Does ICE recive training in Irseal
Executive summary
Yes — multiple investigative reports and activist investigations conclude that ICE officials have participated in training and exchange programs with Israeli security forces or in Israel-focused seminars; organizations such as Deadly Exchange and Jewish Voice for Peace document trips and named participants, including a 2015 ADL seminar attended by then-ICE official Peter Edge [1] [2]. The precise scale, frequency, and recent participation by ICE as an agency are contested in public records and sometimes limited by incomplete disclosures, but the pattern of exchanges involving federal immigration and border personnel is repeatedly reported [3].
1. Documented trips and named participants: reported instances of ICE officers traveling to Israel
Advocacy groups and investigative outlets have produced lists and FOIA-based reporting showing that individual ICE executives and agents attended counterterrorism seminars and exchange programs in Israel — most prominently a 2015 Anti-Defamation League National Counter-Terrorism Seminar that included Peter Edge, later Acting Deputy Director of ICE [2] [3]. Broad campaigns such as Deadly Exchange catalog thousands of U.S. law enforcement visits to Israel since the early 2000s and explicitly name ICE among the federal agencies whose personnel have participated in those exchanges [4] [1].
2. Organizers, formats, and recurring programs: how the training is structured
These trips and trainings are reported to be organized by a mix of actors: U.S. and Israeli governmental agencies, private companies, and non-profits such as the ADL, JINSA, and university-linked programs like the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE), which has long brought U.S. officers to Israel [4] [5]. The programs range from ADL’s National Counter-Terrorism Seminar to private security industry exchanges and conferences where Israeli police, military, and intelligence officers present tactics and technologies to visiting U.S. law enforcement [4] [6].
3. Reported content and related technology transfers: surveillance, crowd control, forensics
Reporting links the trainings to topics such as surveillance, crowd-control tactics, detention practices, and “lessons learned” in counterterrorism; advocacy outlets argue these include problematic “worst practices” that are then normalized in U.S. policing and immigration enforcement [4] [7]. Separate reporting and commentary note technology and service ties — Israeli companies providing surveillance equipment, forensic tools like Cellebrite, and other technologies to U.S. agencies including ICE — suggesting the relationship is not only personnel exchanges but also transfers of tools and systems [8] [7] [9].
4. Limitations, competing narratives, and agendas in the sources
Most of the detailed claims in the available reporting come from activist groups and critical outlets (Deadly Exchange, Jewish Voice for Peace, Scalawag, Palestine Chronicle), which have explicit aims to end U.S.–Israel police partnerships and often frame the exchanges as importing abusive tactics [1] [2] [9] [10]. Some pieces are opinion or advocacy-driven and conflate correlation with causation; the Deadly Exchange project itself urges policy change and petitions the ADL, which is also named as a program organizer [3] [4]. At the same time, at least one source flags a transparency problem — noting an inability to fully verify ICE participation in ADL programs after a certain date and ongoing FOIA efforts to fill gaps — meaning public documentary certainty about every trip and every year is incomplete [3].
5. Bottom line — what can be asserted with confidence and what remains uncertain
It can be stated with confidence, based on multiple independent advocacy and reporting projects, that ICE officials — including senior figures — have participated in trainings and exchange programs connected to Israeli security forces or Israeli-hosted seminars [2] [1] [8]. What cannot be fully asserted from the sources provided is a comprehensive, up-to-date accounting of exactly how many ICE personnel have trained in Israel in recent years, which specific units or field teams were involved, or the degree to which particular Israeli tactics have been formally adopted as ICE policy; advocates point to technology transfers and shared tactics as evidence of influence, but official confirmations and complete agency records are limited in the public domain [3] [9] [7].