Fact check: How do ICE fitness standards compare to those of FBI Special Agents, CBP Officers, and state law enforcement?

1. What advocates and critics are saying — the headline claims that matter now

Reporting asserts a substantial failure rate among ICE recruits on the agency’s basic PFT and links that to recruitment pressures and operational risks; the test cited requires 15 push‑ups, 32 sit‑ups, and a 1.5‑mile run under 14 minutes, and one investigative piece quantifies that more than one‑third of new recruits fail it, prompting internal alarms about field readiness and backlog effects ^{[2] [6]}. That failure statistic is the key empirical claim driving debate: advocates for higher standards point to it as evidence that ICE must improve recruiting and training; officials pushing rapid expansion argue expedited onboarding is necessary to meet policy goals, creating friction between hiring speed and fitness outcomes ^{[7] [2]}.

2. ICE’s test on paper — specifics and how they’re being reported

ICE’s formal PFT as summarized in agency material lists four timed events with minimum thresholds: 32 sit‑ups in one minute, 22 push‑ups in one minute, a 220‑yard sprint in 47.73 seconds, and a 1.5‑mile run in 14:25, establishing a clear baseline for applicants and recruits ^[1]. Independent reporting and follow‑up articles use slightly different shorthand — for instance, some stories report a 14:00 run cutoff and 15 push‑ups as the operative pass/fail metrics — but the agency document and reportage converge on moderate endurance and muscular endurance expectations rather than elite athleticism ^{[1] [2]}.

3. FBI’s changes — a different model for measuring readiness

The FBI’s 2025 update reshapes its physical test by removing sit‑ups and reinstating pull‑ups, organizing four events (pull‑ups, 300‑meter sprint, push‑ups, 1.5‑mile run), and adjusting scoring to a 10‑point pass threshold; in practical terms the new structure emphasizes upper‑body pulling strength that sit‑ups did not measure while preserving sprint and run standards for anaerobic and aerobic capacity ^{[3] [4]}. That change makes direct numeric comparisons misleading: FBI candidates are now assessed on different movements and a composite scoring system, so an ICE recruit meeting sit‑up and push‑up minima may still fail an FBI standard that demands pull‑ups and a different scoring profile ^[3].

4. State law enforcement and CBP/CBSA — patchy comparison data

Reporting compares ICE requirements to some state academies and finds overlap with typical state‑level minima; for example, an Iowa standard for female cadets under 30 mirrors ICE’s moderate expectations — 15 push‑ups, 32 sit‑ups, and a 1.5‑mile run near 15:30 — underscoring that ICE’s baseline sits within the range of many state agencies rather than far below them ^[8]. For CBP and Canada’s CBSA, the provided materials do not include a clear, current PFT to allow apples‑to‑apples comparison: CBSA selection steps describe prerequisites but omit physical thresholds, and the supplied CBP/CBSA references are insufficient to draw firm conclusions about parity with ICE or FBI standards ^{[5] [6]}.

5. The operational picture — failure rates, training backlogs, and policy tension

Multiple reports tie the ICE failure rate to operational consequences: recruits who do not pass PFTs create training backlogs and are sometimes rerouted to administrative duties, complicating the agency’s capacity to expand field operations rapidly as requested by policymakers ^{[2] [7]}. This is a policy fault line: expansion advocates cite urgent staffing needs while training and readiness advocates emphasize that measurable fitness standards are directly tied to officers’ abilities to conduct arrests and physically demanding fieldwork. The evidence provided shows a clear trade‑off between hiring velocity and meeting the agency’s stated physical benchmarks ^{[6] [2]}.

6. Bottom line — what’s known, and what’s still missing

What is demonstrable: ICE publishes a PFT with concrete minima and recent reporting documents a substantial failure rate among new recruits; the FBI’s 2025 test is retooled to assess different capabilities, complicating side‑by‑side numerical comparisons ^{[1] [2] [3]}. What remains unresolved in these materials: uniform, up‑to‑date PFT thresholds for CBP/CBSA and a comprehensive, standardized cross‑agency metric that would allow definitive ranking of which agency’s tests are objectively “harder.” Policymakers and agency heads must reconcile recruitment goals with training capacity and clearly disclose comparable standards if a coherent national baseline for law‑enforcement readiness is to be established ^{[5] [6]}.