How do ICE field office weapon authorization lists vary by region for HSI and ERO personnel?

1. How ICE organizes firearms authority: central handbook, component lists

ICE’s Firearms and Use of Force Handbook establishes the agency‑level program, governance, and responsible officials — including Executive Associate Directors for HSI and ERO and a committee to review firearms incidents — which creates the framework under which component lists and local authorizations operate ^[2]. HSI maintains its own documented “Authorized Firearms for Homeland Security Investigations,” which lists approved ICE‑issued and personally owned firearms for HSI armed personnel and describes procedures for amending the list and requesting authorization ^[1].

2. HSI vs. ERO: separate missions, separate lists implied

HSI is the criminal‑investigations directorate and ERO handles civil immigration enforcement; both are named as “authorized officers” in ICE weapon policy, but sources show HSI explicitly publishes an authorized‑firearm list while ERO’s specific list is not found in the provided reporting ^{[1] [4]}. That separation of mission — HSI’s focus on transnational crime and ERO’s deportation/enforcement role — explains why components might require different approved platforms or procurement tracks ^[4].

3. Regional variation — what sources say and what they do not

Provided sources do not include a region‑by‑region breakdown of weapon authorization variations across ICE field offices. The handbook describes accountability “within his or her area of responsibility” and lists responsible officials at HQ and program heads, which implies regional officials can manage firearms programs locally under national policy, but the materials supplied do not enumerate different regional lists or differing weapon models by field office ^[2]. Therefore, specific regional variations are not documented in current reporting (not found in current reporting).

4. Examples of component‑level differences documented

HSI’s standalone authorized firearms document states that the agency can amend or rescind personally owned firearms lists at any time and prescribes OFTP (Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs) procedures for requests — concrete evidence HSI controls its own approvals ^[1]. ICE’s handbook shows a governance structure that gives EADs for HSI and ERO roles in firearms oversight, suggesting ERO likewise has delegated authority though a discrete published ERO authorized‑firearm roster is not present in the results (p1_s1; not found in current reporting).

5. Recent agency‑wide weapon changes that affect both components

Independent reports and procurement notices indicate ICE moved away from SIG Sauer P320 pistols toward Glock 19 acquisition for duty use in 2025, which appears to be an agency procurement decision with broad field impact rather than a patchwork of regional lists — multiple outlets cite DHS/ICE directives and procurement forecasts supporting this change ^{[3] [5]}. Whether any field offices retained divergent authorized models during or after that transition is not specified in the available documents (not found in current reporting).

6. What to look for if you need a true regional comparison

To build an authoritative regional comparison you would need: (a) the HSI authorized firearms list and any regional supplements for each HSI field office (HSI doc exists but regional variants not supplied) ^[1]; (b) the ERO equivalent authorized firearms rosters or local OFTP delegations (not present in provided sources); and (c) procurement/delivery orders or local memoranda reflecting temporary or transitional authorizations (e.g., the Glock procurement notice shows a national ordering window but not regionally broken data) ^[3]. These items are not included in the current search results.

7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas

Official ICE documents frame differences as administrative and safety‑driven — OFTP, EADs, and ROs are described as accountable for weapons policy and incident review ^[2]. Reporting about weapons choices (SIG to Glock) comes from defense/procurement observers and enthusiast outlets and may emphasize platform narratives (reliability, litigation around some models) that affect public perception; those outlets do not replace formal ICE authorization lists ^{[3] [5]}. Advocates and critics of ICE often focus on mission emphasis (ERO’s removal operations vs. HSI’s criminal investigations), which can influence whether observers assert weapon differences are operationally necessary or politically driven ^[4].

Conclusion and limitation statement

ICE policy files show a centralized firearms program plus component‑specific authorization documents (HSI’s list), and recent procurement actions have adjusted agency duty pistols, but available sources do not disclose or compare weapon authorization lists across ICE field office regions for HSI versus ERO. For a region‑by‑region definitive answer, official regional OFTP memoranda, ERO authorized lists, or FOIA releases would be required — not present in the materials supplied ^{[2] [1] [3]}.