Some new ICE recruits have shown up to training without full vetting
SHARE THIS —Oct. 22, 2025, 4:00 PM EDTBy Julia Ainsley and Didi Martinez
WASHINGTON — Immigration and Customs Enforcement has placed new recruits into its training program before they have completed the agency's vetting process, an unusual sequence of events as it rushes to hire federal immigration officers to carry out President Donald Trump's mass deportation policy, a current and two former Homeland Security Department officials told NBC News.
ICE officials only later discovered that some of the recruits failed drug testing, have disqualifying criminal backgrounds or don't meet the physical or academic requirements to serve, the sources said.
Staff members at ICE's training academy in Brunswick, Georgia, recently discovered one recruit had previously been charged with strong-arm robbery and battery stemming from a domestic violence incident, the current DHS official said. They've also found as recently as this month that some recruits going through the six-week training course hadn't submitted fingerprints for background checks, as ICE's hiring process requires, the current and former DHS officials said.
Per ICE policy, applicants are required to pass drug tests and undergo security vetting through ICE's human resources office before they show up for the training course. The former officials said the process was more strictly adhered to before a hiring surge that began this summer. The process was meant to weed out disqualified candidates before they would be sent to training.
Since the surge began, ICE has dismissed more than 200 new recruits while they were in training for falling short of its hiring requirements, according to recently collected internal ICE data reviewed by NBC News.
The majority of them failed to meet ICE's physical or academic standards, according to the data. Just under 10 recruits were dismissed for criminal charges, failing to pass drug tests or safety concerns that should have been flagged in background checks before they arrived at training, the data indicated and the current and former DHS officials confirmed.
The officials said there is growing concern that in the Trump administration's race to expand the number of ICE agents to 10,000 by the end of the year, the agency could miss red flags in the backgrounds of some new recruits and inadvertently hire them.
"There is absolutely concern that some people are slipping through the cracks," the current DHS official said. The official said many of the issues that have been flagged during training surface only because the recruits admitted they didn't submit to fingerprinting or drug testing before they arrived.
"What about the ones who don't admit it?" the official said.
The Department of Homeland Security told NBC News in a statement that most of its new recruits are former law enforcement officers and former ICE officers who go through a different process.
"The figures you reference are not accurate and reflect a subset of candidates in initial basic academy classes," DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said. "The vast majority of new officers brought on during the hiring surge are experienced law enforcement officers who have already successfully completed a law enforcement academy. This population is expected to account for greater than 85% of new hires. Prior-service hires follow streamlined validation but remain subject to medical, fitness, and background requirements."
An ICE promotion in Arlington, Texas, on Aug. 26.Ron Jenkins / Getty Images file
The Atlantic reported this week on the struggle some ICE recruits have had with meeting the agency's physical fitness requirements. The broader scope of issues and specific data haven't been previously reported.
ICE has been under pressure from the White House to increase hiring with the funding Congress designated in the sweeping tax and spending bill that Trump signed into law on July 4. It has frequently lagged behind the White House's arrest goal of 3,000 per day, which it has attributed to a lack of staffing.
As part of the effort, ICE shortened the training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia from 13 weeks to eight. The training was later shortened to six weeks, the DHS official said.
Recruits also are supposed to attest that they can pass ICE's physical fitness test, which includes situps, pullups and running 1½ miles in under 14 minutes, 25 seconds.
Darius Reeves, who recently left his position as ICE field office director in Baltimore, said he believes the agency's Aug. 6 decision to waive age limits so older people can join has led to more recruits' failing the physical test.
"These new recruits are dropping like flies," Reeves said in an interview after having spoken with colleagues seeking to bring new hires into the agency. "And rightly so; it makes sense. We're going to drop the age requirements, of course this was going to happen."
Nearly half of new recruits who've arrived for training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center over the past three months were later sent home because they couldn't pass the written exam, according to the data. The academic requirement includes an exam in which officers are allowed to consult their textbooks and notes at the end of a legal course on the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fourth Amendment, which outlines when officers can and can't conduct searches and seizures.
A slightly smaller group were dismissed because they failed the physical fitness test or had medical challenges; some of those sent home had made it clear on their applications that they couldn't meet ICE's physical requirements but were sent to training anyway, the current and former DHS officials said.
Fewer than 10 of the new recruits were dismissed because ICE training leaders learned from them during the training program that they had pending criminal charges or failed their drug tests or were otherwise considered safety concerns, the officials said.
The three sources said ICE's human resources office is overwhelmed with more than 150,000 new applicants who have applied since ICE began offering $50,000 signing bonuses in August. The HR office is rushing to clear new recruits, which they believe is leading to mistakes.
"They are trying to push everyone through, and the vetting process is not what it should be," said one of the former DHS officials with knowledge of the agency's hiring.
The current DHS official likened the pressure on ICE's human resources employees to clear recruits to "asking them to pull a rabbit out of a hat."
Julia Ainsley
I am NBC News' Senior Homeland Security Correspondent.
Didi Martinez
Didi Martinez is a producer for NBC News' national security unit.
Laura Strickler contributed.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors

It shouldn't matter if you're having a hiring surge. Do your jobs! Vet these people and make sure they're fit for service
Unless there is some internal reigning in of these people things are going to get worse. There is going to be a large subset of applicants who want to be ICE because that will let them beat up and harass people. There are enough people with a sadistic streak like that to fill ICE ranks, and how can we trust they will be weeded out? We cant.
[✘]
[✘]
check this out TG
ICE Agents Drag Blind Man Across Pavement and Drop Him on His Head | The New Republic
That's awful! Fucking thugs!
He was mouthy , but obviously not a threat to them or their vehicles. He was sitting off to the side.
Thank you, John. Now then, that man was 'off the hook' with his mouthyness. What he did was wrong. What he called officers at one point was wrong ("N-word plural.)
What I wish is that people can protest without giving CONTEXT for a 'righteous' arrest.
Just this week, I. . . 'experienced' (was too close for comfort as my car was blocked during this incident by police cruisers) a young black woman (early 20s thereabouts) going off on city police about an incident inside a store where they were called to come (3 cars deep). What was striking was the level of agitation SHE had. . . . Her hostility towards the officers who did not touch her or arrest her was 'wild.' As I listened in. . . she told them she did nothing; she would come back to the store the next day if they wanted to meet her there; she wanted badge numbers! She insisted on those numbers! She 'knows' her rights! 'They have nothing on her!' —Plus!
In my opinion, as I watched and listened, the impression came across to me that she was literally 'trolling' police officers who merely responded to a store request.
And then this thought came to me: If she continues to run her mouth. . . what are the odds that she would blab out something 'skirting' the law or flatly against the law? That is, do these people behaving 'so' realize that if they have not crossed the line at the 'first' that. . . if they continue to be loud (or spit on the sidewalk) or position themselves wrong. . . that it can be interpreted as crossing the line and then comes the handcuffs and being thrown into the back of a police cruiser?
How much 'abuse' are police expected to take. . . before she literally runs her mouth and gives them a cause?
Sometimes, one's mouth can overload one's . . . .
Someone comments in the video of this incident that his man 'sprawled' himself on the line-likely 'trolling' the officers until they came and 'collected' him. Fair is fair. He can't just sit there aggravating. . . get behind the line and stay there and make his case.
I'm sorry, we must be looking at two different videos. First of all this man is blind. Unless he had a suicide bomber vest on there was no way he could be a threat to the ICE officers. Second, he doesnt appear to be blocking anything when they come and drag him away, he is sitting on the ground on the side of the road. His "crime" is calling them names and yelling at them. That is not against the law.
This is a second or two before they start to drag him away. They didnt throw him to the ground he was already sitting on the ground, and not in a place where he could block any vehicle.
And anyway, why would a blind person try and block a vehicle ?
Look at 1:19 in the video and note the color of the pants and the proximity to where the man is (later) seen plainly sitting. Also, listen closely to what someone in the video says about the marking on the road. That is all I am saying: Do not give cause or provocation- if possible . Legally blind does not mean totally blind. Also, the guy flips himself in the carrying position on the officers unexpectedly. What did he think they would just let him go after taking him into custody? Finally, he has a potty mouth and reminds me of somebody intent on agitating and let's be clear I am giving him 'every' benefit of the doubt that I can! That 'N-word' comment was undeserved (at least from what is occurring when he is facing the wall.)
Not surprising. I assumed a lot of incel neckbeards would be rushing in to be one of Trump's brownshirts.
They don't really care about law and order.
They don't want immigrants doing things the right way so they go after good people at courthouses.
Hiring dregs to be an untrained unqualified brownshirt brigade of vigilantes is a cheap shot at deniability when things go badly.
Could be you might wanna read the INA - you know - the part that sez if you're in this country WITHOUT permission, you ARE an ILLEGAL ALIEN and CAN/WILL BE deported. (CFR TITLE 8, Sec. 1325)
That would be the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) which strengthened U.S. immigration laws, adding penalties for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes while in the United States or who stay in the U.S. for statutorily defined periods of time.
The Act was designed to improve border control by imposing criminal penalties for racketeering, alien smuggling and the use or creation of fraudulent immigration-related documents and increasing interior enforcement by agencies charged with monitoring visa applications and visa abusers. The Act also allows for the deportation of undocumented immigrants who commit a misdemeanor or a felony.
Simple language - easy to understand once you read it.
It is 'typical' do as I say ("Jim" and/or Jill" -Bob hirings) and damn proper procedure. We have seen this before in this country. . . is it any wonder why some conservatives want to get rid of history? So they can redo the vulgarities and obscenities done in the past all over again?