4 Strategies To Improve ICE and CBP Recruiting, Hiring, and Training Using State and Local Best Practices

The Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has received tens of billions of dollars in funding to dramatically expand its workforce, deploying tens of thousands of agents across the United States who are carrying out aggressive, often violent, and even unlawful immigration enforcement operations.¹ Cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, and more, have seen unprecedented surges of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in their streets.² At the same time, DHS has lowered recruiting, hiring, and training standards, resulting in a rapid influx of woefully unprepared agents.

With approximately $30 billion in funding for hiring and training made available to ICE from congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, DHS faces no shortage of funds for immigration enforcement.³ The agency therefore should be investing in increasing hiring standards to ensure that only the most qualified candidates are selected and then enrolled in training programs that can serve as models for law enforcement agencies across the country. Instead, the Trump administration has made the dangerous decision to drastically lower hiring requirements and screening protocols and gut essential training that ensure that ICE and CBP agents have the critical skills to fulfill their roles safely. DHS has rushed the hiring of thousands of applicants and provided limited training to fill the ranks with unqualified and unprepared agents. While the overall federal workforce was reduced by around 10 percent last year, according to DHS, ICE more than doubled the number of officers and agents from 10,000 to more than 22,000 in just more than six months following the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill.⁴

By contrast, state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide have implemented evidence-based practices to improve the quality of their recruitment and hiring efforts and ensure comprehensive training that properly prepares officers for their roles. These policies help protect communities by reducing many of the abuses that routinely feature in ICE and CBP operations.

Congress must require DHS to address its key recruitment, hiring, and training problems. DHS should follow the lead of state and local agencies and adopt tested policies that prevent the hiring of unqualified agents, ensure training is thorough, improve accountability, and set clear expectations for professional standards.

Inadequate law enforcement training can have severe, even fatal, consequences for both community members and law enforcement officers. The Trump administration’s escalated enforcement operations, combined with increased acquisition and deployment of weaponry for civil immigration enforcement, have heightened this risk.⁹ Under the current administration, DHS has increasingly used aggressive tactics in city after city such as deploying flash-bangs and tear gas at protesters, including controversial incidents in which Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino threw tear gas canisters at protestors in Minneapolis and Chicago and a night raid was launched on a Chicago apartment building involving a Black Hawk helicopter and 300 agents.¹⁰ A whistleblower account from a former agency employee, corroborated by internal DHS documents, revealed that training for new ICE agents under the Trump administration was “deficient, defective, and broken.”¹¹

A recent CNN investigation into 30 law enforcement positions across the 20 largest federal law enforcement agencies found that ICE agents now receive fewer training days than all but two roles examined.¹⁹ Many federal agencies, including the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), require more than twice as many training days for special agents as ICE agent cadets.²⁰ The gap is even wider when compared with state and local law enforcement. While ICE’s training now lasts just 42 days, most state and local law enforcement officers trained through police academies complete an average of 806 hours, more than 100 eight-hour days of basic training.²¹ Many academies also mandate a field training component requiring an average of 503 hours, or around 62 eight-hour days, to complete.²² ICE cadets with previous law enforcement experience are able to participate in an even more abbreviated training, with no standards to ensure their prior training was adequate.²³ By reducing its training requirements, DHS is prioritizing speed over quality, lowering its standards far below what the public expects and undermining the safety of communities.

For Carlos De La Garza, a paperwork error by an ICE agent who was inadequately trained under DHS’ now-shortened training program resulted in dayslong detention until a federal judge ordered his release.²⁴

Recent violent incidents involving federal immigration agents during escalatory enforcement operations conducted in American cities highlight the need for ongoing training and regular evaluation of its effectiveness. The agents involved in the killings of Alex Pretti and Renée Good had years of experience prior to the shootings.³⁰ The investigations into their deaths should assess whether the agents’ training was sufficient and identify any necessary agencywide improvements.³¹ Not only are training requirements for new recruits inadequate, but existing training has proved insufficient to ensure public safety during these operations.

DHS should ensure that ICE and CBP agents receive high-quality training that prepares them for the current and evolving dynamics of the job and that has been shown to improve community outcomes. DHS and Congress should follow the lead of state and local law enforcement agencies that have raised standards and improved training to reduce use-of-force incidents and enhanced public safety.

CAP recommends that DHS and Congress adopt the following four practices commonly used by state and local law enforcement agencies.

In recent months, ICE and CBP have been involved in numerous excessive use-of-force incidents, including fatal shootings; violent and overly aggressive apprehension tactics that escalate encounters; and the improper use of pepper balls, rubber bullets, tasers, and other less-lethal weapons on protestors.³² These events signal an urgent need to improve use-of-force standards and training. Although the Trump administration claims that “DHS law enforcement officers are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to de-escalate dangerous situations to prioritize the safety of the public and our officers,” ICE whistleblower Schwank testified that all legal instruction on use of force was eliminated, meaning cadets are no longer taught that their actions must meet the legal standard of being “objectively reasonable.”³³ Despite a nearly 400 percent increase in use-of-force incidents involving ICE agents reported in early 2025, the administration continues to claim that training is adequate even though internal documents show it has been aware of these increases since at least March 2025.³⁴

According to an investigation by The Trace, a nonprofit news organization focused on gun violence, there have been 43 incidents of agents holding people, including bystanders and protesters, at gunpoint “under questionable circumstances.”³⁵ Public concern over these escalatory tactics by ICE and CBP is so strong that state lawmakers in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland have introduced legislation that would prevent ICE agents hired during the Trump administration from joining state law enforcement and other public jobs.³⁶ A sponsor of the Washington bill stated it was introduced “to prevent those sorts of dangerous tactics from becoming part of the culture of policing in Washington state.”³⁷

It is critical that all law enforcement agents have a clear understanding of the types of force permissible and prohibited under specific circumstances. DHS must also ensure that all agents have a clear understanding of the legal bounds of use of force by restoring the instruction, which was recently cut, that explains how to determine whether force is permissible. Given agents’ recent conduct, DHS should also reinstate mechanisms to track and discipline misconduct.³⁸

De-escalating situations to protect the public and prevent harm is a core responsibility of law enforcement. The administration has expanded immigration enforcement in cities and other densely populated areas. As a result, ICE and CBP agents are interacting more with community members, many of whom are protesting these unnecessary actions. At the same time, ICE and CBP have dramatically increased their budgets for less-lethal weapons, such as crowd-control devices, tasers, and tear gas.³⁹ In a departure from past immigration enforcement actions, agents are increasingly using less-lethal devices and tactics against bystanders, preventing them from lawfully observing these operations. The decision to deploy these weapons has led to the escalation, rather than de-escalation, of incidents in many cities. A federal judge found that DHS agents were using tear gas in a neighborhood where children were present without providing any warning.⁴⁰ The same judge said that there was “ample evidence that agents … intended to cause protesters harm” based on several encounters with protestors.⁴¹

DHS must improve its training and practices related to de-escalation. It should follow the lead of 12 states that, since 2020, have expanded and updated their de-escalation training.⁴² The agency should be transparent about the type and duration of training it provides and ensure it is updated and informed by best practices in policing. Studies have shown that implementing de-escalation training is associated with reductions in use of force and injuries.⁴³ When designing and implementing a de-escalation training program, DHS should use evidence-based approaches that draw upon successful models from jurisdictions across the country.⁴⁴

DHS must also ensure that its use-of-force policy is faithfully implemented and there is accountability when officers and agents use excessive force in violation of policy. Under the Biden administration, DHS raised standards and aligned its use-of-force policies with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reduce use-of-force incidents and promote public safety.⁴⁵ Although this policy remains in effect on paper, the significant increases in use of force under the Trump administration and DHS’ refusal to prosecute or discipline agents indicates that the policy is not being properly followed.⁴⁶ In the case of Renée Good, DHS has been accused of actively impeding investigation into the shooting.⁴⁷ Congress must rein in the violent and dangerous tactics of DHS law enforcement by establishing statutory requirements to increase transparency and accountability within DHS to prevent dangerous practices. For example, a pending House bill, the DHS Use of Force Oversight Act, would require “ICE and other DHS agencies to keep people safe by implementing the same standards as virtually every other law enforcement agency in the country,” explained Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI).⁴⁸

State and local law enforcement agencies nationwide recognize the risks of vehicle pursuits, particularly to passengers and bystanders, who account for more than half of pursuit-related fatalities.⁵⁵ In response, many agencies have implemented pursuit policies that require weighing the potential harm of escape against the need to protect public safety when deciding whether to pursue a vehicle.⁵⁶

Despite the known risks, vehicle pursuits have become a common feature of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations.⁵⁷ Inadequate training and pursuit policies under the Trump administration have contributed to numerous tragedies, including the death of Dr. Linda Davis, a teacher in Georgia, and multi-car crashes in Newark, New Jersey, and Saint Paul, Minnesota.⁵⁸ ICE’s pursuit policy, which has not been updated since 2012, gives ICE greater leeway than CBP to initiate vehicle pursuits.⁵⁹ In January 2023, CBP updated its vehicle pursuit policies and adopted several widely accepted best practices to better protect the safety of law enforcement and the public.⁶⁰ However, this improved policy was rescinded on January 20, 2025, the day that President Trump was sworn in for his second term.⁶¹ In October 2025, CBP issued new guidelines and gave agents greater authority and less guidance to conduct vehicle pursuits compared with the Biden administration and many local police agencies.⁶²

Although the Trump administration’s CBP pursuit policy does include language that requires agents to balance “law enforcement benefit and risk to the public,” additional policy guidance issued under the Biden administration to assist agents in making this important decision was rescinded.⁶³ Additionally, pursuit immobilization techniques (PIT), which require agents to intentionally make contact with the back of a driver’s car in an attempt to spin and ultimately stop the vehicle, were expressly prohibited under the Biden administration.⁶⁴ This decision was likely due to the long-acknowledged risks of PIT maneuvers and the lack of evidence on how to safely and effectively use them.⁶⁵ No mention of a ban on PIT maneuvers is included in the unredacted portions of the current CBP policy.⁶⁶

To ensure community safety, DHS must increase its standards for authorizing car chases and ensure that officers are properly trained to assess when the harm of a chase outweighs its potential benefits. DHS should also provide regular, transparent reporting on the number of pursuits; the component units and personnel involved; the location; the vehicles involved; the pursuit’s outcome and charges filed; and any potential property damage, injuries to bystanders, or uses of force.

Shooting at moving vehicles is another tactic that has been widely restricted at the state and local levels due to the inherent risks of the practice.⁶⁷ When shooting at a moving vehicle, it is easy to miss and hit a passenger or bystander. If the driver of the vehicle is hit, new safety threats may emerge for the community or officers if the driver loses control of the car.⁶⁸ Because of this risk, nearly three-quarters of police departments in the 100 largest U.S. cities have prohibitions against shooting at moving vehicles.⁶⁹ While DHS policy does state that agents are prohibited from shooting at vehicles unless it is necessary to stop a “grave threat,” there is no clear rule that requires officers to move out of the way of moving vehicles if possible, as specified in DOJ policy and policies in many state and local police departments across the country.⁷⁰ Instead of blaming victims of its escalatory, dangerous tactics, the administration should be working to increase standards to prevent injuries and deaths in communities.⁷¹

Racism, extremism, and misconduct have no place in law enforcement. It is critical that DHS adopt policies to screen out candidates with extremist affiliations and histories of misconduct and establish clear procedures to investigate allegations—and when necessary, remove agents found to have extremist ties after employment has begun. Given that many ICE and CBP agents were hired through a rushed, questionable, and less than robust screening process, DHS should implement a remedial rescreening process once improved standards are in place.

Thorough vetting of candidates should take place before offers are extended and include a vigorous, multistep background investigation that screens for relevant skills, desired or undesired character traits, and dangerous or unlawful past activity.⁷⁶ Investigators should scrutinize education and military records, driving records, social media, and credit history; coordinate social or psychological evaluations, and conduct interviews with friends and family. It may be necessary for DHS to hire additional investigators to ensure that the agency is able to properly vet the surge of applicants DHS is now receiving.⁷⁷

As part of its expansion of ICE and CBP personnel, DHS has increased recruitment efforts, including across social media.⁷⁸ A leaked strategy document revealed plans for DHS to spend $100 million on ICE recruitment in one year, with $8 million earmarked for online influencers.⁷⁹ Alarmingly, many ICE and CBP recruitment ads have used racially charged images and extremist dog whistles.⁸⁰ The visuals and messaging in these ads often frame immigration “as an existential threat” and suggest that immigrants are “criminals and predators.”⁸¹ This is despite the facts that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens and that 73.6 percent of the people detained by ICE and CBP have no criminal convictions.⁸² The recruitment ads also rely heavily on war-like rhetoric that former Obama administration ICE Director Sarah Saldaña warns may “attract untrained recruits eager for all-out combat.”⁸³

Reports also indicate that DHS is using geofencing as a strategy to push ads to phones of particular people based on their location. In this case, DHS is using geofencing to target people who have attended gun shows, UFC fights, NASCAR races, or shown interest in tactical gear,⁸⁴ which has seemingly attracted unsuitable agent candidates with ties to extremist organizations. It has been reported that some agents have tattoos related to the Proud Boys, which has been categorized by the FBI as “an extremist group with ties to white nationalism” and which is designated as a terrorist organization in other countries and as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.⁸⁵

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has also raised concerns that DHS may be recruiting and hiring January 6 insurrectionists as agents, since the administration has already hired insurrections in the DOJ.⁸⁶ Rather than implementing recruitment strategies aimed at screening out unqualified candidates, these recruitment decisions seem to suggest that the Trump administration is more concerned with filling the ranks with people who are ideologically aligned with its agenda than with safely enforcing the law.

Multiple reports point to the inadequacies of the current vetting process. One anonymous U.S. official reported that recruits have been hired before their background checks were completed. As a result, people were hired despite having issues, including serious flags such as having affiliations with street groups or open arrest warrants, on their record.⁸⁷ One journalist who attended a job fair said that she was given a tentative offer to be a DHS agent after just a six-minute interview.⁸⁸ In the weeks that followed, she continued receiving information about moving on in the hiring process despite not completing necessary forms, including a background check or the domestic violence affidavit. While a journalist with no known warrants or problematic affiliations clearly does not pose the same risks if hired as people with these serious flags on their record, it is still concerning that candidates are progressing through the hiring process without completing all necessary screening requirements.

While some suggest that the minimum hiring age for law enforcement should be increased to 25 to better align with developmental science, returning the minimum age to 21 will be an important step in ensuring that new agents have the appropriate capabilities to fulfil their duties.⁹⁷

While there is some variation in the minimum age for law enforcement officers across the country, most state and federal police agencies require that officers be 21 or older.¹⁰²

Federal law enforcement should maintain training and hiring standards at least equal to those of state and local law enforcement agencies. While the Trump administration continues to try to normalize masked ICE and CBP agents illegally entering family homes; dangerous car chases; unnecessary and dangerous deployment of less-lethal weapons; inappropriate surveillance and intimidation of lawful observers; and egregious use-of-force incidents, including multiple fatal shootings, many state and local law enforcement agencies demonstrate that safer, more accountable law enforcement is possible.

By conducting thorough background investigations of candidates and designing and implementing comprehensive training programs that equip agents with the skills to prevent dangerous use-of-force incidents, state and local agencies are raising standards and prioritizing safety and accountability. In contrast, DHS has continued to lower standards under the Trump administration’s guidance. Congress must ensure that DHS improves recruiting, hiring, and training standards to prevent unqualified candidates from being hired and ensure all ICE and CBP agents are extensively trained to safely and lawfully fulfill their roles.

The Trump administration has made clear through its actions and rhetoric that it has little regard for public safety or the rule of law. This apathy has normalized dangerous practices among ICE and CBP cadets and agents. As ICE whistleblower Schwank pointed out in his testimony about training cadets, “The academy can teach them until they’re blue in the face, but if they see that in practice the real rules are different than what we are teaching them, they follow the rules that they see.” To help ensure that essential training lessons are practiced in the field, agents must be held accountable for their actions. Congress must ensure that DHS recruitment, hiring, and training reforms are coupled with additional policy changes that require agents to be identifiable; ensure that mechanisms are in place to hold them accountable for misconduct and improper uses of force; and that they understand, respect, and uphold constitutional rights.¹¹¹

The authors would like to thank Dan Herman and Debu Gandhi of the Center for American Progress for their consultation on this piece. The authors would also like to thank Mariam Rashid and Chandler Hall for fact-checking this piece.