What are ICE policies on use of force during raids involving families?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ICE’s formal firearms and use-of-force policy is set out in Directive 19009.3 and an accompanying 2021 handbook that govern when agents may use force, and DHS-wide guidance amended in 2023 required agencies to update policies and emphasize de‑escalation (ICE Directive 19009.3; ICE Firearms and Use of Force Handbook) [1] [2]. Independent reporting and watchdog documents, however, say ICE training and past interim policies gave limited public detail on de‑escalation and that transparency around field practices — especially in family and home raids — remains incomplete [3] [4].
1. ICE has a written use‑of‑force framework, but parts were long kept from public view
ICE published an explicit firearms and use‑of‑force directive (Directive 19009.3) and a 2021 handbook that together set the agency’s formal rules for firearms and force [1] [2]. Business Insider and other reporters have documented that ICE previously operated under an older interim policy and that updated DHS direction in 2023 required agencies to align with new DOJ/DHS standards; ICE acknowledged creating a new policy in 2023 but resisted releasing it for public view at the time of reporting [3]. Available sources do not mention the full text of every operational guideline agents follow during family raids; parts of ICE’s current practices remain behind agency doors [3].
2. Detention standards and restraint rules apply in custody settings but don’t fully answer field‑raid questions
ICE’s detention standards include a Use of Force and Restraints standard authorizing staff to use “necessary and reasonable force” after other efforts fail, and they establish a use‑of‑force continuum and explicit prohibited techniques for detention staff [5]. Those written standards apply to custody settings and to staff conducting operations in facilities, but they do not, in the sources provided, comprehensively describe how agents should behave during home or family raids outside detention centers; community reporting shows a gap between detention rules and field transparency [5] [3].
3. Reporting and training documents raise concerns about de‑escalation emphasis
Investigative reporting obtained ICE training materials from earlier years and concluded those materials offered little guidance on de‑escalation or on identifying oneself before deadly force; Type Investigations and partners noted the DHS 2023 policy requires proficiency in de‑escalation, yet the older training files obtained (2006–2011, revised later) lacked that focus [4]. Business Insider’s analysis found it “next to impossible” to access ICE’s use‑of‑force policies historically, and that absence of transparency made it harder to assess whether field conduct matched written standards [3].
4. Field incidents involving families have sparked local pushback and scrutiny
Recent raids that involved parents and children have triggered local political action and independent reviews: St. Paul city officials pushed for an independent review of police use of force during a federal immigration operation after clashes around a family home, and city councils and community groups pressed for investigations [6] [7]. Local law enforcement leaders in Minneapolis publicly warned officers to intervene if ICE used “excessive” or unlawful force and said officers could physically intervene though they would not necessarily arrest federal agents — a sign of municipal concern when federal operations involve families [8].
5. Community guides and legal groups emphasize how families can protect themselves and document encounters
Nonprofit “know your rights” guides and legal groups provide practical steps for families — e.g., teach children not to open doors, request judicial warrants, record encounters when safe, and set emergency contacts — underscoring how much of the debate over force is played out on the ground by family members and advocates [9] [10]. Homeless service and shelter guidance instruct staff on documenting family separations and reporting alleged misconduct to counsel or watchdogs after raids [11].
6. Conflicting perspectives: agency rules versus watchdogs and local officials
ICE and DHS point to formal directives and recent policy updates to argue force is governed and de‑escalation required [1] [2]. Investigative outlets and civil‑rights groups counter that historical training downplayed de‑escalation, that transparency has been limited, and that field practice has at times appeared aggressive — especially in community recountings of home raids involving children [4] [3] [12]. Local officials’ statements that police may physically intervene if ICE uses “excessive” force underscore municipal skepticism of federal tactics [8].
7. What reporting does not confirm or explain
Available sources do not mention a single, definitive public accounting of how ICE operationalizes use‑of‑force rules specifically during every type of family home raid (not found in current reporting). They do not provide a step‑by‑step checklist that matches every field scenario, nor do they supply a complete catalogue of all post‑raid reviews or disciplinary outcomes across jurisdictions in the period covered here (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers and families
ICE has codified use‑of‑force rules and updated them under DHS direction, yet investigative reporting and local incidents show transparency gaps and community alarm when raids involve children and families; local leaders and legal advocates recommend documentation, legal preparedness, and prompt reporting of any alleged unlawful force [1] [2] [3] [9] [8].