What does ICE’s current (post‑2011) training curriculum say about de‑escalation and chemical agent use?
Executive summary
The publicly reported ICE training materials obtained and reviewed by investigative outlets emphasize tactics and decisive use of force while containing little on structured de‑escalation, but the agency and DHS contend candidates receive de‑escalation instruction in more recent curricula; existing reporting documents are fragmentary and cover different time periods, leaving important gaps about ICE’s current, post‑2011 classroom and field training [1] [2] [3]. Independent reporting also documents field deployments where chemical irritants and aggressive crowd‑control tactics were used by federal immigration agents, prompting experts to warn of training gaps in public‑order situations [4] [5] [6].
1. What independent document reviews reveal about force and de‑escalation
Investigations that obtained internal ICE training documents from roughly 2006–2011 found “little about de‑escalation” and materials that “encourage quick, decisive use of deadly force” rather than prescribing tactics to avoid force, a finding reported in Business Insider and Type Investigations based on those archived curricula [1] [2]. Both outlets explicitly note the documents they reviewed do not represent a complete, current curriculum and are dated, but they argue the materials shaped agents hired in that era and therefore matter for understanding institutional habits [1] [2].
2. The agency’s public stance: de‑escalation is taught and retrained
ICE and DHS spokespeople counter that ICE officers are “trained to only use force as a last resort” and are “trained in de‑escalation tactics,” pointing to periodic retraining and policy that requires de‑escalation proficiency under DHS’s updated 2023 use‑of‑force guidance [1] [6]. DHS officials have repeatedly said ICE candidates receive extensive weeks‑long instruction that includes conflict management and de‑escalation—statements echoed across news outlets quoting DHS and ICE [6] [7] [8].
3. Field deployments, crowd control and chemical agents: reporting on practice versus policy
Multiple news reports on recent deployments of federal immigration agents note aggressive crowd‑control behavior—pointing rifles at demonstrators and early deployment of chemical irritants—sparking expert warnings that those tactics can escalate violence and may be used by officers without extensive public‑order training [4] [5] [6]. Those accounts do not establish that training explicitly instructs agents to use chemical agents in particular protest contexts, but they do show that chemical irritants have been used operationally and that experts view current training and accountability systems as insufficient for crowd management [4] [5].
4. Timeline, training locations, and formal programs: pieces of the institutional puzzle
ICE recruits historically attend multi‑week basic training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the ICE Academy, with some materials noting 22 weeks of basic instruction and specialized HSI courses exceeding 100 days for certain candidates, while ICE has launched newer specialized programs such as a Protective Security Operations Training Program for SRT agents [9] [10]. Investigative pieces emphasize that the documents they reviewed predate revisions ICE says it made in 2015 and 2022, and PBS reporting from 2025 describes a curriculum that “includes de‑escalation techniques,” illustrating that training content has evolved but leaving open exactly how de‑escalation and chemical agent doctrine are taught today [1] [2] [3].
5. Where the record is clear — and where it is not
What is clear from available reporting is a mismatch between older training materials emphasizing decisive force and public statements from DHS/ICE asserting robust de‑escalation instruction and more recent policy demands for de‑escalation proficiency [1] [2]. What is not clear—because investigative documents are partial and agencies point to later revisions—is the precise content, frequency, and practical emphasis of ICE’s current post‑2011 classroom and scenario training on de‑escalation, and whether current doctrine circumscribes or prescribes chemical‑agent use in crowd settings; available sources document use in the field and differing expert assessments, but do not provide a full, current curriculum for independent verification [4] [5] [3].
Conclusion: a contested ledger of training and practice
The best public record shows that older ICE training materials leaned toward force and offered little de‑escalation guidance while DHS and ICE maintain that more recent curricula and policies prioritize de‑escalation; contemporaneous reporting of chemical‑agent deployment and expert concern underscores the urgent need for transparent, up‑to‑date curriculum release and independent audits to resolve the discrepancy between what was taught, what is now claimed, and what agents do in the field [1] [2] [4] [3].