Are ice agents trained to step away from moving vehicles
Executive summary
ICE does not have a single, universally reported line in public documents that officers must always “step away” from moving vehicles, and reporting shows a split between general federal guidance that counsels moving out of a vehicle’s path when feasible and critiques that ICE’s internal guidance lacks a clear, explicit instruction to do so [1] [2]. News outlets and policing experts describe DOJ-style guidance and local policing trends that discourage firing into or standing in front of moving cars, while DHS and pro-enforcement voices emphasize exceptions when officers face an imminent deadly-weapon threat from a vehicle [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. What high-level federal guidance says: move if feasible, avoid shooting at cars
Department of Justice-style federal use-of-force guidance, which has informed multiple federal agencies, explicitly tells officers they should not shoot at a vehicle when they can instead protect themselves by moving out of the path of the vehicle, and federal rules generally limit deadly force to situations where an officer reasonably believes an imminent threat of death or serious injury exists [1] [3] [4].
2. ICE’s policy: prohibitions on shooting at moving vehicles, but ambiguous on “stepping away”
Public reporting and a House hearing summary show ICE officers are instructed not to shoot at moving vehicles and that deadly force is permitted only for immediate risks of serious injury or death, yet analysts and The Conversation conclude ICE’s manuals “lack a clear instruction” that officers must get out of the way of moving vehicles when doing so is feasible [2] [1].
3. Practice and training critiques: close positioning despite training norms
Policing experts and investigative outlets observing multiple recent shootings note a pattern of immigration agents positioned close to vehicle paths and say that long-standing law‑enforcement training counsels avoiding standing in front of vehicles — effectively urging officers to move rather than shoot if safe alternatives exist — even as videos show agents in vulnerable positions [7] [8].
4. No universal local standard; investigations and politics complicate answers
There is no single national standard that covers every local or federal agency’s tactical training, and multiple outlets emphasize “no universal training standard” for police nationwide, meaning practices vary and incident reviews (internal, federal or state investigations) determine whether an officer acted within policy in each case [3] [9] [10]. At the same time, DHS and political defenders assert agents followed training when a vehicle was used as a deadly weapon, signaling institutional interest in framing such uses of force as justified exceptions [5] [10] [6].
5. Oversight demands and unanswered questions
Members of Congress and advocates have demanded records about ICE training and whether manuals explicitly direct agents to “step away” from vehicles; Representative Steve Cohen requested materials on how ICE trains for interactions with people in moving vehicles, reflecting legislative scrutiny but also underscoring that public reporting has not produced a definitive, widely available ICE training manual stating an explicit “step away” mandate [11] [2].
6. How to read the competing narratives
Coverage splits between outlets emphasizing legal exceptions and self-defense claims — framing vehicles as potential deadly weapons and agents’ actions as justified — and outlets and experts emphasizing tactical errors and policy gaps that leave agents in harm’s way rather than instructing them to reposition or withdraw when safe; both strands are found in the record and both reflect institutional agendas: DHS and allies defending use of force, watchdog outlets highlighting training shortcomings [6] [7] [8].
Bottom line
Reporting establishes that federal guidance supports moving out of a vehicle’s path when feasible and that ICE formally discourages shooting at moving vehicles, but journalists and scholars note ICE guidance lacks a clear, public, explicit order that agents must step away from moving vehicles in every feasible situation — leaving the practical answer: ICE is guided toward avoiding standing in front of moving cars, but public sources show ambiguity about whether its internal training unambiguously directs agents to step away whenever possible [1] [2] [3].