Have ICE physical fitness standards changed since 2010 or after 2020 reforms?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting shows no clear, documented change to ICE’s core physical ability or PFT minimums in the materials provided; ICE and DHS publicly state recruits must meet established Physical Ability Assessment or PFT standards [1] [2]. At the same time, multiple news investigations and commentaries say post‑2020 recruitment and training reforms—shortened academies and relaxed screening—have changed hiring practices and led to many recruits failing the basic fitness exam in practice, suggesting an implementation gap rather than a formally rewritten fitness standard [3] [4] [5].
1. What the agencies officially say: standards remain required
ICE’s public career page and DHS statements in the reporting repeat that selectees “must meet or exceed each event’s minimum standards” and that meeting the Physical Ability Assessment is a condition of employment, language consistent with longstanding agency practice and echoed by DHS responses to media stories [1] [2].
2. Historical and internal documentation: a continuity of formal tests on the books
Archived ICE documents in the public record show explicit PFT and selection guidance going back years — for example, a 2007 preemployment PFT FAQ and a 2022 HSI special agent fitness handbook — indicating the agency has had codified physical assessments in place rather than ad hoc standards [6] [7]. Those documents demonstrate institutional continuity in having written fitness requirements.
3. Reporting on post‑2020 changes: reforms that affect hiring and training, not necessarily the written test
Multiple outlets covering 2025–2025 hiring pushes report that the department’s drive to expand agent ranks after 2020 included shortening training programs and changing screening practices, and that those operational reforms coincided with a high failure rate on a relatively modest physical-readiness exam (15 pushups, 32 situps, 1.5-mile run in 14 minutes according to reporting) — framing the problem as one of recruitment policy and implementation rather than an admitted lowering of the formal PFT standard [3] [4] [5].
4. The observable effect: recruits failing an established fitness test amid rapid hiring
Investigations citing Federal Law Enforcement Training Center cohorts reported roughly one‑third of new ICE recruits failing the basic fitness test, a data point used to argue that either the applicant pool is less fit or that changes to screening and training have let marginal candidates into the system — an empirical claim reported by The Atlantic and amplified by other outlets [4] [5] [3]. DHS counters by reiterating that meeting PFT standards remains a condition of employment [2].
5. Two plausible interpretations and the hidden agendas behind them
One interpretation is that written fitness standards have stayed intact while administrative reforms (expedited hiring, shortened academies, altered background screening) have increased the number of recruits who arrive underprepared, producing high failure rates and public alarm [3] [4]. Another interpretation, emphasized by critics in the press, is that the political imperative to boost ICE numbers has created pressure to relax either enforcement of standards or adjacent screening practices — an interpretation that aligns with warnings about lowered hiring thresholds during expansion drives [5] [4]. Sources promoting each view carry implicit agendas: DHS and ICE aim to defend institutional legitimacy [2] [1], while critical outlets highlight potential risks of rapid expansion and misconduct.
6. What is not proven by the available material
The documents and reporting provided do not include a definitive, side‑by‑side record showing that ICE formally rewrote its PFT numeric minimums after 2010 or specifically after 2020; the sources do not cite an explicit policy memo that rescinds or lowers the written event minimums from prior years, so asserting a formal change in the codified test itself would exceed what the supplied materials prove [7] [6] [1].
7. Bottom line: standards on paper, contested in practice
The balance of evidence in the provided sources is that ICE’s formal physical-fitness tests and minimums remain on the books and are publicly stated as employment conditions [1] [2] [7], while post‑2020 hiring and training reforms—shorter academies and altered screening—have altered who is entering training and produced high failure rates on basic tests, creating the appearance of relaxed standards in practice even where the written standards reportedly remain unchanged [3] [4] [5]. The available record documents implementation and recruitment shifts but does not supply an explicit policy document proving a formal lowering of the core numeric fitness standards since 2010.