- ICE Director Todd Lyons revealed 1.6 million noncitizens currently face final removal orders in the United States.
- Approximately 800,000 of those individuals tracked with removal orders also possess criminal convictions.
- Immigration judges from the DOJ issue the legal orders, while ICE handles the enforcement and removals.
1) Overview: ICE disclosure of 1.6 million with final removal orders
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons testified before the Senate that about 1.6 million noncitizens in the United States have final orders of removal, and he stressed a point many people miss. Those final orders are issued by immigration judges, not by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforce them.
That distinction matters because “final order of removal” is a legal term with a specific meaning. It generally indicates an immigration court case has reached a stage where removal is authorized under the law, unless something later pauses it. A pause might come from an appeal, a motion to reopen, or a court-ordered stay.
Lyons made the disclosure on February 12, 2026, during a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Officials often reference this population when they discuss enforcement planning, detention bed funding, and why ICE conducts interior arrests.
2) Official statements and quotes
Todd Lyons described what ICE is counting during his Senate testimony.
“What we’re tracking right now is about 1.6 million final orders in the United States, with approximately 800,000 of those having criminal convictions.” — Todd Lyons, Acting Director, ICE (February 12, 2026)
He then clarified who issues a final order of removal, drawing a line between the immigration court system and DHS enforcement.
“It’s my understanding that the vast majority of these folks that are being removed have a final order of removal on them already through a court. Through an immigration judge with the Department of Justice separate from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” — Todd Lyons (February 12, 2026)
In everyday conversation, people often call these “deportation orders.” Immigration law typically uses “final order of removal,” and Lyons’s testimony used that phrase.
A helpful way to think about it is roles. EOIR—the Executive Office for Immigration Review, housed in the Department of Justice—runs immigration courts and employs immigration judges. DHS, through ICE, carries out arrests, detention, and removals once the law permits it.
Lyons’s comments also function as a snapshot of tracked cases. A tracked final order does not automatically mean an immediate arrest or an immediate plane ticket. Real-world enforcement depends on staffing, detention space, logistics, and legal limits.
Important definitions: final order of removal vs. ongoing proceedings vs. appeal/stay
Final order of removal: An immigration judge (EOIR) has ordered removal and the case is at a stage where the order is legally enforceable, unless later paused.
Ongoing proceedings: The immigration court case is still being decided, so there is not yet a final order.
Appeal or stay: Even with a final order, removal may be paused by an appeal, a motion to reopen, or a court-issued stay. Timing and eligibility vary by case.
3) Key facts and statistics
Lyons’s testimony included several different metrics that can sound similar, but measure different things.
One category is the total number of people ICE says it is tracking with final orders of removal in the United States. Another is the subset with criminal convictions. A third category uses a state example—Minnesota—to show how many people with final orders are “at large,” meaning not currently in ICE custody.
Separate numbers describe enforcement outputs over time. Lyons testified that ICE carried out 475,000 removals in the last year. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem previously said that 2,000,000 people left the country through removals plus “self-deportations,” meaning departures that were not carried out as formal removals.
Operational terms also matter:
- Tracked usually means ICE has the person in its systems. It does not always mean ICE knows their current address.
- At large generally means not in custody. It does not tell you whether ICE is actively seeking that person today.
- In custody means detained by ICE or held under ICE authority. That status affects access to counsel, transfer risk, and timing.
Policymakers use these categories for resource decisions. Those decisions can include detention bed funding requests, staffing plans, and the rationale for “street arrests,” meaning arrests made outside a jail setting.
Table 1: Key figures and their relationships
| Metric | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| People tracked in the U.S. with final orders of removal | 1.6 million | ICE count cited by Todd Lyons in Senate testimony (February 12, 2026) |
| Subset with criminal convictions | 800,000 | Portion of the 1.6 million that Lyons said had criminal convictions |
| Minnesota people with final orders who are “at large” | 16,840 | State example cited for operational planning and resourcing |
| ICE removals in the last year | 475,000 | Removals reported by Lyons as a recent output measure |
| People who left via removals plus “self-deportations” | 2,000,000 | Figure previously cited by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (late 2025) |
| Reported stipend amount tied to “Project Homecoming” | 2,600 | Reported “up to” amount for certain voluntary departures, tied to DHS messaging |
4) Context and significance
A backlog of final orders of removal is not the same thing as a backlog of pending court cases. It points to a different pressure point. The order is already issued, yet the person remains in the United States.
That gap can exist for many reasons. ICE may not be able to locate someone. Detention space can be limited. Removal also depends on logistics like travel documents and transportation. Legal actions can pause enforcement too, even after a final order.
Officials cite these numbers when they argue for resources. Detention bed funding is one example. Another is staffing for interior operations. The administration has also pointed to interior initiatives, including Operation Metro Surge in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area, as part of its enforcement posture.
Note about backlogs affecting detention planning and the potential for heightened enforcement in interior regions
When officials describe a large population with final orders, the figures may be used to support detention bed requests and interior arrest activity. That can raise the chance of enforcement contact in places far from the border, even though individual timing varies.
5) Impact on affected individuals
Minnesota provides a concrete example of how enforcement and due process concerns can collide. On February 12, 2026, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel issued an emergency temporary restraining order in Minnesota. The order addressed detainees’ access to counsel and transfer practices.
At a high level, the temporary restraining order required ICE to provide detainees access to attorneys within one hour of being taken into custody, and before transfer out of state. Timing can be decisive. A quick transfer may limit a person’s ability to contact family, gather documents, or coordinate a motion or stay request with a lawyer.
Lyons also described community tensions tied to arrests. He said some “organized groups” distributed fliers that encouraged people to physically interfere with ICE operations. Public officials often frame interference as a safety issue for officers and the public. Community members may frame fast arrests and transfers as a due process problem. Both frames show up in policy debates.
Voluntary departure programs add another layer. DHS has promoted “Project Homecoming,” including travel through the CBP Home app and a reported stipend of up to 2,600 for some participants. Choosing to depart rather than be removed can carry different legal consequences in many cases. The effect can depend on prior orders, prior entries, and whether any bars to reentry apply.
USCIS also sits in the background of these discussions. USCIS does not issue immigration court removal orders, but it may encounter them when someone seeks a benefit or a status-related decision. A final order can affect eligibility, risk, and next steps, so checking status history and court posture can matter before any filing or appearance.
People with a final order, or family members trying to help, often focus on a few practical questions: Is the order truly final? Is there an appeal or stay? Is the person at risk of transfer? Those questions are fact-specific, so many individuals consult a qualified immigration attorney.
6) Official government sources and references
Readers who want primary materials can look to official channels for updates and records:
- ICE Newsroom (ICE press releases and enforcement updates)
- DHS News (department-wide announcements, including policy messaging)
- Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee records for the February 12, 2026 hearing (video, transcript, and written testimony when posted)
For background legal definitions, readers can review the Immigration and Nationality Act via Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute: Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. USCIS also provides general information on immigration status concepts at USCIS.
The figures come from official testimony and government releases. Readers should consult ICE/DHS and the Senate hearing transcript for primary materials.
This article provides context for understanding enforcement trends and does not predict individual outcomes or offer legal advice.
