In a striking shift in priorities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) significantly increased its personnel dedicated to immigration-related matters during the early months of the second Trump administration. According to records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the number of FBI employees working on immigration issues surged from 279 before Trump took office in January 2025 to over 6,500 by September of the same year. This represents a staggering 23-fold increase in just nine months, raising critical questions about the implications for national security and the agency’s core mission.
By the end of this period, a total of 9,161 FBI personnel were involved in immigration tasks, out of a workforce of approximately 38,000. This dramatic reallocation of resources has drawn sharp criticism from experts in immigration policy and law enforcement. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, remarked, “That is a huge, huge number of people. This is just a somewhat shocking scale that we’re looking at.” Such an expansion suggests that a significant portion of the FBI’s workforce was diverted from its traditional criminal investigative roles to assist in civil immigration enforcement.
The implications of this shift are profound. David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, expressed concern that the FBI’s focus on immigration enforcement could undermine its ability to address ongoing criminal investigations. “We’re talking about the FBI diverting people away from criminal investigations and ongoing criminal activity and into civil immigration enforcement,” Bier stated. This diversion not only compromises public safety but also raises ethical questions about the use of federal resources for immigration enforcement, which is traditionally the domain of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The rapid increase in personnel dedicated to immigration coincided with a broader strategy by the Trump administration to bolster its deportation efforts. Just days after Trump’s inauguration, the FBI had already assigned 1,390 employees to immigration work. This number continued to climb as the administration implemented directives that allowed law enforcement agencies to conduct warrantless home entries targeting suspected gang members. By May, the number of FBI personnel working on immigration had reached over 5,700, reflecting an aggressive push to meet new quotas for arrests.
Interestingly, this surge in immigration-related assignments persisted even after Congress passed the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which allocated an additional $170 billion for immigration and border enforcement. Bier noted, “They’re going ahead with using criminal law enforcement for mass deportation purposes,” despite the influx of funding intended to enhance immigration enforcement capabilities. This raises critical questions about the strategic decisions made by the FBI and other federal agencies in the context of their mandates.
The FBI’s involvement in immigration enforcement has also raised national security concerns. As the agency redirected resources to immigration, it simultaneously had to reassign agents back to counterterrorism efforts following heightened tensions with Iran. Reichlin-Melnick emphasized, “The national security implications of this are likely significant. There is no situation in which the administration has made the security of the nation better by reassigning these agents.” The potential risks associated with diverting personnel from counterterrorism to immigration enforcement during a time of geopolitical instability cannot be overstated.
As the FBI continues to grapple with its dual role in law enforcement and immigration enforcement, the ramifications of these decisions will likely resonate for years to come. The agency’s mission, which traditionally focused on criminal investigations and national security, appears increasingly entangled with immigration policy, raising urgent questions about the future of federal law enforcement priorities and the ethical implications of such a dramatic reallocation of resources.
Reviewed by: News Desk
Edited with AI assistance + Human research
