Are ICE agents more forceful now than they have been in the past?
Executive summary
A clear upward shift in forceful encounters by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents is evident in reporting from 2024–2026: publicly recorded shootings, vehicle-intervention tactics and community confrontations rose sharply after the 2024 election and the agency’s expanded deployments in 2025, producing a higher visible tempo of force than in many prior years [1] [2] [3]. That rise sits against long-standing gaps in transparency and federal accountability, meaning the pattern is both real in documented incidents and contested in legal and political terms [4] [1].
1. The evidentiary picture: more shootings and aggressive arrest tactics in recent years
Multiple investigations and data reviews show an increase in use-of-force incidents attributed to ICE beginning around 2024, accelerating after large deployments in 2025; Axios reports at least seven officer-involved shootings since the 2025 surge and notes that prior to 2025 the agency averaged about one agent shooting case per year, sometimes none [1]. ProPublica and other outlets documented a sharp increase in forceful maneuvers during community arrests — for example, agents breaking vehicle windows and more aggressive stops — with ProPublica identifying nearly 50 such vehicle-break incidents during the second Trump administration versus eight in the previous decade [3].
2. Deadly force: documented incidents, limited prosecutions
Long-form investigations catalog decades of deadly force by ICE and show that from 2015–2021 ICE agents discharged firearms at least 59 times, injuring 24 and killing 23, while prosecutions of federal agents remained rare; reporting underscores that none of the shootings examined resulted in indictments, illustrating how federal legal pathways and immunities constrain accountability [5] [4]. Recent high-profile deaths — including the Minneapolis case that ignited national controversy — have intensified scrutiny precisely because video evidence and local investigations sometimes contradict official federal narratives [6] [4].
3. Policy and training: rules exist but opacity fuels dispute
ICE operates under DHS and federal use-of-force policies and detention standards that authorize necessary force but restrict deadly force to narrow circumstances, yet agency training materials and full use-of-force policies are largely not public, limiting independent assessment of whether recent actions adhere to internal rules [7] [5]. Analysts and legal scholars argue that without public access to complete policy and training documentation it is hard to determine whether an uptick in force reflects changed doctrine, altered tactics, or implementation failures [5].
4. The political context: deployments, mandates and divergent narratives
The surge in arrests and enforcement in communities after the 2024 election — and the White House’s vigorous defense of agents in some high-profile shootings — has reframed ICE’s role from less-visible immigration enforcement toward paramilitary, city-level operations, provoking clashes with mayors, state attorneys general and sheriffs who see a rise in misconduct [2] [8] [9]. The administration and ICE frame many uses of force as justified responses to threats; critics frame the same episodes as evidence of systemic militarization and lack of local accountability [6] [8].
5. What reporting cannot settle and why the question remains partly open
Available reporting establishes a measurable increase in documented forceful acts and deadly encounters involving ICE agents since 2024–2025, and it demonstrates structural accountability gaps that make prosecutions or pattern-and-practice oversight rare [1] [4]. What current sources cannot fully resolve is whether the uptick reflects formal policy changes inside ICE versus tactical choices by individual agents or task forces, because key training materials and internal after-action documentation remain unavailable or incomplete in the public record [5] [7].