How do ICE firearms policies compare to other federal law enforcement agencies?

1. ICE’s written rules: aligned with federal DOJ/DHS standards

ICE’s Firearms and Use of Force Handbook sets the agency’s formal rules—emphasizing that force must be “objectively reasonable and necessary” and that firearms “shall not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles” except when deadly force is authorized and no other reasonable option exists—language that parallels DOJ/FBI guidance required of federal components after a 2022 directive ^{[4] [2] [1]}.

2. How that compares on specific practices—shooting at vehicles and reporting

On the high-profile question of firing at moving vehicles, ICE’s guidance is not an outlier: federal agencies generally prohibit shooting to disable vehicles and allow gunfire only when occupants pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and no alternative exists, with documentation and review required when discharges occur—this mirrors FBI and DOJ language cited by GAO and media reporting ^{[2] [3] [7]}.

3. Training, equipment and less‑than‑lethal tools—similarities and differences

ICE equips agents with lethal and less‑lethal options and requires regular firearms qualification—ICE maintains an approved weapons list and periodic qualification standards similar to other federal agencies, and federal reporting shows several federal components use less‑than‑lethal weapons in crowd operations, although policies and authorizations vary across agencies ^{[8] [9]}. Comparative nuance matters: there is no uniform national standard that prescribes every training hour or tool for every agency, so implementation diverges even when written policies align ^[9].

4. The accountability gap and real‑world outcomes

Multiple outlets and scholars argue ICE lags in adopting best practices that prioritize preservation of life, and controversies over aggressive tactics have fueled distrust and strained local partnerships, a dynamic reported by The New York Times and academic commentators who find federal policy sometimes trailing local reforms ^{[10] [6]}. Investigations and public debates following shootings show the difference between policy language and tactical choices in the field, prompting calls for stronger oversight and clearer public disclosure; however, the ICE handbook itself is not fully published in an accessible form for every subsection, complicating independent assessment ^{[5] [4]}.

5. Political context, conflicting incentives and the public narrative

ICE’s policy posture must be read through a political lens: expansion of ICE roles and recruitment drives under recent administrations, and activists’ allegations of paramilitary tactics, have turned operational choices into political signals that can incentivize forceful postures or defensive legal protections for agents, an implicit agenda noted by critics who question whether perceived danger statistics justify aggressive practices ^{[11] [12]}. Conversely, agency leaders and some law-enforcement partners argue standardized federal rules are necessary for cross‑agency operations and officer safety, underscoring competing claims about risk, public safety, and community trust ^[10].

Conclusion: paper parity, practical divergence

The clearest finding is that ICE’s written firearms and use‑of‑force policies broadly mirror federal DOJ/DHS standards used across other federal agencies—especially regarding deadly force and firing at moving vehicles—and GAO and media reporting confirm those constraints ^{[2] [1]}. The divergence lies in implementation, transparency and community impact: critics say ICE’s culture and operational choices have not always reflected evolving best practices adopted by many local departments, and limited public access to full internal manuals makes external evaluation harder ^{[6] [5] [8]}.