Staff Reports
White House border czar Tom Homan recently told TV audiences that roughly two‑thirds of the people ICE is arresting or holding are “criminals,” and he called a roughly 60% criminal / 40% non‑criminal split “a good number.” That short, blunt claim has stirred debate because independent custody counts show a very different picture. The fight isn’t just about math — it’s about how Washington frames immigration enforcement and whether the public is getting straight answers about ICE detention and criminal convictions.
Homan’s claim: “60% criminal, 40% non‑criminal”
On air, White House border czar Tom Homan said the share of people ICE is detaining with a criminal conviction or pending charges “was about 70%… right now, I think we’re about 64%… But you know what? That’s a good number.” Homan made clear what he meant by “criminal” — not just final convictions, but convictions or pending criminal charges, and often people booked out of local jails. For the administration’s border team, that definition supports a simple message: we are prioritizing people who break the law first, and that matters for border security and immigration enforcement.
Why independent data looks different
Definitions and snapshots explain the gap
Independent trackers like TRAC report point‑in‑time snapshots of who is physically in ICE detention on a given day and whether those people have a recorded U.S. criminal conviction. Those snapshots, in recent months, show a majority of detainees do not have recorded U.S. criminal convictions — in other words, many in ICE detention are there for civil immigration reasons, not criminal convictions. The gap with Homan’s figure comes down to definitions: counting convictions plus pending charges or using an “arrest cohort” inflates the criminal share compared with a custody snapshot that counts only recorded U.S. convictions.
Why the debate matters for policy and trust
This is more than a numbers game. If you want tough border security — and I do — then enforcement should focus on people who commit crimes. Homan’s point about prioritizing criminals is defensible. But the public also deserves honest, transparent data. Don’t hide behind shifting definitions. If officials use “pending charges” or include foreign arrests, say so. If they quote an arrest sweep rather than who is in custody today, say that too. Voters want border security, not spin. And journalists should report both the official claim and the independent custody snapshot so readers can judge for themselves.
Bottom line: clarity, not clever math
Tom Homan’s comments show the administration wants to emphasize enforcement against criminals, and that message will play well with anyone who cares about law and order at the border. But leadership also means being precise. Call the number what it is — convictions, pending charges, arrests, or a custody snapshot — and let the public see the full picture. Until then, expect critics to point out that different definitions produce different headlines. If you’re proud of the result, show the receipts. If not, don’t be surprised when people assume you’re playing with the numbers.
