What changes were made to ICE use-of-force and de-escalation training after high-profile incidents (include years)?
Executive summary
After a string of high-profile deadly encounters and a hiring surge that more than doubled ICE’s workforce in 2025, the agency and DHS pointed to existing and expanded training pathways — notably an amended 2023 DHS use-of-force policy that emphasizes de‑escalation proficiency and the requirement that new ICE basic students attend the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) — while critics and investigative reports say substantive curriculum change has been limited and poorly documented [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. 2023 policy amendment: the first formal nod to de‑escalation, but not a curriculum overhaul
In 2023 DHS revised its use-of-force policy to require officers to be proficient in de‑escalation tactics and to minimize risk to the public, a change that created an expectation across member agencies that training should emphasize alternatives to force [1] [5]; however, analyses of ICE training materials obtained earlier showed little in the way of concrete de‑escalation lesson plans or field‑tested modules, raising doubts about how the policy translated into classroom and practical instruction [1].
2. 2024–2025 reporting: investigative pressure exposes gaps, prompts oversight questions
Business Insider’s 2024 reporting found ICE lesson materials that encouraged quick, decisive use of deadly force and contained scant instruction on de‑escalation, an evidence point critics cite when demanding change [1]; that scrutiny intensified as ICE more than doubled its workforce in 2025 and reconfigured onboarding to push personnel into the field quickly, triggering Capitol Hill concern that speed undercut training standards [3] [6].
3. 2025 deaths and 2026 shootings: crisis, congressional attention, and calls for independent review
The Guardian catalogued 32 deaths in ICE custody in 2025, the deadliest year in two decades for the agency and a moment that amplified calls for better training and accountability [4]; the Minneapolis shootings in early January 2026 — including the killing of Renee Nicole Good — prompted public outrage, local protests, and demands for independent after‑action reviews even as DHS publicly defended its use‑of‑force doctrine and reiterated that officers receive ongoing de‑escalation and firearms training [4] [7] [5].
4. Agency responses in 2025–2026: expand FLETC, more recruits, and messaging about training quality
The administration and DHS emphasized investment in training infrastructure and mandates: all new ICE basic students are required to attend FLETC, and legislation and appropriations moves in 2026 sought to funnel hundreds of millions to FLETC to expand capacity and readiness — an effort sold as strengthening de‑escalation, firearms, and driving instruction for a rapidly growing force [2]. DHS messaging frames these steps as substantive enhancements, while oversight voices caution that funding and attendance alone do not prove improved on‑the‑ground tactics [2] [6].
5. Implementation problems: documentation, quality control, and local operational friction
Investigative journalists and experts note that ICE’s internal documentation about who took what training and when is sparse, undermining the agency’s ability to correlate training with incidents and to target retraining — a procedural gap highlighted by Al Jazeera and others as a barrier to meaningful reform [8]. Local observers in places like Minneapolis also say federal urban deployments clash with community expectations and that tactical choices — including armored, low‑visibility gear and aggressive arrest techniques — have exacerbated tensions, suggesting a need for community‑specific de‑escalation and coordination plans rather than one‑size federal playbooks [9] [10].
6. Competing narratives and the hard proof still missing
There is a clear split between DHS and administration narratives — which insist ICE has enhanced and expanded training, points stressed in official communications and press releases about FLETC and the 2026 training surge [2] — and investigative/journalistic findings that training documents historically emphasized decisive force and lacked practical de‑escalation modules [1] [8]. Independent verification of curriculum changes, measurable performance improvements, and the post‑incident retraining regime remains limited in the public record; oversight bodies, journalists, and civil‑rights groups continue to press for unredacted training materials, systematic documentation of who received what training and when, and independent audits tied to investigative outcomes [8] [1].