What do federal guidelines say about DHS officers use of force on American citizens

1. Legal standard: “necessary” and “reasonable belief” as the trigger for deadly force

DHS policy codifies the familiar constitutional and federal-law principle that deadly force may be used only when necessary — specifically when the DHS law enforcement officer has a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person ^{[1] [2] [6]}. The department’s 2023 update expressly sought to meet or exceed DOJ guidance and repeats that the use of deadly force must be necessary and objectively reasonable under the circumstances ^{[7] [4]}.

2. Moving vehicles: a general prohibition with narrow exceptions

DHS guidance “generally” prohibits discharging a firearm at the operator of a moving vehicle for the purpose of disabling it, but creates an exception where the vehicle or operator is being used to pose an imminent deadly threat by means other than the vehicle or where the vehicle’s operation presents an immediate threat and no other objectively reasonable defensive option exists ^{[6] [3] [8]}. That narrow carve‑out is precisely the locus of dispute in high‑profile cases: whether the officer reasonably believed alternative tactics were unavailable is a factual question that prompts federal and local inquiries ^[3].

3. De‑escalation, safe tactics and duty to avoid needless escalation

The policy requires officers to employ tactics that bring incidents under control while minimizing risk to the public and themselves, and it instructs DHS LEOs to avoid intentionally placing themselves in positions where they have no alternative but to use deadly force — an implicit mandate to prioritize de‑escalation and tactical prudence ^{[6] [5]}. While the policy encourages alternatives and restraint, DHS guidance does not create a private right enforceable in court, a legal limitation the policy document itself acknowledges ^[1].

4. Non‑deadly force, minimum necessary standard, and agency regulations

Regulatory text governing immigration enforcement reiterates that designated immigration officers must always use the minimum non‑deadly force necessary to accomplish their mission and may escalate only when warranted by the subject’s actions or apparent intentions; deadly force remains limited to imminent‑danger scenarios ^[2]. DHS components — CBP, ICE, FPS and Secret Service — were required to update component policies to align with the departmentwide standards issued in 2023 ^{[4] [9]}.

5. Oversight, data collection and institutional reform goals

DHS packaged the 2023 update as part of a broader push for accountability, announcing enhanced oversight, use‑of‑force review boards and collection of use‑of‑force data since 2022 to identify trends and improve training; the Government Accountability Office noted these alignment steps and reported on boards reviewing incidents, though it also urged strengthened data practices ^{[4] [7]}. Proponents frame the changes as necessary modernization; critics argue that policy language still leaves too much discretion in the field and that investigations and transparency must follow to produce accountability ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Where the guidance leaves room for contested judgment and public controversy

The standards are clear on paper but hinge on subjective assessments — what an officer reasonably believed, what alternatives were “objectively reasonable,” and whether tactics avoided placing officers in deadly‑force positions — which makes outcomes highly fact‑dependent and often contested in public reporting and legal review ^{[3] [6] [5]}. Reporting and advocacy have highlighted instances where citizens and watchdogs see systemic problems — including allegations about how DHS treats observers or recordings of operations — but those broader claims fall outside the specific use‑of‑force text and require separate evidentiary review ^[10].