What do former ICE officers and DHS officials say on the record about the content and outcomes of Israel‑linked training programs?
Executive summary
Former DHS and ICE officials on the record describe Israel-linked exchanges as routine, institutionally supported opportunities for U.S. personnel to learn counterterrorism, surveillance and urban operations techniques — while also warning privately and publicly that some tactics and technologies imported from Israeli security practices can be controversial or harmful when applied domestically [1] [2]. Advocates and organizers frame the programs as “best practice” counterterrorism training run by groups like the ADL and JINSA, even as critics and some former officials characterize results as the transfer of militarized tactics and surveillance tools that have real consequences for immigrant and marginalized communities [3] [4] [5].
1. What former DHS officials have said: confirmation of routine training and institutional ties
A former senior DHS official told reporters that ICE officers “often train in Israel,” and that DHS has organized conferences, joint training sessions and technology exchanges with Israeli security officials — framing the relationship as long-standing, formalized and broad in scope, including grants and trips that ferry high‑level U.S. law enforcement around Israel [1]. That source also noted internal debate: while the official confirmed the exchanges and technology transfers, they said internal pressure might persuade administrations to change course, and the public record shows DHS did not respond to external requests for comment about specific programs [1].
2. What former ICE officers and testimony have revealed: concrete links to investigative priorities and tech
Former and current ICE-affiliated testimony and reporting have linked Israel-derived tools and partnerships to concrete ICE practices; for example, reporting cites court testimony by a senior Homeland Security Investigations official about using externally sourced lists in investigations and ties between enforcement priorities and outside actors, and other reporting documents sales of Israeli forensic and extraction tools (Cellebrite) and contracts with private tech firms used by ICE [6] [5]. Advocates cite these pieces of testimony and procurement records to argue that training and tech imports are not abstract but translate into operational capabilities used in investigations and surveillance [5].
3. How participants and organizers describe the curriculum: counterterrorism and “best practices”
Organizers and facilitator groups such as the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) and Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) position their National Counterterrorism Seminar and law‑enforcement education programs as teaching counterterrorism, community policing adaptation and “best practices,” bringing U.S. and Israeli officials together for seminars in both countries and inviting Israeli instructors to U.S. sessions [3] [4] [7]. Newsweek and other outlets report that many programs explicitly label sessions on Israeli “lessons learned” in fighting terrorism and that senior U.S. officials have been repeat participants [7].
4. What critics and some former officials warn about outcomes: militarization, surveillance and "worst practices"
Former DHS sources and numerous advocacy organizations argue these programs have facilitated the transfer of militarized crowd‑control, checkpoint and surveillance tactics from the occupied territories to U.S. law enforcement, describing the practical outcome as intensified surveillance, door‑to‑door operations and harsher immigration enforcement patterns; critics call these “worst practices” and link them to increased harm against Black, Latino and immigrant communities [1] [3] [5]. Human rights reporting cited in commentary warns that some Israeli units teaching U.S. officers have been credibly accused of rights violations, raising concerns about exporting tactics tested in occupation settings [8] [7].
5. Gaps, competing narratives and what remains unproven on the record
Public statements from former officials confirm routine exchanges and some technology transfers, but there is limited on‑the‑record evidence directly attributing specific ICE operational changes or policy shifts to particular Israel training sessions; DHS reportedly declined to answer external requests about details, and much analysis relies on advocacy reporting, procurement records and a handful of testimonies rather than exhaustive official admissions [1] [4]. Proponents counter that the programs provide valuable counterterrorism expertise and community policing lessons, a competing narrative that underscores the stated pedagogical intent of ADL and JINSA programs even as critics document troubling downstream uses [3] [7].