Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

Immigration enforcement agency ICE faces growing public divide amid recruitment surge and training questions, according to a new poll that shows 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the agency’s performance.

The survey, conducted by NPR, PBS, and Marist, revealed stark partisan divisions in how Americans view Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While an overwhelming 91 percent of Democrats disapprove of ICE’s work, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (73 percent) approve. Independents largely align with Democrats, with 66 percent expressing disapproval.

Public sentiment has shifted notably over the past year. The percentage of Americans who believe ICE has gone “too far” in enforcing immigration laws has increased by 11 percentage points since last summer, with most of this change coming from Democrats and independents.

The polling results come at a challenging time for the agency, which has faced intensified scrutiny following two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens during confrontational protests in Minnesota. These incidents have raised questions about ICE’s training and operational protocols amid a significant expansion of its workforce.

Under the Trump administration, ICE has undergone a dramatic personnel increase. The Department of Homeland Security reported in January that the agency has seen a 120 percent surge in manpower following an aggressive recruitment campaign. According to DHS figures, ICE has grown from approximately 10,000 agents to around 22,000 nationwide after receiving roughly 220,000 applications.

To attract qualified candidates, the agency has offered substantial incentives, including signing bonuses of up to $50,000, student loan repayment assistance of up to $60,000, and premium pay increases of up to 25 percent. These incentives have helped ICE meet its ambitious recruitment targets, but have also raised questions about the quality and thoroughness of training for the influx of new agents.

Traditionally, ICE recruits begin their careers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in Georgia. The standard training programs, such as the Enforcement and Removal Operations Basic Course, historically lasted several months and provided comprehensive instruction on legal standards, tactical operations, and enforcement procedures.

However, recent investigations suggest that parts of this training process have been significantly abbreviated. According to fact-checking by the Poynter Institute, based on reporting from multiple news outlets, the training period for some new ICE agents has been reduced from approximately five months to about eight weeks of classroom and hands-on instruction — roughly 48 training days if conducted six days per week.

The exact duration varies depending on specific roles and how training days are calculated, but multiple sources confirm an overall compression of the timeline. Reporting by The Atlantic, also analyzed by Poynter, indicates that elements once considered essential in ICE training programs — including language instruction, cultural sensitivity training, and immersive coursework — have been reduced or replaced with shorter modules and increased reliance on technology.

Despite these changes to the training timeline, ICE maintains strict prerequisites for employment. According to DHS, all candidates must pass a comprehensive background check, drug screening, medical examination, and physical fitness evaluation before entering training. Many ICE law enforcement positions also require at least a bachelor’s degree or a combination of education and relevant work experience — standards the department says are designed to screen for reliability and sound judgment in high-pressure enforcement situations.

As ICE continues its expansion amid polarized public opinion, questions about the balance between rapid growth and thorough agent preparation remain at the center of the national conversation about immigration enforcement.

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.

10 Comments

  1. I’m glad to see increased scrutiny of ICE’s training and protocols. Transparency and accountability are crucial for any government agency, especially one with significant enforcement powers. Hopefully this leads to constructive reforms.

  2. John K. Johnson on

    Interesting to see the public divide on ICE. It’s a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. I’d like to learn more about the agency’s training and protocols to understand the operational challenges they face.

    • Yes, the fatal shootings raise important questions that deserve closer scrutiny. Transparency and accountability are crucial for an agency with such broad enforcement powers.

  3. As someone interested in the mining and energy sectors, I’m curious how this ICE story relates to issues like labor shortages, border security, and supply chain resilience. There may be indirect economic impacts worth exploring.

    • Patricia X. Johnson on

      That’s a good point. The workforce and operations of an agency like ICE could definitely have ripple effects on industries that rely on immigrant labor or cross-border logistics.

  4. Patricia Johnson on

    The polling data suggests Americans are increasingly concerned about ICE going too far in enforcement. This aligns with broader debates around immigration reform and balancing security with civil liberties. It’s a nuanced issue without easy answers.

    • Agreed. Navigating the tradeoffs between law enforcement, humanitarian concerns, and political ideology is extremely challenging. Careful analysis is needed to find a path forward.

  5. Jennifer Thomas on

    The partisan divide on views of ICE is disheartening but not surprising given the political polarization around immigration. I hope we can move beyond simplistic ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ stances to have a more nuanced discussion of the agency’s role and performance.

  6. Jennifer V. Jones on

    The partisan split on views of ICE is striking. It highlights how immigration has become a deeply polarized political issue. Objective analysis of the agency’s performance and policies is needed to move past the rhetoric.

    • Amelia E. Hernandez on

      I agree. Fact-based reporting and public dialogue are essential to find constructive solutions, rather than just reinforcing existing divides.

Leave A Reply

A professional organisation dedicated to combating disinformation through cutting-edge research, advanced monitoring tools, and coordinated response strategies.

Company

Disinformation Commission LLC
30 N Gould ST STE R
Sheridan, WY 82801
USA

© 2026 Disinformation Commission LLC. All rights reserved.