How has ICE’s curriculum changed since the training was shortened, and which subjects were removed or condensed?

1. Compressed timeline: from months to weeks and competing accounts

Multiple investigations and news outlets describe a rapid contraction of ICE’s basic training for many new hires—from about five months under earlier practice to roughly six weeks or 47 days during the recent hiring surge—though the agency has offered differing framings (saying eight weeks or variations thereof) and some outlets highlight inconsistent internal accounting of exact day counts ^{[1] [2] [3] [7]}. Government reporting ties the compression to an unprecedented recruitment drive that doubled ICE’s workforce and to a need to deploy thousands quickly, which ICE and DHS say was paired with modernization and streamlining at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers ^{[7] [4]}.

2. What reporters have identified as removed: Spanish-language instruction

The clearest and most consistently reported elimination is formal Spanish-language coursework: multiple investigations say mandatory Spanish training that had been part of the longer curriculum was cut for many recruits, a change various outlets and fact-checkers note as a primary way the academy was shortened ^{[4] [5] [8]}. Alternative accounts from DHS/ICE pushed back on some framings, stating the core ERO course length is eight weeks and that the agency is “modernizing” language support—yet independent reporting and industry analyses indicate Spanish classes were at least de-emphasized or replaced by other tools for many new enforcement officers ^{[5] [4] [9]}.

3. Condensed or accelerated core law‑enforcement modules

Sources report that standard federal-law-enforcement components—arrest techniques, firearms qualification, use-of-force doctrine, conflict management, and scenario exercises—remained on the syllabus but were delivered in a compressed schedule, meaning less classroom and scenario time per topic and higher reliance on intensive, short blocks of instruction ^{[1] [10]}. News outlets and former officials warn this compression reduces repetition and immersive scenario work that build procedural judgment, and reporting notes some dropout and performance concerns as evidence of strain from accelerated pacing ^{[1] [11]}.

4. New structures: divergent tracks, on-the-job learning, and tech substitutes

Reporting describes a bifurcated pipeline: a shortened ERO track measured in weeks for front-line deportation officers versus longer curricula retained for investigative units like HSI, and an increased emphasis on field training, online modules, vendor-supported onboarding, and translation technology rather than classroom language immersion ^{[6] [7] [9]}. Officials and agency statements portray these as deliberate shifts to “streamline” and use modern training modalities, while critics say they amount to offloading critical judgment-building to post-deployment supervision ^{[4] [9]}.

5. Debate, evidence gaps, and oversight status

There is clear disagreement between independent reporting and official statements over precise day counts and whether changes honorably modernize or undercut readiness; fact-checkers and outlets have flagged inconsistent internal reporting and noted DHS denials that some stories characterize the cut as a political “nod” to a number like 47 ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Oversight bodies and watchdogs are actively probing recruitment, onboarding criteria, and outcomes, but publicly available data linking curriculum changes to field incidents, accountability metrics, or long-term performance remains limited in the reporting reviewed ^{[7] [11]}. Where sources diverge, reporting tends to converge on three firm points: training was materially shortened for many hires, Spanish-language classroom instruction was curtailed for certain tracks, and the agency shifted more learning to the field or to technological/interpretive substitutes ^{[1] [4] [6]}.