Wednesday, February 25, 2026- A former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) instructor and attorney, Ryan Schwank, delivered explosive testimony to Congress this week, accusing the agency of drastically reducing critical training for new officers and misleading lawmakers about it.
Schwank testified at a forum hosted by Democratic members of Congress that ICE cut hundreds of hours — roughly from around 580 to just over 300 hours — from its basic academy curriculum, eliminating instruction on topics such as constitutional rights, lawful arrests, use of force, and firearm safety. According to Schwank, internal documents shared with lawmakers show the program was shortened from about 72 days to 42 days while still sending recruits into the field.
Schwank described the training program as “deficient, defective and broken” and said recruits are being pushed into enforcement roles without the preparation necessary to uphold the law and protect public safety.
He also alleged that he was instructed to teach recruits policies allowing officers to enter homes without judicial warrants — a practice he said violated constitutional protections — and that agency leadership directed instructors to withhold the full truth from Congress and the American public. His testimony has intensified concerns about the quality and legality of ICE enforcement operations amid the agency’s rapid expansion of personnel.
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE have vehemently denied Schwank’s claims, asserting that training remains comprehensive and that reforms have “streamlined” the curriculum without cutting essential content. But the whistleblower’s allegations have drawn condemnation from civil rights advocates and lawmakers who are calling for immediate oversight and reform.
With this high‑profile testimony coming as ICE faces ongoing scrutiny over its tactics and recent fatal encounters involving federal agents, the dispute over training standards adds fresh urgency to broader debates about immigration enforcement and constitutional accountability in federal law‑enforcement agencies.
0 Comments