The forum, part of congressional oversight into ICE training and officer conduct amid accusations of excessive force and civil-rights violations in immigrant arrests, was hosted by Democratic lawmakers.

ICE counters that training has been streamlined to remove redundancy while preserving core content, including firearm instruction, de-escalation, and Fourth and Fifth Amendment education.

DHS reports a hiring surge, with about 12,000 officers and agents brought on in the first year of the administration’s second term, financed by the major appropriations package.

Funding discussions tied to the Trump era are described as lasting through the end of his term, potentially enabling continued deportation efforts amid DHS budget debates.

DHS and ICE defend the training model, stating recruits undergo about 56 days of formal training plus roughly 28 days of on-the-job training, with no overall reduction in training hours.

Officials emphasize that the program has been streamlined to focus on arresting and removing dangerous individuals, while maintaining essential instruction in use of force and constitutional rights.

DHS has rejected Schwank’s accusations, while Schwank maintains his statements reflect a commitment to constitutional principles and lawful policing.

A former ICE training instructor, who resigned in mid-February, testified at a Democratic forum that ICE’s officer-training program is deficient and has had essential elements reduced or shortened, raising concerns about readiness.

Schwank’s testimony came as scrutiny of ICE practices during the Trump administration intensified, with lawmakers highlighting the need for constitutional safeguards.

DHS and ICE contend that cadets receive the same total training hours as before, with scheduling adjustments and continued on-the-job evaluation.

The overarching story centers on tension between lawmakers and DHS over ICE training adequacy, officer safety, and civil-rights protections amid aggressive immigration enforcement.

Schwank warns that cadets could be deployed with minimal supervision and insufficient grounding in constitutional standards, risking unsafe or unlawful conduct in high-pressure operations.