Politics

Whistleblower alleged that ICE significantly reduced training programs during congressional hearing

The Department of Homeland Security is receiving a “dangerous husk” of information and training, according to a former lawyer for the agency.

Photo of a masked man wearing sunglasses. Protestors can be seen in the reflection of his sunglasses.
FILE - A U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent looks on during a protest outside the Federal Building on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Wally Skalij, file)

A whistleblower exposed that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement training programs have been significantly reduced in a statement during a congressional hearing on Feb. 13.

Ryan Schwank, a former ICE lawyer and assistant chief counsel for the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, resigned in February out of protest, according to a spokesperson at Whistleblower Aid.

The agency’s training program has been significantly reduced, and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that oversees ICE, lied about the elimination of certain requirements, Schwank told Congress in the hearing.

Some of the cuts to the program include a 35% reduction in training hours, 16 fewer exams, and classes such as “Judgment Pistol Shooting” and “Use of Force Simulation Training” no longer listed as requirements to become an officer, according to documents released by anonymous whistleblowers.

The documents were obtained by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, who hosted the hearing with Rep. Robert Garcia, a Democrat from California.

According to Schwank, officers are not given proper training on the use of firearms, their legal authority, Constitutional rights or lawful arrests without the use of force. He resigned from his position as an instructor of law at the training academy on the day of the hearing.

“ICE is teaching cadets to violate the Constitution,” Schwank said at the hearing.

The DHS denied that the training program has been cut. Department spokeswoman Lauren Bis said in a statement that the agency has “streamlined training to cut redundancy.”

As ICE has cut training programs, the DHS said that over 12,000 new ICE officers were hired as of January, doubling their total number of agents from 10,000 to 22,000.

ICE officers have been accused of using excessive force and violating constitutional rights while detaining people as a part of the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts.

As of 2026, ICE officers have killed at least eight people, according to the Guardian, raising training and regulation concerns and leading Democratic politicians to oppose funding for the DHS. However, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act allocated $170 billion in funding for the agency’s operations that will carry them through Trump’s remaining time in office.

“Deficient training can and will get people killed,” Schwank said at the hearing. “It can and will lead to unlawful arrests, violations of constitutional rights and fundamental loss of public trust in law enforcement.”

Schwank and another anonymous whistleblower also previously revealed that ICE officers were instructed in a memo from the agency to forcibly enter homes without a warrant, according to Blumenthal’s office. Blumenthal urged others in a statement to publicize information about any internal ICE operations.

“To anyone else who is repulsed by what you’re seeing or what authorities are asking you to do, please know that you can make a real difference by coming forward,” Blumenthal said.

William Resh, a professor and chair of the Department of Public Management and Policy at Georgia State University, is an expert in executive and bureaucratic politics, presidency and public management.

“[Schwank’s] not a political actor,” Resh said about the attorney’s whistleblowing. “He’s someone who was hired to teach the law, and he found himself being ordered to teach officers to break it.”

Resh also mentioned the precautions Schwank took to limit negative occupational outcomes, stating that his actions are most likely due to the consistent poor protection whistleblowers receive from the judicial system.

“The practical reality is that most federal whistleblowers experience career consequences, regardless of whether or not they have protections,” Resh said. “So his decision to resign before he testified probably reflects a rational calculation on his part about the limits of those protections.”