What hiring and vetting policies does ICE currently use for law enforcement recruits, and how were they changed in 2025–2026?
Executive summary
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) drastically expanded hiring in 2025–2026, more than doubling its force by adding roughly 12,000 officers and agents and announcing a 120% manpower increase after a nationwide recruitment campaign [1] [2]. That surge came with rapid changes to vetting and training: age limits were dropped, background and medical screenings remain cited as required, and training timelines were compressed—moves that have drawn praise from DHS and alarm from critics and some members of Congress [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Hiring numbers and the political project behind them
DHS and ICE publicly celebrated an unprecedented recruitment success: more than 12,000 hires in under a year and a stated 120% manpower increase that doubled ICE from about 10,000 to some 22,000 officers and agents [1] [2] [6]. The campaign was framed by DHS as necessary to execute a robust enforcement agenda and was backed by large budgetary allocations for immigration enforcement reported in multiple outlets, which officials say justified an expansive, rapid intake [8] [9]. Critics, however, characterize the drive as a politically driven “wartime recruitment” tied to the administration’s deportation priorities and massive spending on publicity and outreach [8] [9].
2. What vetting ICE says it still requires: screenings, background checks, fitness
DHS and ICE messaging maintains that new law enforcement recruits must undergo standard criminal, financial, medical and drug screenings and pass physical fitness tests, and that recruits are subject to federal background checks before academy attendance [4] [3]. The department points to on-the-job training and mentorship after academy graduation as continuity in professional development [5]. These official claims form the public baseline for vetting, and DHS outlets stress that recruitment targets did not eliminate core components like medical and drug screens [3] [5].
3. Policy changes in 2025–2026 that loosen prior limits
Key policy shifts included removal of ICE’s upper age limit for law enforcement applicants in August 2025, opening hiring to anyone 18 and older with no maximum age, a change explicitly announced by DHS leadership [3] [4]. Administratively, FLETC and DHS reconfigured onboarding and training to accelerate field deployment—what officials describe as streamlining and capacity expansion, while multiple reports document the shortening of training timelines from roughly six months to around six weeks to push recruits into operations faster [5] [6] [10]. DHS also sought vendor assistance for recruitment outreach and targeted local and military-experienced candidates, including sending invitations to local deputies [6] [11] [8].
4. Oversight concerns, congressional questions, and public reactions
Members of Congress have explicitly demanded answers about training, use-of-force, and whether exceptions were made for recent recruits—requests intensified after high-profile incidents such as the Minneapolis shooting on January 7, 2026, which spurred letters asking for data on deadly force incidents and hiring policies for people with prior convictions [12] [13]. Oversight voices and watchdogs warn that dramatically compressed training and rapid hiring create risks to operational safety and community trust, a point amplified by media coverage and critics on PBS and Military.com [7] [9]. DHS counters that FLETC scaled capacity to train thousands and that streamlining did not sacrifice core curriculum content [5].
5. Where reporting leaves gaps and the competing narratives
Available reporting documents the numeric surge, the age-cap removal, compressed training timelines, and continued claims of background and medical screening, but public sources do not provide full, independently verifiable details about how background checks were adjusted in practice, the proportion of recruits with prior records, or specific curricular cuts in training [1] [4] [5] [6]. Sources reveal clear competing agendas: DHS and ICE present reform and capacity-building narratives while journalists, lawmakers, and advocacy groups highlight speed, scale, and potential erosion of safeguards—both perspectives are supported in the record but key operational specifics remain undisclosed in public reporting [9] [7] [12].