Whistleblower Blows Up ICE Training Claims

Congress is being asked to trust a mass hiring surge at ICE even as internal documents show major cuts to the training meant to protect Americans’ constitutional rights.

Story Snapshot

Former ICE attorney and instructor Ryan Schwank resigned Feb. 13, 2026, alleging the new-officer training program was gutted and “deficient, defective and broken.”
Whistleblower documents shared with Congress compare earlier and updated syllabi, showing fewer training days, fewer practical exams, and eliminated courses—including constitutional-rights instruction.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons previously testified that training hours were not reduced, arguing schedules were adjusted instead; critics say the documents contradict that claim.
Democrats, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, are using the disclosures to press for oversight and potential funding conditions, while DHS defends the revised approach as still rigorous.

What the Whistleblower Says Changed Inside ICE Training

Ryan Schwank, an ICE attorney who also served as an instructor, left the agency on February 13, 2026, then provided documents to Congress alleging deep reductions in training for new immigration enforcement officers. The material compares a pre-surge syllabus with a newer version and describes cuts of nearly 250 training hours, a drop in practical exams from 25 to 9, and the removal of multiple courses. Schwank warned the shortened pipeline increases risks of unlawful arrests and other mistakes.

The documents also point to specific subject areas that were trimmed or removed. According to the reporting, entire blocks such as use-of-force simulations, instruction on U.S. government structure, and constitutional-rights training were eliminated from the revised program. Schwank’s concerns focus less on politics than on basic competence: practical testing and scenario work are where officers learn to apply rules under pressure. When those hands-on checks are replaced with simpler evaluations, mistakes become harder to catch before officers hit the field.

Lyons’ Testimony vs. the Syllabi Comparisons

The dispute is sharpened by what Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told Congress earlier in February. Lyons argued that training hours were preserved through scheduling changes—described as shifting from five eight-hour days to six twelve-hour days—rather than cutting content. Critics say that claim is hard to square with syllabi showing fewer training days and fewer required modules. DHS, through spokesperson Lauren Bis, has defended the program as still providing extensive firearms training and rigorous on-the-job development.

From a constitutional perspective, the most consequential part of the whistleblower package is not the political theater—it is the allegation that instruction on constitutional limits was reduced while enforcement tempo is rising. Training that emphasizes Fourth and Fifth Amendment boundaries is one of the few internal guardrails that can prevent bad stops, improper detentions, or paperwork shortcuts that later collapse in court. If Congress is told hours were preserved, lawmakers will likely demand clearer reconciliation between “hours” and the actual curriculum removed.

The Hiring Surge and the Pressure to Scale Up Enforcement

The training dispute lands in the middle of a broader expansion. ICE is pursuing a major hiring push discussed as reaching 10,000 new officers, with fiscal year 2026 projections that would put thousands more Enforcement and Removal Operations officers through graduation by summer and into early fall. The reporting ties this surge to White House pressure for higher daily arrest totals and to a larger legislative and budget framework supporting rapid expansion. That scale makes training quality a frontline issue, not an administrative footnote.

Warrantless Entry Allegations Raise the Stakes for Oversight

Congressional interest is also shaped by earlier claims connected to Lyons, including a January disclosure that ICE policy would allow warrantless home entries—an approach critics argue collides with longstanding Supreme Court doctrine. Former DHS counsel Stevan Bunnell is expected to testify that officers cannot “sign their own warrants,” a concise way of stating the core constitutional objection. If training on constitutional rights is simultaneously reduced, the combination would heighten the odds of violations, litigation, and public backlash regardless of one’s views on immigration enforcement.

For voters who supported President Trump because they want border control restored after the Biden years, the practical question is how to enforce the law without giving opponents a new opening to claim abuses. Strong enforcement and constitutional compliance are not competing goals; they are mutually reinforcing. The whistleblower’s documents, and the apparent inconsistency between leadership testimony and written syllabi, put the burden on DHS to show exactly what was cut, what replaced it, and how recruits will be tested before they’re empowered to make life-altering decisions.