Ice Immigration: Former Instructor Tells Congress Agency Slashed Training and Misled Lawmakers
Ryan Schwank, a former immigration enforcement instructor and career agency attorney, told a congressional hearing that recent changes to the Ice Immigration training program have left new recruits unprepared for lawful policing duties. The testimony came as internal documents show a rapid reduction in days and hours of training, a contraction officials at the Department of Homeland Security deny.
Development details
Schwank resigned from the agency on Feb. 13 and spoke at a hearing on Feb. 23. He said the ICE Basic Immigration Enforcement Training Program was "deficient, defective, and broken, " and alleged agency leaders lied about how much instruction recruits receive. The documents he provided include a July 2025 syllabus and an updated syllabus dated February 2026 that show the instructional period shrinking from 72 days to 42 days within seven months.
A January 2026 model daily schedule in the materials indicates that some new recruits are receiving about half the training hours given to earlier cohorts, an analysis by staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation found. A list of required exams from October 2025 shows cadets are being graded on a fraction of the topics that were necessary four years earlier. Several evaluations related to use-of-force procedures — named in the documents as "Encounters to Detention" and "Judgment Pistol Shooting" — appear to have been eliminated.
Schwank, represented by the legal group Whistleblower Aid, warned lawmakers that without reform ICE could graduate thousands of officers who do not understand constitutional limits, lawful use of force, or how to recognize an unlawful order. The hearing was organized by Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Robert Garcia.
Context and escalation
The hearing came amid heightened scrutiny of immigration enforcement after several incidents in which federal officers deployed deadly force, including the January killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis. Calls for accountability have grown, and some Democrats have linked Department of Homeland Security funding to a set of reforms for the agency — including proposals to bar agents from wearing masks.
In response to the disclosures, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement denying that training requirements had been eliminated. DHS said it had "streamlined training to cut redundancy and incorporate technology advancements, without sacrificing basic subject matter content, " asserting that new programs preserve essential instruction even as schedules change.
What makes this notable is the compressed timeline shown in the documents: within seven months the basic training window contracted by 30 days while specific use-of-force evaluations disappeared from required testing, a shift that trainers and Democratic committee staff flagged as material to frontline competency.
Immediate impact
The primary immediate consequence is on the officer pipeline. The January 2026 schedule and the October 2025 exam list together indicate fewer classroom and practical hours on critical topics; Schwank characterized the result as cadets graduating without a solid grasp of tactics or the law. That shortfall, he said, could translate into on-street officers who do not know the limits of their authority or how to decline unlawful orders.
The hearing also sharpened political stakes. Lawmakers pressing for reform pointed to the documents as evidence that the agency’s training has been materially altered. The Senate subcommittee analysis providing the hour-by-hour comparison amplified those concerns for members who are considering linking DHS appropriations to changes in ICE practice.
Forward outlook
The disclosure record spans from an earlier July 2025 syllabus, through an October 2025 exam list, to a January 2026 daily schedule and a February 2026 updated syllabus, establishing a recent pattern of curriculum change that lawmakers and staff are now examining. Schwank’s testimony and the document set have already entered the congressional record and are being used by oversight staff for further review.
Officials at DHS have publicly defended the new training design as streamlined rather than diminished, and congressional leaders who organized the hearing signaled continued scrutiny of training content and oversight. The immediate next steps on the congressional calendar include further analysis by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation and consideration of whether to attach reform conditions to Department of Homeland Security funding decisions.
The debate now centers on whether compressed training and removed evaluations represent efficiency improvements or a reduction in core competency, a determination that will shape both policy oversight and funding choices in the months ahead.
