What changes were made in ICE Directive 19009.3 in the May 26, 2023 revision compared with the prior policy?
Executive summary
ICE Directive 19009.3, dated May 26, 2023, formally replaced earlier firearms and use-of-force guidance and is cited across ICE policy documents, but most of the substantive text in the 2023 directive available to the public is heavily redacted under FOIA exemptions—leaving only procedural and contextual changes clearly documented. Independent reporting and agency statements indicate the 2023 directive was intended to align ICE policy with broader DHS use-of-force guidance and is referenced in later ICE directives (for example, body‑worn camera policy), while watchdog reporting and local news focus on the opacity of the redactions and on specific operational guidance such as restrictions on firing at moving vehicles. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
1. What the May 26, 2023 directive did on paper: a formal supersession and cross‑referencing move
The May 26, 2023 document is published as ICE Directive 19009.3, “Firearms and Use of Force,” and it supersedes prior versions of ICE firearms/use‑of‑force directives (including 19009.1 and the 2021 materials that accompanied earlier policy), becoming the authoritative template ICE cites in later policies such as the body‑worn camera directive; the 19009.3 identifier and date are explicitly referenced in ICE’s BWC directive and other agency documents. [1] [6] [7] [2]
2. What can be read in public: format, availability and redaction
The 19009.3 PDF is publicly posted on ICE’s site and in FOIA repositories, but many substantive pages are blacked out; watchdog reporting highlights that ICE applied the law‑enforcement FOIA exemption (b)(E) to redact operational details, and multiple journalists and civilian monitors have noted the near‑blank appearance of substantive sections in some public copies, which constrains definitive public comparisons between the 2023 text and prior versions. [1] [3] [8] [9]
3. What ICE and local reporting emphasize: alignment and training, not radical change
ICE’s public messaging and some local outlets emphasize continuity: ICE has stated that the 2023 directive is the agency’s current use‑of‑force policy and that officers are trained to use “the minimum amount of force necessary,” receive de‑escalation training, and that the policy is consistent with DHS guidance—framing the May 26, 2023 document as part of routine policy governance rather than a radical loosening of rules. [4]
4. What independent reporting flags: secrecy and redaction of operational rules
Investigative pieces and advocacy outlets point to the redactions as materially significant, arguing that the heavy withholding of substantive rules prevents the public from knowing when agents may deploy lethal force; those sources say the 2023 directive uses exemptions to hide nearly every operational page, creating a “secret rules” critique that stands as the principal substantive change in the public debate—less about wording shifts than about transparency. [3] [8]
5. Specific operational guidance that surfaced publicly: moving‑vehicle shooting guidance
While the 19009.3 body of text largely remains redacted in public releases, recent reporting and government reviews have highlighted particular operational limits in ICE guidance—most notably restrictions on shooting at moving vehicles—which have been cited in coverage of use‑of‑force incidents and in GAO‑style reviews of ICE directives; those narrower, targetable rules have become focal points when comparing real‑world practice to the 2023 policy record. [5]
6. What cannot be conclusively said from publicly available sources
Because the FOIA‑released 19009.3 files are heavily redacted and ICE has not released an unredacted comparative memorandum detailing line‑by‑line changes from the prior directive, it is not possible from the public record to enumerate every substantive wording change or operational nuance added on May 26, 2023; claims about specific new authorities in the directive beyond the documented cross‑references, the redaction practice, and isolated operational guidance (e.g., vehicle‑shooting restrictions) go beyond what the cited sources prove. [3] [1] [8]
7. How to read the debate: transparency versus operational security
The tension around the May 26, 2023 directive hinges on two competing frames visible in the sources: ICE and some local reports frame the directive as an aligned, training‑focused update consistent with DHS standards that need operational confidentiality, while watchdog outlets and journalists treat the near‑blank public document as evidence of excessive secrecy that prevents accountability; both positions are grounded in the same document record—one emphasizing the directive’s formal authority and cross‑referencing role, the other emphasizing the practical absence of readable operational rules for public scrutiny. [4] [3] [8]