Do people with criminal records get hired as ice agents
Executive summary
ICE’s published hiring rules require criminal-history checks, drug testing and multi-level background investigations for law-enforcement positions [1] [2], yet recent reporting documents that recruits with disqualifying criminal backgrounds have reached training and been dismissed—revealing gaps between policy and practice amid a rapid hiring surge [3] [4].
1. What the rulebook says about criminal records
ICE’s public careers pages state that background investigations vary by position but “typically include criminal history, credit history, civil records, employment records, education verification, and personal references,” and that applicants must meet medical, fitness and assessment standards for investigator and deportation-officer roles [1] [2]. ICE also advertises that it will “assess your experience and training” and refer the best-qualified applicants for hire, and notes that pre-employment assessments and fitness requirements are enforced during training [5] [2].
2. What reporters found on the ground — recruits with disqualifying records
Investigations by outlets including NBC and The Independent report that, during a recent large recruitment push, some candidates with disqualifying criminal backgrounds showed up for training and were later dismissed after background checks or safety concerns emerged; ICE data reviewed by reporters indicated more than 200 new recruits were dismissed in training for failing standards, with several specifically dismissed for criminal-background flags [3]. PBS quoted agency leadership insisting every hire undergoes “intense background investigations,” while critics warned that the speed and scale of the campaign increase the risk of inadequate vetting [4].
3. Why the mismatch can happen: staffing pressure and hiring authorities
ICE has been granted direct-hire authority to fill critical vacancies rapidly, a mechanism that allows the agency to appoint candidates without traditional rating and ranking procedures when there is a severe shortage or critical need [6]. That accelerated pathway, combined with an unusually large hiring target, creates friction between the agency’s formal background-investigation requirements and the practical difficulty of vetting thousands of applicants quickly—reporters and critics argue that this dynamic helps explain how disqualifying cases reached training [6] [4].
4. Anecdotes, impersonators and accountability gaps
Long-form reporting includes individual accounts of apparent administrative or procedural failures—one writer described receiving an offer and being processed as a deportation officer in agency systems despite lacking final paperwork or signatures, underlining administrative confusion during the surge [7]. Separately, the FBI and reporting on impersonation incidents underscore the harms that flow from blurred lines between real agents and criminals posing as ICE, although those stories concern impersonators rather than hires with records [8]. Taken together, these pieces illustrate both internal control weaknesses and external risks to community trust [7] [8].
5. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
The documented facts show that ICE’s official policy is to screen for criminal history and other disqualifiers [1] [2], yet credible reporting demonstrates that at least some people with disqualifying criminal backgrounds have entered training and were subsequently dismissed, a gap linked by reporters and critics to rapid hiring and use of expedited authorities [3] [6] [4]. Available sources do not provide a complete statistical accounting of how many hires with disqualifying records ever served on active duty or the full chain of where vetting broke down, so definitive nationwide prevalence cannot be stated from the documents provided [3] [7].