Do ICE agents receive training on crisis negotiation and de-escalation techniques?
Executive summary
ICE’s publicly obtained training materials, as reported by Business Insider and Type Investigations, show little to no instruction in crisis negotiation or de‑escalation techniques, even though the Department of Homeland Security’s use‑of‑force policy requires proficiency in de‑escalation for component agencies [1]. Other law‑enforcement and public‑safety sources describe widely used de‑escalation frameworks and negotiation best practices, but the existence and scope of comparable ICE instruction beyond what was reported remain unclear because much ICE training is not publicly available [2] [3] [4].
1. What the best reporting found: ICE training documents lack de‑escalation content
A detailed review of hundreds of pages of ICE training materials obtained and analyzed by Business Insider and Type Investigations concluded that the documents “don’t appear to teach de‑escalation techniques” and instead emphasize lessons about when and how to use deadly force, with no identifiable modules teaching strategies for avoiding force [1]. That reporting directly underpins the assertion that, at least in the materials reviewed, crisis negotiation and de‑escalation were essentially absent from ICE’s instructional content [1].
2. Official policy vs. practice: a required proficiency that’s hard to verify
The Department of Homeland Security’s guidance — including its amended 2023 use‑of‑force policy — requires component agencies to minimize risk to the public and to be proficient in de‑escalation tactics, creating an institutional expectation that ICE should train agents in those skills [1]. The tension arises because the public reporting found the training materials obtained did not reflect that DHS mandate, and much of ICE’s broader training remains hidden from public view, making compliance difficult for outside observers to verify [1].
3. What standard de‑escalation and crisis negotiation training looks like — and why it matters
Across policing and public‑safety circles, de‑escalation frameworks emphasize communication, creating distance and time, and coordinated negotiation techniques — for example, ICE‑T/ICE‑N concepts or Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) curricula that stress active listening and after‑action learning to reduce harm [2] [3] [4]. These programs teach concrete skills such as establishing cover and creating time to lower danger, and crisis negotiation relies on active listening and empathy to manage heightened emotions — standards that advocates argue should be present in any agency that regularly confronts volatile interactions [2] [3] [4] [5].
4. Alternative viewpoints, gaps and caveats
ICE and DHS could argue they provide some de‑escalation content in trainings not captured by the documents obtained by reporters, and DHS policy explicitly requires de‑escalation proficiency, suggesting the possibility of internal instruction or operational directives not publicly released [1]. Conversely, community groups run their own briefings and “know‑your‑rights” or de‑escalation practice sessions for people who interact with ICE, reflecting public concern about insufficient agency training [6]. The reporting does not definitively prove that no ICE agent ever receives any de‑escalation instruction — only that the reviewed materials lacked such content and that transparency is limited [1].
5. What this means for accountability and next steps
Because de‑escalation and negotiation training exist as well‑documented curricula in policing and crisis response communities — and DHS policy mandates proficiency — the absence of clear, publicly available ICE instructional material on those topics raises accountability questions that demand either greater transparency from ICE or external audits to confirm compliance with DHS requirements [3] [1] [4]. Absent broader disclosure, stakeholders must rely on investigative reporting and Freedom of Information Act efforts to determine whether ICE’s practical training matches departmental policy or whether gaps identified in obtained documents are systemic [1].