How US Immigration Enforcement Became Less Accountable in 2026: A Simple Explanation

Introduction

What This Means: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Has Grown Much Bigger With Less Oversight

In 2025 and early 2026, the US government massively expanded immigration enforcement. More agents were hired, more people were detained, and fewer checks were in place to limit what ICE could do.

A historian's warning from the 1940s about how power can concentrate in democracies suddenly feels relevant to today.

The Historical Warning

Why Nazi Leaders Matter Today

After World War II, an American psychiatrist named Douglas Kelley studied captured Nazi leaders at Nuremberg to understand if they were mentally different from everyone else.

His findings were surprising. He discovered they were not uniquely evil or insane. Instead, they were ordinary, ambitious people who used emotional manipulation—fear, resentment, false enemies—to gain power.

Kelley warned that democracies could face similar threats if leaders exploited racial or ethnic divisions to consolidate authority.

In 2014, author Jack El-Hai wrote about Kelley's work and noted this warning applies to America.

Leaders who divide populations into "us versus them" categories, exploit fear, and use government power against minority groups follow the same playbook Kelley observed.

This historical parallel resurfaced in 2025, when immigration enforcement expanded dramatically.

The Current Situation

ICE Gets Bigger and Bigger

Three key numbers show the scale of change:

In 2025, Congress allocated $170 billion over 4 years for immigration enforcement. ICE alone received about $28.7 billion that year—nearly 3 times the amount in the prior year.

The agency hired 22,000 agents, expanding its workforce by 120% in a single year.

The practical result: detentions increased from 40,000 people in January 2025 to 66,000 by December. That is 75% more people in custody in just 12 months.

The number of detention facilities grew from 114 to 218—a 91% increase. Some facilities were placed in remote areas, military bases like Fort Bliss in Texas (with 5,000 beds in a tent city), and even Guantánamo Bay and El Salvador.

Example: A woman from El Salvador applied for a marriage-based green card at a USCIS office (the agency that typically handles legal immigration). Instead of processing her application, ICE agents arrested her during her appointment and transferred her to a detention facility in another state.

She missed her hearing, was deported, and is now back in El Salvador, where she fears domestic violence.

This pattern happened repeatedly: ICE arrested people at hospitals, schools, courts, places of worship, and driver's license offices.

When Rules Changed to Allow More Detention

In January 2025, Congress passed the Laken Riley Act.

This law says anyone arrested for shoplifting or similar theft must be detained automatically—no judge can decide if detention is necessary. So a person arrested (but not yet convicted) of stealing a $20 item can be held indefinitely—no trial, no conviction, just an arrest.

In July 2025, ICE issued an internal memo that redefined "arriving alien."

Historically, this term meant someone caught at the border. The memo changed it to mean any undocumented immigrant anywhere in the US, even someone living here for 10 years. This change made 1 million undocumented immigrants legally subject to mandatory detention with no judge's discretion.

Example: A man who immigrated to the US 15 years ago, works as a carpenter, has an American girlfriend, and never committed any crime, was stopped by ICE.

Under the old rule, he could have been released pending a hearing. Under the new rule, he faced mandatory detention based on when he arrived, not whether he posed any risk.

When Judges Say "Stop" But ICE Does Not Listen

In January 2026, a federal judge in Minnesota named Kate Menendez ruled that ICE could not arrest peaceful protesters without probable cause.

ICE violated her order repeatedly. When she found out, she wrote: "ICE is signing its own permission slip," meaning the agency was ignoring her authority.

Another judge, Patrick Schiltz (appointed by Republican President George W. Bush), documented 96 violations of his court orders in January 2026 alone.

He said ICE violated more court orders in 1 month than some federal agencies violate in their entire history.

What happened when judges protested?

Higher courts sided with ICE. The appeals court said limiting ICE's tactics violated the separation of powers—the judge was interfering with executive authority.

So the appeals court overruled the lower court.

The Supreme Court, without explaining its reasoning, lifted another judge's order restricting stops based on appearance or language.

This meant ICE could target people based on how they looked or what language they spoke.

The Missing Check

Congress Could Not Even Visit Detention Facilities

Congress is supposed to oversee federal agencies.

In January 2026, members of Congress tried to visit ICE detention facilities to see conditions. ICE refused to tell them where detainees were held. Some congressmembers were told they could not enter facilities. Congress even filed an emergency lawsuit to restore its oversight rights, but the judges ruled against it.

Without seeing what happens inside detention facilities, Congress cannot fulfill its constitutional oversight role. Detention conditions deteriorated: people held beyond their legal time limits, inadequate medical care, and overcrowding.

A reputed news ageny reported that facilities were housing hundreds more people than their designed capacity.

When Presidents Control Independent Agencies

In February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order giving the White House control over "independent" agencies.

These agencies—like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Election Commission—were designed to operate independently of the president.

The order said that the White House must approve all proposed regulations issued by independent agencies before being issued.

The White House could control its budgets and operations. This meant the president could tell these agencies what to do, eliminating their independence.

Example: If the Federal Elections Commission investigated election interference, the White House could prevent it.

If the Securities and Exchange Commission regulated corporate fraud, the president could stop it.

Democracy in Decline

Multiple organizations assessed American democracy in 2025-2026. The Brookings Institution concluded that the US is a "backsliding democracy"—moving away from democratic norms rather than toward them.

The Century Foundation scored American democracy 57 out of 100 in January 2026, indicating significant authoritarian trends.

These assessments identified patterns: checks and balances weakening, institutions losing independence, courts deferring to executive authority, and officials acting without accountability.

How This Connects to Historical Warnings

Kelley's research suggested that democracies weaken not through dramatic takeovers but through the gradual erosion of institutions.

Laws change incrementally. Courts defer to executive authority. Congress's power weakens. Officials who resist are replaced. What appears to be regular administration is, in fact, the systematic dismantling of democratic constraints.

The immigration enforcement expansion followed exactly this pattern: laws changed to allow mandatory detention, courts deferred to executive authority, Congress was denied access to information, independent agencies came under presidential control, and officials who protested were sidelined.

What Comes Next

Some federal judges continue to resist: refusing to defer to ICE, demanding explanations, and threatening contempt sanctions.

Congress retains the power of the purse—it could refuse to fund agencies violating court orders.

Civil society organizations document facility conditions and enforcement practices. International media and human rights organizations monitor the situation.

Whether these constraints can restore accountability remains unclear. History suggests both scenarios are possible: democracies can slide into authoritarianism, or they can arrest the decline through institutional resistance and sustained pressure.

The central question is whether democratic institutions have enough strength to rebuild the checks and balances that 2025-2026 systematically dismantled.