- Senators are demanding that DHS explain DACA enforcement actions following reports of increased detentions and deportations.
- Former Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed 86 deportations of recipients between January and November 2025.
- Lawmakers question the vague use of criminal histories as a justification for targeting protected individuals.
(CALIFORNIA) — Senators Alex Padilla, Dick Durbin and Mark Kelly pressed the Department of Homeland Security for detailed answers about immigration enforcement actions as Kristi Noem Pushes Enforcement”>involving DACA recipients after DHS Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged that the agency deported and detained people protected by the program.
The senators demanded that DHS explain the basis for arrests and removals and disclose more information about its enforcement posture toward DACA holders, arguing that the public needs clarity as concerns rise about enforcement risk for immigrants with temporary protections.
“We won’t accept partial information, and we demand that Secretary Noem provide more information on their basis for arresting and deporting DACA holders immediately,” the senators said.
Padilla, a California Democrat, raised particular concerns about cases involving people with ties to the state, including one DACA recipient who advocates said was arrested during an immigration appointment and removed soon after.
Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, and Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, joined Padilla in calling for DHS to provide more complete information about how it determines who can be arrested, detained or deported while holding protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The lawmakers’ demand followed a February 2026 response from Noem to an earlier request for data about deportations and detentions involving DACA recipients.
That earlier letter, sent in September 2025, sought information about DHS’s approach to DACA recipients and asked for transparency about whether people covered by the program were being targeted for enforcement actions.
Noem’s February 2026 reply confirmed that DHS carried out 86 deportations and 261 detentions of DACA recipients from January 1 to November 19, 2025.
Noem wrote that 241 of those detained had “criminal histories,” but the disclosure did not specify whether that referred to charges, convictions, or something else, and it did not break down the offenses.
In that response, Noem framed DACA as “temporary forbearance from removal” and said it does not provide an entitlement to stay indefinitely in the United States.
Noem also wrote that DACA excludes people with certain criminal histories, an assertion that lawmakers and advocates have pointed to as central to the dispute over what DHS means when it invokes “criminal histories” while declining to describe the underlying records.
Padilla criticized DHS over deportations of DACA-protected individuals and argued that the program’s renewal process makes some of the broad criminality claims difficult to square with how DACA operates.
He pointed to background checks required for renewals, saying they make serious criminal records unlikely among active recipients.
The disclosed enforcement totals covered a defined period in 2025 and applied to DACA recipients, a population that numbered about 516,000 active recipients as of June 2025.
Those active DACA recipients were concentrated mostly in California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, and New York.
The 86 deportations represented a small fraction of the active DACA population, but the senators and advocates described the number as a sharp increase under the second Trump administration.
Advocates have argued that, without fuller information about who was arrested and why, the figures leave DACA holders and their families uncertain about what triggers enforcement action and whether the program’s protections will be honored in practice.
A specific California case has drawn attention in that debate: Maria de Jesus Estrada, described as a DACA recipient who has lived in California for 27 years.
Advocates said ICE arrested Estrada during a green card appointment in front of her daughter.
They said she was deported to Mexico the next day last month, in February 2026.
The incident became a touchstone for critics who say immigration enforcement has become harder to predict for people with temporary protections, because it involved an appointment connected to a bid for lawful permanent status rather than a criminal arrest, based on the details advocates provided.
The senators’ demands for DHS records and explanations came as DACA remains constrained by litigation and administrative limits that shape who can benefit from the program.
Renewals continue but may face delays, while new initial DACA applications are not being processed, according to the information provided by the lawmakers and advocates.
DACA also faces ongoing legal challenges, including a Texas federal judge case seeking its termination.
DHS has long characterized DACA as a discretionary form of protection from deportation rather than a grant of lawful immigration status, and Noem reiterated that framing by calling it “temporary forbearance from removal.”
That legal and administrative reality leaves DACA recipients dependent on renewals and agency discretion while court fights continue.
Advocates have also argued that the renewal system’s background checks should reduce the likelihood that large numbers of active recipients have serious criminal records, a point Padilla emphasized as he challenged DHS’s use of “criminal histories” without further detail.
Public pressure around the enforcement numbers and individual cases intensified in early March.
Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center, warned during a March 3, 2026 press call that the enforcement risk extends beyond one category of protection.
“You can be a student, a refugee, a DACA recipient, or even a U.S. citizen, and still get caught up in this administration’s dragnet,” Matos said.
Matos’ comments captured a wider concern voiced by immigration advocates: that actions affecting DACA recipients could signal a broader enforcement posture toward other immigrants with temporary or discretionary protections.
The senators framed their demand in similar terms, saying DHS must provide more complete information about how it decides to detain or deport DACA holders and what standards it applies when it claims someone has a “criminal history.”
They argued that DHS’s partial disclosure undermines public accountability because it announces sweeping categories without explaining how the agency applied them to individual arrests and removals.
The dispute over DACA-related deportations and detentions also unfolded alongside sudden leadership upheaval at DHS.
President Trump fired Noem on March 5, 2026, amid criticism over immigration enforcement.
Trump nominated Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin as her replacement, a move that came after the DACA controversy drew attention but did not change the enforcement figures already disclosed or the senators’ pending demands.
The leadership shift leaves the lawmakers’ requests in limbo, since the senators directed their latest demand at Noem while also seeking formal responses from DHS as an institution.
Noem’s February 2026 letter acknowledged the enforcement actions in the 2025 window, but the senators said it did not answer core questions about the basis for detaining and deporting DACA holders, including what specific grounds DHS relied upon.
They pressed for transparency on whether arrests stemmed from immigration appointments, traffic stops, workplace enforcement, or other encounters, and how DHS evaluates criminal records when deciding to take a DACA holder into custody.
The senators also questioned how DHS reconciles its enforcement actions with DACA’s renewal framework, which requires recipients to repeatedly submit to background checks to keep their protection.
They argued that the government cannot invoke “criminal histories” as a justification while refusing to specify whether those histories involve charges, convictions, or disqualifying offenses under DACA’s eligibility rules.
DHS’s letter, as described by the senators, did not provide the level of detail they sought, and it emphasized DACA’s limited nature, insisting the program does not confer an indefinite right to remain.
That tension—between DHS’s description of DACA as temporary forbearance and recipients’ reliance on renewals to build lives in the United States—has repeatedly fueled political and legal battles around the program.
For DACA recipients, the recent enforcement figures and the Estrada case have added urgency to those debates because they touch on the central promise of the program: protection from deportation in exchange for passing background checks and meeting eligibility rules.
The program’s future remains uncertain as the Texas litigation continues, and the administrative reality remains unchanged: renewals proceed, new applications do not.
Even after Noem’s firing, the disclosed numbers and the senators’ demands remain on the record, setting up a new confrontation for DHS leadership over whether it will provide detailed explanations about arrests, detentions and deportations involving DACA recipients.
For now, advocates said the enforcement risk feels broader than any single category, and Matos’ warning continued to circulate as lawmakers pressed DHS for answers: “You can be a student, a refugee, a DACA recipient, or even a U.S. citizen, and still get caught up in this administration’s dragnet.”
