DOJ Debunks '3,000 Arrests a Day’ Myth, Pushes Back Against Sanctuary City Overreach

Sarah Arnold | August 01, 2025 10:00 PM

In a recent filing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Justice flatly rejected the left-wing narrative that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was operating under a supposed “quota” of 3,000 arrests per day. DOJ attorneys made it clear: no such directive has ever been issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or ICE. The claim, which has fueled outrage from open-borders advocates, appears to be nothing more than media-fueled speculation based on internal conversations about potential enforcement benchmarks—not actual policy. This clarification comes as the Trump administration continues its legal battle to reinstate immigration operations that were blocked by a Los Angeles-based federal judge who sided with progressive groups eager to shield illegal immigrants from accountability.

The judge’s ruling—an overreach by any measure—prohibited ICE from conducting enforcement operations in seven Southern California counties, including routine sweeps at places like Home Depot, car washes, and construction sites. These are precisely the types of public spaces where illegal immigration activity often flourishes and where ICE efforts are not only appropriate but necessary. Blocking these operations signals to illegal aliens that sanctuary jurisdictions will shield them from federal law, further eroding national sovereignty and public safety.

The DOJ’s filing also dismantled one of the most persistent talking points used by the administration’s opponents: that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller created a binding quota. In reality, Miller floated an enforcement target as part of internal strategy discussions—a far cry from issuing an actual order. “No such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE,” DOJ attorneys stated plainly, exposing the dishonest attempts to paint lawful enforcement as rogue or extreme.

Supporters of the Trump administration view this case as part of the broader fight to restore lawful immigration control in the face of coordinated resistance from activist judges and sanctuary politicians. For too long, local officials have undermined federal immigration efforts, turning entire jurisdictions into safe havens for those who broke the law to enter the country. The administration’s appeal is a necessary step toward reestablishing federal authority, protecting American communities, and sending a clear message: immigration laws will be enforced—no matter how loudly the radical left protests. The outcome of this appeal could define whether states and cities get to pick and choose which federal laws to follow, or whether the rule of law still means something in America.