What training do ICE officers receive on de-escalation and deadly force?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ICE recruits receive formal firearms and use-of-force instruction at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and in ICE’s own directives, which emphasize firearms proficiency and define deadly force, while publicly available training materials and reporting show limited, inconsistent emphasis on de‑escalation until recent years [1] [2] [3]. Investigations by media and watchdog groups have found training documents that prioritize quick, decisive force and contain few concrete de‑escalation lessons, even as ICE spokespeople and DHS policy say de‑escalation is required and has been increasingly incorporated [1] [4] [5] [6].
1. What ICE trains officers about deadly force: doctrine and practice
ICE’s firearms and use-of-force handbook and related directives lay out detailed expectations for weapons proficiency, authorized uses of deadly force, examples that qualify as deadly force, and requirements to demonstrate continued firearms proficiency and intermediate weapons skills [2]. Reporting from Type Investigations and Business Insider found that training curricula teach when and how to use deadly force—including multiple-choice assessments about initiating deadly force—and that some training materials encourage quick, decisive responses in high‑threat scenarios [4] [1]. DHS-level policy updates also define “deadly force” and incorporate legal standards for reasonableness that govern federal agents’ actions, placing the technical frameworks for deadly‑force decisions within formal policy [5].
2. What ICE trains officers about de‑escalation: scope and timing
Public documents and coverage indicate that de‑escalation training at ICE has been more limited historically than its deadly‑force and firearms instruction, with investigative reporting noting an absence of lessons explicitly teaching de‑escalation in some core training materials [1] [4]. ICE officials have said the agency added more emphasis on de‑escalation in 2022 and that officers are trained to “leverage de‑escalation tactics,” and more recent reporting and agency briefings describe curricula that include de‑escalation techniques intended to prevent force [1] [4] [7]. Federal and state law enforcement de‑escalation models—such as ICAT/ICE‑T concepts—exist and are referenced in policing literature, but public evidence of which specific programs ICE uniformly requires remains limited in available reporting [8] [9].
3. Gaps exposed by leaked or FOIA’d materials
Investigative stories and FOIA releases used by journalists and advocacy groups show training documents, scenario materials, and citizen‑academy slides that emphasize tactical control and include guidance around use of deadly force, with critics arguing the materials “say little about de‑escalation” and sometimes present options that allow immediate deadly force initiation in hypothetical answers [1] [4] [10]. The Citizens Academy materials and some exam keys surfaced in reporting suggest variability in how de‑escalation is taught in peripheral programs versus core tactical instruction, raising questions about transparency and consistency [10] [1].
4. ICE’s and DHS’s official line and policy context
ICE spokespeople dispute characterizations that training lacks de‑escalation, asserting officers are trained to use force only as a last resort and are “highly trained in de‑escalation,” and the Department of Homeland Security’s updated use‑of‑force policy explicitly includes de‑escalation as part of force doctrine [6] [5] [1]. These official statements reflect policy changes and public relations aims to show compliance with contemporary policing standards, even while watchdog reporting contends that the operational details remain opaque and that implementation may lag [1] [5].
5. Independent perspectives, risks and institutional incentives
Outside analysts and policing researchers point to a broader law‑enforcement pattern: many agencies provide some de‑escalation training but differ widely in curriculum depth, frequency, and evaluation, and rapid expansions in force size historically have correlated with training shortcuts that critics say can increase misconduct risk [9] [11]. Journalistic and watchdog reporting implies institutional incentives—operational priorities, political pressure to increase deportations, and limited public scrutiny—that could bias training toward decisive tactical options unless oversight and transparent curricula are enforced [4] [3] [10].
6. Bottom line: what is known and what is not
Public records and reporting establish that ICE’s formal training strongly covers firearms and deadly‑force doctrine and that de‑escalation has been acknowledged officially and incrementally added to curricula since about 2022, but investigative releases and reporting reveal sparse, uneven public evidence of robust, standardized de‑escalation instruction across all ICE training and raise concerns about practical emphasis and transparency [2] [1] [4] [7] [5]. Reporting limitations prevent a definitive inventory of every course or training hour for de‑escalation in ICE’s programs; what is clear is a tension between doctrine that defines and governs deadly force and inconsistent public documentation showing how deeply de‑escalation is embedded in practice [1] [2] [5].