What are ICE's official firearm use and use-of-force policies as of 2025?
Executive summary
ICE’s official firearms and use-of-force policy in 2025 is governed by its directive 19009.3 and the accompanying Firearms and Use of Force Handbook, which set agency-wide rules on when officers may display or discharge firearms, require annual training and proficiency, and enumerate approved weapons and intermediate force options [1] [2]. Those ICE-specific rules sit underneath and must align with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) updates to department-wide use-of-force standards that tightened reporting, de-escalation, and deadly-force training after 2023 [3] [4].
1. What legal and organizational framework governs ICE force decisions
ICE’s policy framework is codified in Directive 19009.3 and the Firearms and Use of Force Handbook, which assign responsibilities across ICE offices (including the Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs) and establish that force decisions be guided by mission priorities, legal limits, and DHS policy; the directive is published on ICE’s site and updated through FOIA releases and attachments to task orders [1] [2] [5].
2. When may ICE officers use firearms and deadly force
ICE restricts firearms and deadly force to situations consistent with DHS guidance—principally when there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or others—and specifically treats certain discharges (for example at persons) as deadly force; DHS updates reiterate that deadly-force training is required annually and that use of force must consider the totality of circumstances [3] [4] [6].
3. Prohibited and constrained practices (moving vehicles, warning shots, disabling vehicles)
ICE policy, following DHS limits, generally forbids firing from moving vehicles and forbids shooting to disable a moving vehicle except in tightly circumscribed circumstances; the department guidance also defines and restricts warning shots and “disabling fire,” treating many 40mm less-lethal launcher uses as potentially deadly depending on targeting [3] [4] [6].
4. Approved weapons, intermediate force, and training requirements
The Handbook and related ICE materials list ICE-approved firearms and intermediate weapons, maintain an approved personally owned firearms list subject to change, and require formal courses and documented proficiency demonstrations for agents; ICE’s Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs oversees those approvals and training programs [2] [7].
5. Reporting, review, and internal accountability mechanisms
ICE requires reporting of force incidents and uses a Firearms and Use of Force Incident Review Committee to determine compliance and recommend policy or training changes after shootings; however, investigative reporting has documented gaps in transparency and inconsistent public disclosure, with Business Insider and partners finding limited publicly available detail and selective redactions in ICE logs [6].
6. How DHS policy updates have changed ICE practice and the sites of dispute
DHS-wide updates in 2023 strengthened expectations for de‑escalation, annual deadly-force training, and uniform reporting across components, and ICE’s directive and handbook incorporate those principles—but oversight reports (e.g., DHS inspector general and press investigations) have flagged inconsistencies among DHS components (ICE vs CBP) in treating some less-lethal tools and in operational guidance, creating practical friction during multi-agency responses [3] [4] [6].
7. Contested areas, critiques, and transparency questions
Advocates, journalists, and oversight officials contend that while ICE’s written policies are detailed, enforcement, transparency, and external accountability lag; reporting found incidents that may have run afoul of ICE or DHS policy that received limited public scrutiny, and inspector general reviews highlighted inconsistent use-of-force rules across DHS components—an implicit institutional tension between operational flexibility and public accountability [6] [3].
Conclusion
As of 2025, ICE’s official firearm and use-of-force rules are a layered regime: agency-level directives and a comprehensive handbook enumerate authorized weapons, training, and the legal thresholds for deadly force, and those rules are explicitly informed and constrained by DHS-wide use-of-force updates emphasizing de-escalation, annual training, and reporting; the policies are clear on paper, but external reporting and inspector general work show continuing debates over implementation, cross-component consistency, and transparency [1] [2] [3] [6].