Spending Surge?

Photo Credit: Fibonacci Blue, 30 January 2026

Trump administration border czar Tom Homan recently arrived in Minneapolis with a pledge that he is “staying until the problem is solved” while acknowledging that the federal government’s conduct has not “been perfect.”

Homan added, “I didn’t come here looking for photo ops or headlines. I came here looking for solutions.”

Homan’s appearance comes as Trump administration officials, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, have come under withering criticism from across the political spectrum for their management of immigration enforcement – which includes a massive $75 billion spending surge. Critics charge that instead of following the president’s directive to prioritize “violent criminals,” some officials have prioritized detentions of non-violent immigrants and raids conducted by armed, masked and poorly trained new recruits.

ICE operations have been associated with not only the shooting deaths of two American citizens but also the illegal detention of American citizens, arrests of immigrants who were in the process of following established procedures, separations of caregivers, and high-profile raids at locations like Home Depot parking lots that tend to be associated with more benign and less violent facets of illegal immigration.

High-profile Republicans have raised concerns about the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. Republican Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma questioned proposals of sending national guard troops to Illinois, stating that, “We believe in the federalist system – that’s states’ rights … Oklahomans would lose their minds if Pritzker [Democrat Governor of Illinois] sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration.”

Meanwhile, Patrick Schiltz, the George W. Bush appointed-chief judge for the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, who served as a clerk to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, accused ICE of lawless conduct. He wrote that, “ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”

Open the Books is committed to transparency in all areas of government. We believe all agencies benefit from forensic audits. As our compendium at the end shows, we have a long history of bringing transparency and evidence-based analysis to the trend of militarizing federal agencies, which has been an ongoing and growing trend under both Republican and Democrat administrations. We have also examined the use of taxpayer money to subvert federal immigration law in sanctuary cities and states, and we have provided evidence countering the claims of some politicians who insist they are not providing such funding.

Because immigration and law enforcement are charged topics it is important to note how our perceptions of norms and standards can change. Not long ago, in 2014, the trend of militarizing local police was an area of bipartisan concern with Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) questioning the wisdom of the Pentagon passing off surplus equipment like armored vehicles to local police to do crowd control.

“The militarization of police is something that has gotten way out of control,” Paul said.

McCaskill added, “I think most Americans were uncomfortable watching a suburban street in St. Louis with vivid images of a war zone.”

In 2026, people on all sides can agree that more, rather than less, transparency will help the country navigate this difficult issue. Taxpayers have the right to ask basic questions about law enforcement tactics, and demand visibility and accountability about activities they are paying for.

Tracking the ROI on immigration enforcement spending is especially important because the savings produced by last year’s DOGE-facilitated rescissions bill ($9 billion) have already been spent by the administration’s massive $75 billion immigration enforcement surge.

Homan seems eager to accept the highest standards of transparency and accountability that our organization is committed to providing, and he has been consistent about highlighting the human costs of a chaotic open borders policy. He estimates that 145,000 unaccompanied children out of 300,000 have been located. Homan understands that caring about these children means locating them.

Understanding the ROI for taxpayers requires a critical look at the cost per deportation, the ethics of masking officials with firearm authority, the field training of those officials, conflicting messages about Second Amendment rights, and DHS’ public relations campaign, including Noem’s deals with preferred vendors.

ROI: The Cost Per Deportation

In 2025, ICE received approximately $28.75 billion in funding which came from $10 billion Congress had already appropriated in addition to the $18.75 billion Congress directed to ICE through the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The $75 billion authorized for ICE will be allocated over four years.

In 2024, ICE received $9.2 billion, which means ICE’s budget tripled from 2024 to 2025.

Taxpayers can understand the ROI on their money any way they choose, but two methods can help them sort through the numbers.

First, if ICE’s budget tripled, taxpayers can fairly ask if its performance tripled. If deportation removals are the Key Performance Indicator (KPI), the number of removals should reach 814,452 in 2025, which is triple the number of removals (271,484) in 2024, the last year of President Biden’s term.

DHS claims it removed 675,000 illegal immigrants last year, but that number is in dispute. Other estimates suggest the number is closer to 540,000. We’ve issued a FOIA request to determine the basis of DHS’ claim and will update our estimate accordingly.

Regardless, if DHS’s estimate is correct, it has fallen short of reaching a three-fold improvement in performance for three times the funding.

Another fair comparison is to look at past administrations that conducted removals efficiently. President Obama was criticized for being the “Deporter in Chief” by immigration rights groups for conducting, on average, nearly 400,000 removals each year during his two terms. During Obama’s tenure, ICE’s budget was approximately $6 billion annually, one-fifth of Trump’s ICE budget in 2025. If Noem was meeting Obama’s efficiency standard, ICE should be removing 2 million people a year. By that measure, Noem has fallen far short of the Obama administration standard.

Another method is to look at the delta or difference between what previous administrations accomplished vs. this administration. In other words, if Obama removed 400,000 illegals a year while Trump removed 600,000, the delta or difference would be 200,000. If the cost difference is $75 billion, the cost per deportation under Trump will be astronomically high (around $375,000 per deportation, which close to the median price of a new home in many states). If Trump’s removal process stalls due to agency incompetence or other factors and he only matches Obama’s performance number, the cost delta will remain at that high amount. If Homan helps ICE’s performance improve, the delta cost will go down.

Additionally, taxpayers have the right to ask critical questions about the macro-economic costs and benefits of illegal immigration. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal immigration costs taxpayers $150.7 billion per year at the federal state and local level. FAIR estimates the annual K-12 education cost of illegal immigration is $78 billion while health care costs consume $42.7 billion. By this measure, the $75 billion surge may look like a bargain, even if this administration is conducting operations less efficiently and professionally than past administrations.

However, the mass deportation of laborers in sectors like construction, food service, retail and agriculture could reduce GDP by 1% and cost taxpayers at least $270 billion over four years and $862 billion over ten years, according to modeling by Penn Wharton.

Ultimately, taxpayers are free to choose whatever metric seems sensible because it’s their money. Taxpayers deserve transparent date and evidence so they can decide if they are getting their money’s worth. Our responsibility isn’t to tell you what to think but to provide data, metrics and comparisons for you to think about.

Additional background on the cost per deportation:

DHS says the current cost of a single enforced deportation is $18,245, but the simple math of dividing ICE’s budget ($28.75 billion) by DHS’ claimed number of removals (675,000) suggests the cost per deportation is $42,593.

We have sent a FOIA request to DHS to better understand how they calculated their cost per deportation.

As the chart below details, there are different types of “deportations.”

The New York Times notes that the Trump administration has deported more people from the interior in one year than President Joe Biden’s did in four.

In FY 2023, for the first time since FY 2010, the Biden administration returned more migrants directly across the border than were removed from the U.S. interior. The Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, has argued that should earn Biden a “returner-in-chief” label.

That’s compared to President Barack Obama, who, again, was known as the “deporter-in-chief” during his two terms.

In 2012-2014, deportations exceeded 400,000 annually under the Democratic Obama’s watch, according to DHS data compiled by Migration Policy Institute. The three years prior hovered just under 400,000.

ICE reported the average FY 2016 deportation cost as $10,854 during Obama’s term, according to then-ICE spokesperson Yasmeen Pitts O’Keefe.

“This includes all costs necessary to identify, apprehend, detain, process through immigration court, and remove an alien,” she said in an interview.

While both the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were known for U.S.-Mexico border apprehensions – 11 of the combined 16 years saw over 1 million – removals from the interior were far below Trump’s.

Bush oversaw between 165,000 and 359,000 during each year of his two terms, according to the DHS data compiled by Migration Policy Institute, while Clinton saw between 42,000 and 188,000 during his eight years.

Credit: Migration Policy Institiute

Changing Costs, Double Standards

Most of the controversy surrounding immigration is focused on ICE but much of the $170 billion directed to immigration in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” went to border security. On that front, the ROI for taxpayers seems higher than for ICE. The surge in funding for border security has led to a significant decrease in illegal border crossings. According to the Trump administration:

· Since January 21 through end of November, there have been 117,105 total enforcement encounters along the southwest border which is 37% less than the monthly average of 185,625 during the Biden Administration.

Regarding daily average apprehensions on the Southwest Border, the administration estimates:

• 245 per day – less than 11 per hour

• 95% lower than the daily average under the last administration (5,110/day, Feb. 2021-Dec.2024)

• In December 2023, 336 aliens were apprehended every hour – today, that’s more than one day’s worth of apprehensions.

When comparing cost per deportation reported by DHS now ($18,245) versus a decade ago ($10,854 in FY 2016) it’s important to understand there were also different strategies, partisan environments and circumstances.

President Trump has followed years of record-breaking illegal border crossings, attempting a large-scale reversal while at the same time working to remove those with additional criminal records and standing removal orders who may have been in the United States for years or decades. The efforts have faced aggressive judicial scrutiny, legal opposition, protests and local political opposition in cities far afield from the border.

The Obama administration did its share of interior ICE raids as well and faced many of the same criticisms. Those include denials for asylum seekers, removals without a judicial hearing, removals of unaccompanied minors, and more.

The American Civil Liberties Union described Obama’s policy as “speed over fairness.” Here’s just a sample of their contemporaneous concerns in 2014:

“The numbers are staggering: in 1995, 1,400 immigrants were subject to nonjudicial removals, representing 3 percent of total deportations. By FY 2012 that number had sharply increased to 313,000 nonjudicial removals – an all-time high.

“Under today’s removal system, only one quarter of all people facing expulsion get to present their case before an immigration judge. These judges, employed by the Justice Department, are experts in immigration law. They conduct formal court hearings where they hear live witnesses, review documentary evidence, and evaluate applications for immigration relief.

“By contrast, nonjudicial removals are fast-track proceedings wholly controlled by the Department of Homeland Security (”DHS”), sometimes involving only a single border agent who acts as both judge and jury. Those facing nonjudicial removal have no lawyer and no chance to appeal.”

The ACLU even warned these changes risked becoming “un-American:”

“…A deportation system that herds 75 percent of people through fast-track, streamlined removal is a system devoid of fairness and individualized due process. Nonjudicial removals violate our constitutional tradition and cannot be reconciled with an administration that has repeatedly stated its commitment to immigration reform.

“Fairness and individualized due process must be restored to the system…Anything less is un-American.”

Another key difference: Obama mostly stuck to fast-tracking at the border, rather than removals from the American interior. His “speed over fairness” approach was thanks to enthusiastic interpretation of a 1996 law (The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act).

Specific tactics included:

• Stipulated Orders: The administration removed some 160,000 non-citizens by requiring them to sign papers that waived their right to a hearing.

• Reinstatement of Removal: If a person was previously deported and re-entered illegally, immigration authorities had the legal authority to reinstate the original order without a new hearing.

This approach helped the majority of removals stay out of sight, out of mind and likely at lower cost.

But this administration is responsible for creating its own costs and public relations problems. The resources directed to deporting non-violent immigrants congregating at Home Depot parking lots are not available to track, arrest and deport violent immigrants. Every dollar spent tracking a non-violent immigrant is a dollar not available to track down an illegal immigrant gang member who may murder the next Laken Riley.

DHS Sweetheart Deals?

Noem is also in the hot seat over questions about how a contractor with ties to her team was selected to create advertising.

DHS spent at least $180 million in 2025 on its Stronger Borders, Stronger America media campaign, described as “advertising and media support” about the “national emergency at the southern border.”

Advertising contracts must go through a competitive bidding process, but DHS ignored the rules by claiming there was an “unusual and compelling urgency” to find an advertising firm quickly, according to Axios.

People Who Think LLC collected $52.2 million. It’s a media firm owned by Jay Connaughton, a political consultant and media advisor from Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Safe America Media received $127.8 million, though the company was formed just days before it collected the money. Its address matches a property in Delaware owned by Republican consultant Mike McElwain, according to the Associated Press.

Safe America used some of its federal funds to hire the communications firm Strategy Group to film a television ad for DHS, according to an investigation by ProPublica. Noem’s chief spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, is married to Strategy Group CEO Ben Yoho. According to the report, Corey Lewandowski (Noem’s top advisor) has “worked extensively” with the company and was Yoho’s boss during a campaign to promote Noem’s 2024 memoir.

ProPublica’s reporting was cited in a December letter from nine Congress members that asked the DHS inspector general to probe potential ethics violations in DHS’ contract spending.

Strategy Group’s name does not appear on any publicly available documents. Charles Tiefer, a former member of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, told ProPublica that “Hiding your friends as subcontractors is like playing hide the salami with the taxpayer.”

DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin described the advertisements as “a public service announcement urging illegal aliens to leave,” but critics viewed them as thinly veiled campaign ads for the GOP.

Three of the ads used the phrase “Thank you, President Donald J. Trump.” In another, DHS called out the “weak leadership” of the Biden administration that “left our borders wide open.” The ads were narrated by Noem and featured images of Trump signing executive orders and flying on Air Force One.

People Who Think and Safe America Media collected almost half of DHS’ $380.1 million advertising spending in fiscal year 2025. That’s nearly as much as DHS spent in the previous eight years combined.

From fiscal years 2021 to 2024, which includes almost all of Biden’s time in office, DHS spent $289.5 million on advertising. From fiscal years 2017 to 2020, which includes almost all of Trump’s first term, DHS spent only $116.4 million.

DHS’ 2025 contracts also included $85.7 million for seven of the 10 consulting firms identified for spending cuts in a February letter from the General Servies Administration, including Deloitte Consulting and Accenture Federal Services. The firms were set to receive $65 billion from Washington in 2025, an amount the GSA said “must change” because some of it was for “vague, never-ending contracts tagged as consulting.”

All 10 firms were asked to send the government a list of potential cost-cutting measures, but the GSA said all 10 lists were “wholly insufficient to the point of being insulting.”

DHS successfully cut $19.2 million of the contracts but then turned around and awarded $104.9 million of new money from October to December 2025.

In total, DHS gave out $28.4 billion of contracts in fiscal year 2025, $2.5 billion of which did not go through a competitive bidding process.

Open the Books will keep pressing for more clarity here as well. We have submitted a FOIA request for internal mentions of these vendors.

Shortened Training for Deportation Officers

Law enforcement experts have suggested that some Enforcement and Removal Operation (ERO) officers, the deportation officers within ICE, may be in over their heads. Some have pointed to poor training and lack of experience, while others argue a “cowboy mentality” is to blame for aggressive tactics.

The Atlantic claimed Secretary Noem and others in DHS “have been pushing the agency to do more showy operations in Democratic-run cities that can advance the president’s agenda — and supply clips for social media and the MAGA faithful.”

In that context, they quoted a “frustrated ICE official” who said of DHS leadership, “They love this cowboy s---.”

The current training time for new ERO officers is six weeks, NBC News reported, citing current and former DHS officials.

Training time used to be 13 weeks, but the Trump administration cut it to 8 weeks, before trimming off two more weeks.

DHS officials also claimed some new recruits entered the training program before being vetted, later discovering some failed drug tests, had disqualifying criminal backgrounds or didn’t meet other physical or academic requirements.

Police forces in large cities get far more training.

NYPD and LAPD and Chicago and Houston police academies are each six months. Boston PD’s is even longer, at over 7 months.

FBI training for new agent trainees lasts 18 weeks at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA.

U.S. military basic training is 8-12 weeks, depending on branch: Coast Guard and Air Force at the low end and Army, Navy and Marine Corps at the high end.

Open the Books has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for internal emails that would shed light on the decision making and internal deliberation over the rush to grow the ranks of ICE and shorten the training process. We will provide updates as they become available.

Masked Law Enforcement Officers

Another lightning rod of the Trump deportation effort are the ethics of allowing ICE officers to wear masks that obscure their identity in public and on camera.

The norm for local police, and military personnel operating under Geneva Convention standards, is to not wear masks so they can transparently and clearly define their identity and association.

Some local police departments have higher standards of decorum and professionalism. New York City, for instance, requires its officers to wear neck ties.

Some psychologists argue that we act how we dress. If Noem doesn’t want ICE agents to be accused of acting like a paramilitary force that is immune from accountability, taxpayers might prefer a modified dress code.

DHS defends the practice by arguing that it protects officers and their families from “doxing,” when people post their personal information online to target them for harassment.

Doxing should be condemned but ICE officers are hardly the only public servants who face risk. Masking is typically reserved for the most highly trained personnel who have earned elite status and are conducting sensitive, clandestine missions.

Taxpayers can decide if ICE officers are more worthy of protection and anonymity than their local law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges or rank and file military personnel.

DHS does not report a specific spending line item for masks but does report broader contract spending for personal protective equipment (PPE). In FY 2025 and 2026, DHS and subagencies paid:

• $129.6 million to ADS Tactical, in part for PPE and riot gear

• $11.6 million in ICE funds to Quantico Tactical Incorporated, mostly for “law enforcement equipment” and “gear”

• $3.1 million to LC Industries Inc for “DHS PPE safety stock”

• $284,000 to Olgoonik Corporation for PPE for a training class

The list does not include money for oxygen masks for FEMA and the Coast Guard, which are separate spending items.

Open the Books is taking multiple steps to gain more clarity about both the costs and the ethical implications of masking federal law enforcement officers.

• We asked the White House whether it plans to mask other federal agents with firearm authority. If not, why does their logic for ICE not apply to other agencies?

• We asked the White House whether there is a limiting principle for future administrations. For example, what would keep the IRS from obscuring its agents’ identities? To use another example, what would keep food or environmental regulators from hiding their identities while they investigate farmers or food purveyors?

• We asked whether DHS has a preferred vendor for masks and will investigate whether there are any ties to federal officials.

• We submitted a FOIA request for contracts related to facial coverings and internal discussions about masking.

A Taxpayer-Funded PR Campaign against the Second Amendment

One of the strangest developments following the death of Alex Pretti is what appears to be a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights.

Critics suggested that if the Trump administration’s deportation policy is based on reversing Biden’s immigration policies, their response to Alex Pretti’s shooting seems to be based on advancing Biden’s gun control policies.

In multiple interviews and public statements, Trump officials echoed Biden’s rhetoric condemning “high-capacity magazines.”

Pretti was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and was not breaking the law by simply having his gun on him in the Minneapolis street where he was shot and killed.

Noem has made numerous comments that created a false narrative contradicted by videos footage captured at the scene. She falsely claimed Pretti was “brandishing” a gun and “attacked” officers, calling him a “domestic terrorist,” even though he never showed or touched his weapon.

“I don’t know of any peaceful protesters that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign,” she said at a news conference. “This is a violent riot when you have someone showing up with weapons.”

As Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem has a 2026 salary of $253,100, based on the basic pay for Level 1 executives, which is the level of pay for heads of cabinet agencies. That is up from $250,600 in 2025.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel similarly took aim at the fact Pretti had a gun, even though he didn’t attempt to use it.

“No one who wants to be peaceful shows up at a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines,” Patel said on Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures”, adding, “You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have that right to break the law.”

That comment is incorrect, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus said in a statement: “There is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota.”

As head of the FBI, Patel is likely level 2 on the executive schedule of pay, making his salary $228,000.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also sought to blame Pretti for the shooting, saying, “he brought a gun.” When ABC News “This Week” host Jonathan Karl pushed back, bringing up the Second Amendment, Bessent said, “I’ve been to a protest. Guess what, I didn’t bring a gun, I brought a billboard.”

Bessent has a 2026 salary of $253,100, based on the basic pay for Level 1 executives, which is the level of pay for heads of cabinet agencies. That is up from $250,600 in 2025.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli posted similar sentiments on X: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!”

After criticism from Second Amendment supporters, he later posted: “I never said it’s legally justified to shoot law-abiding concealed carriers … My comment addressed agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm.”

According to the Department of Justice’s pay plan charts, an assistant U.S. attorney with 0-2 years of experience makes up to $107,376. (Essayli was appointed to the job in 2025; he previously was a state assemblyman).

NOTE: Essayli was serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of CA from April to July 2025 until a federal judge ruled that he was disqualified from holding the position because he stayed on beyond the initial interim period without having received official congressional approval. He was then reassigned to the First Assistant United States Attorney role. As an interim U.S. attorney, he would likely be paid more than his current salary.

Other Trump officials who misstated what videos of the incident obviously contradict include White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who referred to Pretti as “an assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents.” He earns $195,000.

Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino said, it “looks like” Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Taxpayers can decide if they want the public officials they are paying to prudently enforce immigration laws or moonlight as spokesman for Biden’s gun control policies.

Conclusion

Taxpayers have the right to transparent facts and evidence about the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge, which is mostly financed by borrowed money they will have to pay back.

Open the Books will continue working to add sunlight and evidence-based analysis to the conversation. In a free society, you can’t have accountability without visibility. In the meantime, these facts and figures can be used by taxpayers as they consider the costs of illegal immigration, the costs of deportation, and what kinds of policy solutions might start to rebuild consensus on one of the most vexing issues of our time.

For example, little attention has been given to the self-deportation provisions the Trump administration has offered. Those who use the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol “CBP Home Mobile App” to voluntarily leave the United States can receive a free flight, a $2,600 stipend, and the ability to restart the immigration process with a clean slate. This app might not entirely solve the problem but could provide a more cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars.

Do you have other questions about the costs of deportation? Let us know in the comments.

FURTHER READING

The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies | OpenTheBooks Oversight Report (December 2020)

The Militarization of Federal Bureaucracy - Updated Statistics Through March 31, 2023

The Militarization Of The IRS – The Facts On The Purchase Of Guns, Ammunition, And Military-Style Equipment Since 2006 (Substack, May 2023)

“Why Does the IRS Need Guns?” By Adam Andrzejewski & Sen. Tom Coburn (Wall Street Journal, June 2016)

California Pumped Tens of Millions into Immigration NGOs that Fight Deportation, Track ICE and more… (Substack, June 2025)

Grants to Combat School Violence Redirected to Defray Costs of Illegal Immigration (Substack, January 2026)

Nearly $200M in Direct Federal Grants Has Been Aimed at Expanding Programs to Serve Illegal Immigrants (Substack, October 2025)

Cash for Migrants: FEMA Not the Only Agency Spending Big (Substack, February 2025)

U.S. Spent $13 Billion Sponsoring Unaccompanied Minor Children At The Border Since 2012 (Substack, May 2023)