What proportion of ICE applicants complete the full background check process before beginning training?
Executive summary
Available reporting does not provide a definitive proportion of ICE applicants who complete the full background-check process before beginning training; primary sources show the agency’s written policy requires vetting before entry into training but multiple news reports document that some recruits entered training without having finished fingerprinting or other elements of their background investigations [1] [2] [3]. Publicly available counts in news reporting—such as an NBC review and agency data cited by outlets—identify hundreds of recruits dismissed during training for a mix of reasons, but those counts lack the necessary denominators and consistent definitions to convert into a reliable percentage [4] [3].
1. ICE policy says vetting should come first, on paper
ICE’s official guidance describes a multi-step vetting regime for new hires that includes fingerprinting, e-QIP security forms, adjudication against federal standards and, once on board, continuous vetting that can draw on commercial and government databases [1] [5]. The agency’s applicant materials and “how to apply” pages repeat that the process includes a background investigation, drug testing, medical and fitness screens prior to employment or entry into a frontline role [2] [6]. Those published requirements establish the baseline expectation: applicants should ordinarily complete core checks before beginning training [1] [2].
2. Reporting documents breaches of that sequence but not a clean numerator/denominator
Investigative reporting from NBC and coverage by outlets such as The Independent and PBS say ICE placed some recruits into training before background-check steps—fingerprints and other vetting—had been completed, and that agency data show more than 200 recruits were later dismissed during training for failing standards that included criminal-history issues, drug tests and safety concerns [3] [4] [7]. NBC’s reporting also notes smaller, specific tallies—“just under 10” dismissed for criminal charges or drug-test failures in one dataset—underscoring that different data cuts and subsets are being cited by sources [3]. Those pieces are concrete evidence that the policy-to-practice gap existed, but they do not supply the total number of applicants who entered training during the same period, nor do they define precisely which stages of vetting were incomplete for each trainee, making a direct proportion calculation impossible from the public record provided [4] [3].
3. Why a simple percentage is unattainable from the available sources
To estimate a proportion one needs two things: a reliable numerator (how many trainees began without completed background checks) and a reliable denominator (how many total applicants or trainees entered training in the same window). The available reporting gives scattered numerators—hundreds dismissed during training, and examples of fingerprinting delays—but does not publish a comprehensive count of recruits who started training unvetted nor a contemporaneous total class size or applicant pool figure linked to those incidents [4] [3]. Even attempts to back-of-the-envelope a rate—dividing the cited “more than 200” dismissals by public claims about hiring targets like “nearly 10,000” new agents—would mix incomparable datasets and assume causal and temporal equivalence that reporters and agency spokespeople warn against [4] [7].
4. Conflicting narratives and institutional incentives
ICE and DHS officials have pushed back on some media characterizations, saying figures in certain reports reflect subsets of initial classes and noting that many new hires are experienced law enforcement who underwent different hiring streams, signaling an institutional interest in minimizing perceptions of procedural breakdowns [4]. Independent critics and advocacy groups, by contrast, emphasize systemic risk from a rapid hiring surge and document specific case examples and legal guides illustrating the complexity of completing e-QIP and fingerprinting steps—both perspectives are present in the record and affect how one interprets incomplete vetting counts [8] [5].
5. Bottom line
There is verified evidence that some ICE recruits entered training before completing required background-check steps, and reporting cites hundreds of in-training dismissals for disqualifying issues, but the sources provided do not supply the paired totals needed to calculate a defensible proportion of applicants who completed background checks before training began [3] [4] [1]. Any single-percentage claim would exceed what the cited public reporting supports; the responsible conclusion is that the phenomenon occurred and was nontrivial in reported instances, but its prevalence as a share of all applicants remains unquantified in the available sources [3] [4] [1].