Recent scrutiny has focused on the operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with politicians and journalists increasingly referring to the agency as a “paramilitary force.” Representative John Mannion of New York called ICE “a personal paramilitary unit of the president,” while journalist Radley Balko argued that President Donald Trump utilized the force “the way an authoritarian uses a paramilitary force.” New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie characterized ICE as a “virtual secret police” and “paramilitary enforcer of despotic rule.”
This characterization raises fundamental questions: What defines a paramilitary force, and does ICE fit that definition?
Defining Paramilitaries
According to a government professor specializing in policing and state security forces, ICE exhibits characteristics of both definitions of paramilitary forces. The term is commonly used to describe highly militarized police forces—official parts of a nation’s security apparatus equipped with military-grade weaponry and operating under a centralized command structure. Examples include the French Gendarmerie, India’s Central Reserve Police Force, and Russia’s Internal Troops.
The term also applies to less formal, often partisan armed groups operating outside regular state security sectors. These groups, like the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, can emerge from community self-defense or be established—and sometimes supported—by governments despite lacking official status. Political scientists also refer to these as “pro-government militias.”
AP Photo/Mukhtar Khan
Is ICE a Paramilitary?
The recent use of the term “paramilitary force” to describe ICE encompasses both definitions: a militarized police force and a tool for repression. ICE undeniably meets the criteria of a paramilitary police force, operating as a federal police agency under the Department of Homeland Security and exhibiting heavy militarization, adopting weaponry and operational patterns of the regular military.
Data indicates that approximately 30% of countries have paramilitary police forces at the federal level, with over 80% maintaining smaller militarized units. The creation of ICE in 2001, following the September 11th attacks, is one of only four instances since 1960 where a democratic country established a new paramilitary police force, alongside Honduras, Brazil, and Nigeria.
ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also share characteristics with the second definition of paramilitary forces—repressive political agents—though they are official state entities. Officers are reportedly less professional, receive less oversight, and operate in more overtly political ways than typical military or local police forces. CBP’s head of internal affairs described a lowering of standards following 9/11, leading to the recruitment of potentially unfit officers.
This issue was exacerbated by the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of ICE, adding approximately 12,000 recruits—more than doubling its size—while simultaneously reducing training lengths. Furthermore, ICE and CBP are subject to fewer constitutional restrictions than other law enforcement agencies, including exemptions from oversight regarding excessive force and the ability to conduct warrantless searches within 100 miles of the border.
The Trump administration also reportedly cultivated immigration security forces as political allies, with the ICE union endorsing his 2016 campaign with overwhelming support from its members. Today, ICE recruitment increasingly utilizes far-right messaging. Both ICE and CBP have been deployed against political opponents during protests in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, and have gathered data to surveil citizens’ political activities.
Why This Matters
Research consistently demonstrates that increased militarization of policing correlates with higher rates of police violence and rights violations, without demonstrably improving public safety. More militarized forces are also harder to reform and can create tensions with both the military and civilian police, as is currently occurring with ICE in Minneapolis.
The similarities between U.S. immigration forces and informal paramilitaries in other countries—less effective oversight, less competent recruits, and increasing partisan identity—suggest these issues may be particularly intractable. This may explain why commentators are increasingly using the term “paramilitary” as a warning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a paramilitary force?
A paramilitary force can refer to a highly militarized police force that is an official part of a nation’s security forces, or to less formal, often partisan armed groups that operate outside of the state’s regular security sector.
Does ICE fit the definition of a paramilitary force?
ICE exhibits characteristics of both definitions. It is a heavily militarized police force, but also displays some traits of a force used for political repression.
What are the potential consequences of increased militarization of law enforcement?
Research suggests that more militarized policing is associated with higher rates of police violence and rights violations, and can be more difficult to reform.
Given the evolving nature of ICE’s role and the concerns raised about its practices, what steps might be taken to ensure greater accountability and transparency within the agency?
