The establishment media rarely shows interest in Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless the agency is actually enforcing the law it was created to uphold.
According to Western Journal, that dynamic has shifted sharply under President Donald Trump, whose return to the White House has brought renewed attention and predictable outrage as ICE resumes a more robust enforcement posture after years of neglect under President Joe Biden. Rather than acknowledge that a sovereign nation has both the right and the obligation to secure its borders and enforce immigration statutes, much of the press has reverted to its familiar script: portray ICE as cruel, Trump as uniquely malevolent, and any attempt at serious enforcement as a moral scandal. That narrative, however, collapses quickly when reporters are forced to grapple with facts instead of talking points.
A recent exchange between former acting ICE Director and current border czar Tom Homan and CBS News immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez exposed just how shallow the medias understanding of the issue can be. In an interview that has since gone viral, Montoya-Galvez attempted to confront Homan with statistics about deaths in ICE custody under Trump, only to be caught flat-footed when asked about the same metric under Biden.
The CBS reporter began with what sounded like a carefully prepared indictment. We looked at official ICE data, sir, and found that 57 people have died in the agencys custody so far under this administration, Montoya-Galvez said during the interview. He then tried to frame those deaths as evidence of systemic failure and looming catastrophe, adding, In fact, somebody was just reported to have died in ICE custody today by the agency; 2026 could set a new record high in the number of detainees dying. What is being done to prevent that? And I know one partial explanation is that more people are being detained and, so tragically, more people are dying. But that cant be the only explanation, can it be?
The question, as framed, was not a genuine inquiry into causes, conditions, or comparative standards; it was a classic loaded question designed to imply malice or negligence without proving either. It made no distinction between deaths from natural causes, preexisting conditions, or other factors, and it treated the raw number of fatalities as self-evident proof of wrongdoing. In logical terms, it veered close to the When did you last beat your wife? fallacy a question that smuggles in an accusation as if it were an established fact.
Homan, a veteran of both ICE and the broader immigration enforcement system, immediately recognized the trap and turned it around. How many people died during the Biden administration? he asked, cutting straight to the double standard implicit in the CBS line of questioning. There was a pause, and then Homan repeated himself: How many people died in custody during the Biden administration? Do you know?
At that point, the reporters confidence visibly faltered. Finally, Montoya-Galvez offered a vague, almost sheepish response: A significant number, he said. Pressed again, he tried to steer the conversation back to his original narrative: But this is going to be the highest year in 2026, Montoya-Galvez said. Im just asking if the pace continues
Homan refused to let the evasion slide and repeated his question yet again. Do you know how many died during the Biden administration? he asked, forcing the journalist to confront the fact that he had come armed with statistics for one administration only. Looking down at his papers, Montoya-Galvez finally admitted what had become obvious to anyone watching: I dont have the data here.
That confession drew a pointed retort from Homan, who saw exactly what was going on. Of course you dont, Homan responded. Again, its another loaded question against the Trump administration. In other words, the reporter had not come to the interview to compare policies, standards, or outcomes in a fair-minded way; he had come to build a case against Trump, and only Trump, regardless of what the broader data might show.
Having exposed the bias behind the question, Homan then addressed the substance as best he could, given the constraints of the format. We have the highest detention standards in industry, higher than any state or federal institution. Our deaths in custody are among the lowest of any state prison or Bureau of Prisons. Numbers are up because our population has doubled in custody. We got over 70 I think the other day we had like 74,000 in custody, he said. That context matters: when the number of detainees surges, the absolute number of deaths will naturally rise, even if the rate of death remains low or even declines.
Homan also pointed to the unique challenges of dealing with a population that often arrives in poor health after long, dangerous journeys. So we have more people in custody, and were dealing with people from third-world nations, he added. Many of these migrants have had little or no access to consistent medical care, and some are suffering from chronic or undiagnosed conditions that only come to light once they are in U.S. custody.
Far from being indifferent to those realities, Homan argued, ICE frequently provides the first real medical attention these individuals have ever received. Some of the first doctors they see are our doctors. And matter of fact, no one ever talks about how many lives that ICE saves in detention when they found a serious medical issue that the alien didnt even know about and we treat. When I was ICE director, I think we spent almost a billion dollars on medical care. That is hardly the picture of a callous, neglectful system that critics in the media and on the left like to paint.
Homan did not pretend that deaths in custody are anything other than tragic, but he insisted that tragedy does not automatically equal misconduct. Again, its unfortunate, and its sad when anybody dies. I dont want to see anybody die, but we do everything we can to give them the best medical care that we can provide. And again, highest detention standards, Homan continued. The implication was clear: if journalists want to have a serious conversation about detention conditions, they should compare ICEs record to that of state and federal prison systems, not cherry-pick numbers to score political points.
On that front, Homan was confident that ICE would stack up well. I think if you look at deaths in custody compared to state prisons or federal penitentiaries, I think were one of the lowest. At least the last time I looked at the data it was probably a couple years ago were the lowest. That is a testable claim, and if outlets like CBS News were genuinely interested in informing the public, they would investigate it rather than ignore it.
The broader context also undercuts the simplistic narrative that more deaths in custody automatically mean worse policy. As of September 2024, 23 people had died in ICE custody under Biden, according to the National Immigrant Justice Center, a group that is hardly sympathetic to strict enforcement. Three more deaths were reported after that, bringing the total to 26. Those numbers are lower than the Trump-era figure cited by Montoya-Galvez, but they exist within a completely different enforcement environment.
Under Biden, the federal government largely abandoned serious interior enforcement and signaled to the world that illegal entry would be tolerated, if not effectively rewarded. The administration only occasionally pretended to enforce immigration law, which naturally resulted in fewer people being held in ICE facilities and, therefore, fewer deaths in custody. That is not evidence of a more humane system; it is evidence of a government that chose not to detain and remove large numbers of illegal entrants in the first place.
If there were credible evidence that ICE facilities under Trump were uniquely abusive, or that detainees were dying at rates far above comparable institutions, one would expect a network like CBS to present that data clearly and specifically. If theres evidence of malfeasance or unusually Dickensian conditions in ICE prisons under Trump, CBS News should bring it out. If not, dont ask the question. Period. Instead, viewers were treated to a one-sided statistic, stripped of context, followed by an awkward silence when the same standard was applied to the Biden years.
That silence spoke volumes about the priorities of a media class that has long been more interested in advancing a narrative than in presenting a full picture. For years, corporate outlets have portrayed immigration enforcement as inherently suspect, casting agents as villains and illegal entrants as victims of an oppressive system rather than of the cartels, smugglers, and failed policies that encourage dangerous journeys. The moment someone like Homan pushes back with facts, the faade of expertise begins to crumble.
From a conservative perspective, the episode underscores why so many Americans have lost trust in legacy media institutions. They see reporters who can recite talking points about Trump-era cruelty but cannot answer basic questions about the record of a Democratic administration they largely supported. They see agencies like ICE demonized for doing the job Congress assigned them, while politicians who refuse to secure the border are treated as compassionate statesmen.
The reality is that a serious nation cannot afford to outsource its border policy to activists, NGOs, or ideologically driven newsrooms. It must enforce its laws consistently, detain those who violate them, and ensure that detention standards are as high as reasonably possible all while recognizing that no system can entirely eliminate risk, especially when dealing with large populations and complex medical needs. That is the balance Homan tried to describe, and it is the balance that many in the media seem determined to ignore.
For viewers, the most revealing part of the viral clip may not have been the statistics themselves, but the uncomfortable pause as Montoya-Galvez searched his notes for numbers he never bothered to bring. Although watching a journalist flounder on camera may be entertaining, the stakes are far higher than one reporters embarrassment. When coverage of immigration is driven by selective outrage and partisan framing rather than by honest comparison and full context, the public is left misinformed, and the hard, necessary work of enforcing the law is made even more difficult.
Login