Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What training do ICE agents receive on use of force?
Executive Summary
ICE agents receive formal, multi-component training on use of force that includes firearms, control tactics, less-lethal tools, scenario-based decision making and physical conditioning as documented in ICE’s basic training materials, internal directives, and program handbooks. Critics and investigative reporting contend that training materials historically emphasized prompt, decisive use of deadly force and offered limited de‑escalation guidance, while ICE spokespeople and some internal documents assert that force is a last resort and de‑escalation is taught; these competing portrayals are documented across official handbooks, leaked curricula, and reporting from 2024–2025 [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What ICE says it teaches — a structured, weapons-and-scenarios curriculum
ICE’s publicly released Basic Training Handbook and internal directives describe a structured curriculum covering defensive and control tactics, OC spray and baton use, firearms handling and marksmanship, forcible entry procedures, and use of force decision‑making scenarios intended to condition agents for operational pressures. These materials also mandate physical fitness standards and graded testing with consequences for failure, indicating an institutional emphasis on skills proficiency and accountability during initial training [1] [5]. The handbook’s focus on treating weapons as loaded and strict training protocols signals a conventional law‑enforcement approach that pairs practical weapons training with classroom doctrine, consistent with other federal agency academies, and underscores ICE’s formal claims of comprehensive preparation [1] [5].
2. Investigations say training emphasized force over de‑escalation — leaked lessons and reporting
Investigative reporting in 2024 found archived ICE lesson plans and academy materials from 2006–2011 that trained agents to act quickly with lethal force and often lacked explicit requirements for warning shots or identification before shooting; reporters concluded the materials privileged decisive application of force over de‑escalation tactics [2]. These findings were amplified by contemporaneous news stories and analyses showing that some lesson content encouraged rapid justification of force, a framing that civil rights groups said lowers barriers to lethal outcomes. ICE disputed those characterizations, pointing to later training updates and policy revisions that emphasize force as a last resort and include de‑escalation content, but the investigative files remain a central source for critics who argue historical emphases persist in culture even if policies have changed [2] [1].
3. Citizens Academy materials widen scrutiny — civilian training echoes combat tactics
Internal briefing guides for ICE’s Citizens Academy program, leaked in 2024, show civilian participants receiving hands‑on firearms familiarization, role‑play raid scenarios, and presentations on where to strike with batons, which critics say normalizes aggressive tactics and signals an institutional tolerance for aggressive force narratives beyond professional training. Proponents of the program framed it as outreach to improve public understanding, but the materials’ focus on firearms and tactical advantage raised alarms among watchdogs and journalists that the agency was promoting a combatant image to civilians and stakeholders, complicating ICE’s public relations goals and intensifying calls for oversight [3].
4. Local enforcement partnerships and training variability — the 287(g) example
When ICE expands its role through programs like the 287(g) Task Force Model, training of non‑federal officers includes use‑of‑force topics and civil rights law segments; however, observers have flagged that substantial portions shifted to a 40‑hour online format in recent implementations, raising questions about consistency and depth of training compared with prior four‑week in‑person courses. Watchdogs warn that abridged or virtual training risks uneven application of use‑of‑force standards by state and local partners, exposing the agency to legal and operational risks if civil rights instruction and scenario practice are insufficiently robust [4] [6].
5. Policy texts, oversight gaps, and contested accountability
ICE’s formal directives on firearms and use of force exist and were released under FOIA, but the documents’ practical implementation and the cultural norms within field offices are areas of contention between the agency, watchdogs, and civil‑rights groups. Reporters and advocates cite gaps between written policy and on‑the‑ground practice, particularly around requirements to identify as law enforcement and to exhaust de‑escalation options; ICE counters that policy updates and training reforms address those issues. The debate centers on whether policy revisions since the leaked materials materially changed training culture and whether auditing, body‑camera usage, and external oversight are adequate to ensure compliance and transparency [5] [2] [1].
6. The practical takeaway — what the record shows and what remains unresolved
The composite record shows ICE provides formal, weapon‑and‑scenario‑based use‑of‑force training while investigative reports and leaked curricula demonstrate historic emphases that prioritized rapid application of force with limited de‑escalation focus, prompting calls for stronger transparency and standardized oversight. Whether recent policy changes and training updates have fully remedied those gaps is not settled in the public record; independent audits, clearer public reporting on curriculum content and hours devoted to de‑escalation, and scrutiny of 287(g) partner training remain the clearest paths to verify that training aligns with stated commitments to minimize unnecessary force [1] [2] [4].