How have DHS and ICE use-of-force policies changed since 2010 and what text do they contain?
Executive summary
Since 2010 DHS components have layered and revised use-of-force guidance: DHS published overarching policies in 2004 and updated them periodically with a notable public release of component policies in 2014 and a department update in 2023, while CBP and ICE maintain separate handbooks and directives that echo but also extend department standards [1] [2] [3]. The textual core across documents emphasizes that deadly force is limited to situations where an officer has a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, and that excessive force is prohibited and subject to penalties [4] [5] [6].
1. The timeline: releases, updates and what changed after 2010
Public availability expanded in 2014 when DHS, CBP and ICE released their existing use-of-force policies—CBP’s dating from about 2010 and ICE’s from 2004—while DHS made its department-wide policy available for the first time, a transparency move led by Secretary Jeh Johnson [1]. Since then DHS issued subsequent updates, including a 2023 update described as the first policy revision since 2018, framed as the product of stakeholder and labor discussions to refine safety processes for officers and communities [2] [6]. Collections and reverse-chronological compilations of these documents highlight iterative changes and component-specific directives such as CBP safe-tactics guidance [3] [1].
2. Core textual standards in DHS documents: when deadly force is allowed
Across DHS materials the threshold language is consistent: federal officers may use deadly force only when necessary and when they reasonably believe the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person, and deadly force must not be used solely to prevent escape [4] [6] [7]. The department policy repeatedly frames respect for life and minimization of unintended injury as guiding principles and explicitly states that excessive force is unlawful and will not be tolerated, exposing violators to administrative and criminal penalties [5] [6].
3. ICE and component texts: what ICE’s directives say and the transparency gap
ICE’s internal directives and its 2021 Firearms and Use of Force Handbook state that authorized officers may use only force that is “objectively reasonable,” embedding the reasonableness standard into operational guidance [8]. However, ICE does not publicly disclose an unredacted current use-of-force policy—publicly available versions are heavily redacted—and investigative reporting has documented that many ICE training and policy documents remain protected from public release, limiting outside scrutiny [9]. The Government Accountability Office has also flagged gaps in ICE documentation concerning when and how agents may have violated policy, underscoring transparency and accountability concerns [9].
4. Regulatory and operational constraints beyond policy text
Federal regulations provide additional constraints and delegation: 8 CFR 287.8 describes standards for enforcement activities, specifying that designated immigration officers must use the minimum non-deadly force necessary and may be designated to use deadly force or initiate vehicle pursuits only by certain officials, embedding a statutory/regulatory overlay on agency policy [10]. DHS guidance also emphasizes the “totality of the circumstances” test and the requirement to employ safe tactics that minimize risk to officers and the public [5] [3].
5. Debate, oversight and legislative responses
High-profile shootings and reporting have reopened debates over whether current policies and disclosures are sufficient; critics point to limited public reporting requirements and closed records as facilitators of insufficient accountability, while DHS and supporters argue policies already prioritize life and are periodically updated in consultation with stakeholders [11] [2] [12]. Legislative proposals such as the “DHS Use of Force Oversight Act” aim to codify “objectively reasonable” standards, mandatory identification and warnings, and new reporting—reflecting congressional impatience and differing political agendas about whether statutory fixes or more transparency are the right remedy [11].