A major shakeup in ICE leadership reveals a power struggle within DHS over deportation tactics, with conflicting views on how aggressive immigration enforcement should be.

In an unprecedented move, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has initiated a massive shakeup within the ranks of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), sparking shockwaves across the nation.

Up to a dozen senior ICE officials are being removed from their posts in at least eight major cities, replaced by Border Patrol veterans, insiders tell Fox News.

This power shift, which has taken many by surprise, is the result of growing internal tensions between two competing factions within DHS—each with drastically different visions on how to handle deportation efforts in the United States.

Sources within the agency say that the leadership overhaul marks a significant and unsettling shift in DHS’s approach to immigration enforcement, highlighting a deepening divide over the strategy to tackle illegal immigration.

On one side are ICE officials, led by Director Todd Lyons and Border Czar Tom Homan, who advocate for a more targeted strategy, focusing on criminal aliens and individuals with final deportation orders.

On the other side are DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, senior adviser Corey Lewandowski, and Border Patrol Chief Greg Bovino,

who are pushing for a broader and more aggressive deportation approach—one that could involve sweeping actions against anyone in the country illegally, regardless of their criminal background.

The changes are sparking fierce debates within the agency, as many seasoned ICE leaders voice concerns that this new strategy will erode public support for enforcement actions and blur the lines between ICE operations and those of the Border Patrol.

These officials fear that shifting focus away from targeting high-priority criminals will not only damage public perception but will also result in a less effective and more chaotic approach to immigration enforcement.

The internal conflict has escalated to the point where several high-ranking ICE officials are now openly criticizing the new direction of the agency. One senior official, who wished to remain anonymous, described the situation as “tense” and “combative.”

According to this source, ICE’s once carefully calculated approach, which focused on the worst offenders—those with serious criminal records—has now shifted dramatically.

“ICE started off with the worst of the worst, knowing every target they were hitting, but since Border Patrol came to LA in June, we’ve lost our focus. We’re going too hard, too fast, with limited prioritization,” the official said. “It’s getting numbers, but at what cost?”

In stark contrast, Border Patrol agents defend the new approach, which calls for a far broader sweep of individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization.

According to one Border Patrol agent, the strategy is about fulfilling a broader mandate: “What did everyone think mass deportations meant? Only the worst? Tom Homan has said it himself—anyone in the U.S. illegally is on the table.”

This aggressive stance has led to heightened raids in places like Home Depot parking lots and local car washes, where many undocumented workers are often employed.

The shifting priorities come as deportation numbers remain stubbornly below the targets set by the administration earlier this year. With an emphasis on ramping up deportation rates, DHS has increasingly faced pressure to demonstrate results.

But as the agency scrambles to meet these demands, the reshuffling of leadership is raising questions about whether the Trump administration can maintain control over the very apparatus it has built to enforce immigration laws.

In particular, the replacement of high-ranking ICE field chiefs in key cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Philadelphia, El Paso, and New Orleans has sparked concern among both critics and supporters of immigration enforcement alike.

Multiple sources confirmed that the changes, which have already been implemented in several cities, are being presented as “performance-based” reassignments.

However, the timing and scale of the moves—replacing ICE officials with those from Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—suggest a deeper realignment within DHS.

Senior officials are now questioning whether the personnel shakeup is truly aimed at improving performance or if it reflects a larger ideological battle within the department.

In the midst of this turmoil, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin issued a statement downplaying the significance of the changes.

“While we have no personnel changes to announce at this time, the Trump administration remains laser-focused on delivering results and removing violent criminal illegal aliens from this country,” McLaughlin said.

Her comments, however, have done little to quell the growing unrest among ICE personnel, many of whom feel that their agency’s core mission is being undermined by the new direction of DHS leadership.

The new approach, which prioritizes deporting all individuals living in the U.S. illegally, has raised alarms within immigrant advocacy groups, who warn that it could lead to more widespread and indiscriminate enforcement actions.

Critics argue that the focus should remain on criminal aliens—those who pose a threat to public safety—not ordinary workers who have been living in the U.S. for years, often with families and jobs.

In a dramatic shift from its original mission, ICE is now being tasked with a broader and more aggressive strategy that seems to blur the lines between its operations and those of Border Patrol.

Advocates of this approach argue that mass deportations will send a strong message about the U.S. government’s commitment to securing the southern border and ensuring that those who are in the country illegally face swift consequences.

But as ICE agents increasingly find themselves on the front lines of this contentious battle, they are left to wonder whether the new direction will only create more chaos and alienate communities already fearful of federal overreach.

This power struggle within DHS is not just a bureaucratic shuffle—it’s a reflection of a larger national debate over immigration policy. As the Trump administration doubles down on its “zero tolerance” approach, tensions within the agency are only likely to escalate.

The outcome of this internal conflict could have far-reaching implications, not just for ICE, but for the entire framework of U.S. immigration enforcement.

As ICE continues to reel from the shakeup, the question on everyone’s mind is whether this new strategy will help or hurt the administration’s efforts to secure the border and enforce immigration laws.

One thing is certain: the battle for control over deportation tactics is far from over, and the fallout from this leadership crisis could shape the future of U.S. immigration policy for years to come.