How do training, certification, and use-of-force policies differ between HSI and ERO regarding weapons deployment?

1. Two different missions that shape equipment and roles

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is described as ICE’s federal criminal investigations arm focused on transnational crime — including weapons smuggling and export enforcement — while Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) handles interior civil immigration enforcement such as identification, arrest, detention and removal of noncitizens ^{[1] [2]}. Those distinct missions imply different operational priorities: HSI’s investigative work centers on interdiction, intelligence and long‑term criminal cases (including targeting procurement networks), whereas ERO centers on locating, arresting and transporting persons subject to removal ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Reported training changes — ERO reductions noted, HSI training framed differently

One source reports that in 2025 ERO academy training was sharply reduced — claiming academy time was cut and some language training removed — and that specific curricula remain confidential; both ERO and HSI are said to train on basic law‑enforcement tactics and firearms among other topics ^[3]. By contrast, HSI special agents commonly complete multi‑agency criminal investigator training programs and an HSI‑specific SAT course focused on customs and immigration investigations, often in conjunction with other federal investigative partners ^[3]. Exact certification standards or hours for weapons qualification are not detailed in the available reporting ^[3].

3. How mission drives likely differences in weapons deployment and use‑of‑force posture

Because HSI prosecutes weapons trafficking and engages in investigative stings and joint operations, its agents are positioned to work alongside other federal agencies on complex seizures and network dismantling — a role that suggests frequent coordination on tactical deployments for interdiction of weapons and sensitive technology ^{[2] [4]}. ERO’s role in arrests and removals means officers operate in the interior enforcement space where use‑of‑force policy and weapons deployment are applied to arrest, detention, transport and custody scenarios ^{[1] [2]}. Sources imply these operational differences but do not provide direct policy texts comparing weapons deployment rules ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Oversight, accountability and institutional tensions reported

Reporting notes that HSI leadership has sought institutional separation from ICE to protect its investigative independence, citing concern that association with ERO’s civil‑enforcement profile affects perception ^[2]. Critics — in this case an immigrant‑advocacy organization cited — argue that both HSI and ERO have operated in an expanded enforcement environment with less prosecutorial discretion and limited oversight in recent years, a framing that raises questions about how force and weapons policies are applied across operations ^[2]. The source represents an advocacy viewpoint; other perspectives (e.g., DHS/ICE statements of mission) are referenced elsewhere but detailed policy rebuttals are not present in the provided files ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Examples of weapons‑related HSI work in public reporting

Concrete examples in the public record show HSI leading long‑running probes into procurement networks that supply missiles and aircraft programs and coordinating with Treasury and other agencies on sanctions designations — illustrating HSI’s role in weapons‑related investigations rather than routine arrest/removal actions ^[4]. That operational record underscores HSI’s investigative mandate on weapons and sensitive technologies ^[4].

6. What the sources do not say — key policy gaps

Available sources do not provide the detailed, component‑level use‑of‑force manuals, weapons authorization lists, qualification cycles, or certification standards for HSI versus ERO personnel; they also do not provide verbatim use‑of‑force policy differences or internal directives that govern deployment of lethal or less‑lethal tools ^{[3] [1]}. Where specific operational changes are asserted — e.g., reductions to ERO academy length in 2025 — those claims appear in one publicly editable summary and are not accompanied here by primary policy documents or DHS/ICE internal directives to confirm how weapons training or certification changed in practice ^[3].

7. Bottom line and reporting caution

The available reporting draws a clear institutional line: HSI focuses on criminal investigations including weapons smuggling, and ERO focuses on civil immigration enforcement and removals — a distinction that drives different operational contexts for weapons use ^{[1] [2]}. However, concrete, sourced comparisons of weapons deployment rules, qualification standards, or use‑of‑force texts between HSI and ERO are not present in the provided materials; further clarity would require DHS/ICE policy documents, training manuals or on‑the‑record statements that are not found in current reporting ^[3].