Whistleblowers warn that ICE has reduced training for recruits

Jeff Bennett:

A former ICE attorney and training instructor, who resigned this month, warned that the agency cut training hours for new recruits and instructed them to violate the Constitution.

Ryan Schwank told Democrats in Congress last week that the academy where he trained cadets was — quote — “deficient, flawed and broken.” He says it’s part of an effort to bring in new officers and increase arrests as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Ryan Schwank is here and joins us now with his attorney, David Kligerman.

DAVID KLEIGERMAN, RYAN SCHWANK’S ATTORNEY: Glad to be here.

Ryan Schwank, former ICE Academy coach:

Thank you for having us.

Jeff Bennett:

Ryan, you testified that ICE dramatically shortened its training program for new recruits from 72 days to 42 days. Exactly how much training has been removed and what kind of classes have been cancelled?

Ryan Schwank:

So, from a 584-hour program, they cut about 240 hours. The classes they took included lessons on the basics of the Constitution and the duties of officers within the structure of our legal system.

They cut classes on – multiple classes on use of force, multiple classes on how to use their firearms safely. They took the testing requirements that were put in place to allow us to measure whether or not students who have left the academy can actually exercise their authority in a safe and legal manner.

They take away lessons that are relevant to our understanding of due process within a truly legal system.

Jeff Bennett:

DHS, in response to your testimony, issued a statement that said in part: “Training hours have not been cut. Our officers receive extensive firearms training, are taught de-escalation techniques, and receive comprehensive Fourth and Fifth Amendment instruction,” What would you tell him?

Ryan Schwank:

Well, I’ll start by breaking this into two pieces.

They said the Fourth and Fifth Amendment instructions. And it’s true, there is some of that in the curriculum. But notice that they don’t say anything about removing First Amendment protections. They don’t say anything about due process, do they? They will not deny this part in the statement they issued.

And frankly, in that statement, they said no hours were being cut. This is simply not true. You can look at the curriculum, which, according to Todd Lyons’ testimony, was 42 days of a 72-day program, and 42 days in the public statement they issued in January. And now, all of a sudden, in the same statement that you’re citing, they say it’s 56 days.

They suddenly magically added two weeks of training the day after I testified.

Jeff Bennett:

How prepared do you think new recruits are to distinguish between law enforcement activity and actions that could violate constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment?

Ryan Schwank:

Well, I will tell you that the students themselves brought their concerns about this to me. I have had students tell me that they are unsure of their role or duties.

And to answer your question, no one can tell you right now that these cadets are fully prepared to understand the difference between a legal order and an illegal order because there is no test or measurement for the freshmen of how to apply it in practice, because they specifically removed all the tests that would have told us that.

Jeff Bennett:

At what point did you think it was necessary for you to speak up?

Ryan Schwank:

The day I arrived at the academy and was shown an illegal warrant authorizing officers and requiring me to teach officers how to enter homes without a warrant to make arrests, I realized there was a serious problem.

And from that day on, my goal was to make sure that I could document and track and see what was happening with that memo and then see what was happening with the academy itself, because it was kind of like an avalanche. It started with this, then something after step after step after step.

I’ve just seen this massive degradation and destruction of our training requirements and the things we owe these students. We — there’s a lot of conversations and immigration law about immigrant rights, and that’s a very important conversation. But these same law enforcement officers are at a terrible disadvantage, because we send them out into the world without the training they need to do the job they signed up to do.

Jeff Bennett:

In general, who are these new recruits? And I asked this question because a Democrat during your testimony last week said that ICE and its recruitment attract white supremacists.

Ryan Schwank:

When I was in the academy, sure, there were probably people in the academy who fit this description. But the vast majority of the students I worked with were first- or second-generation immigrants. They were everyday people from all over the United States.

I had many students for whom English was not necessarily their first language. In fact, I remember one particular training scenario, I had six students and none of them had English as their primary language. It is very difficult to say that the students who come to the academy and who come from such a diverse background are white supremacists, when in fact most of them are not white.

Jeff Bennett:

David, what legal protections does your client have as a whistleblower? Are you ready for possible revenge?

David Kligerman:

Yes, unfortunately.

We see this a lot at WhistleblowerAid.org. We have clients coming forward. In this environment, the game has changed. It used to be that you would apply to the Inspector General or the Office of Special Counsel. But these mechanisms were swept away by the Trump administration. In fact, they have been used as a weapon against our whistleblowers.

So, clients like Ryan can usually go through the normal process. They can remain anonymous. There will be an independent person within the system who checks and balances these matters.

With that over, the only option is to go to Congress. This is suboptimal for many reasons. First of all, it is a separate branch of government, so it becomes hostile. Secondly, not all information can be revealed. There are certain things that customers end up with that may be special or there are other things that need to be protected. So they only get a shot.

Ryan has revealed a lot, but it would really be ideal to go through the agency directly.

Jeff Bennett:

Have you ever been reprimanded, pressured, or warned about speaking up internally before you resigned?

Ryan Schwank:

When I was shown the memo, a supervisor handed it to me and explained that the consequence of not approving it would be that I would lose my job and lose my position.

You can see that in the way the academy operates. There was a culture of fear among all the officers I spoke to. I could have conversations with the officers about the program, and about our concerns, but we wouldn’t do that where others could hear us.

You could literally see officers who wanted to talk about how they thought training was turning their heads, looking over their shoulders, and making sure no other people were around to hear them. And it would be–literally, I would ask one of the officers to do it, and then maybe the next day I would talk to an officer, another officer, who was the officer that was worried about him, right?

One looks over his shoulder and sees the guy behind him, and the next day I’m talking to the guy behind him, and he’s looking over his shoulder at the guy I talked to the day before, right? No one trusts anyone in that academy.

No one is willing to put trust in each other to learn about the problems they’re having there, because I think if they did, I think a lot of faculty would say, hey, maybe I don’t know what the legal department does or what the firearms department does, but I know in my unit, in practicum, we’re not measuring things right. Or I know that in my unit, where we teach the use of our computer systems, we rush through it very quickly.

And I think if they all sat down and talked about this, they would realize that, step by step, the academy’s graduates and students who — they don’t have the raw hours, the initial training that they need to do the job right.

Jeff Bennett:

Do you see a connection between the quality of training and the fatal shootings of Nicole Goode and Alex Peretti?

Ryan Schwank:

I think so, but it’s an indirect link, which is why I say that.

The officers involved in these shootings are not recent graduates. They are experienced officers The officer in the shooting of Renee Good is a member of the SRT team, which is basically the special response team they have at ICE. This is a hard position to get. You must have a great deal of experience to get that.

Officers who come out of this academy have half the training. However, they are sent to some of the most controversial and difficult operations ICE has ever undertaken. Never before in the agency’s history have they done what they’re doing in Minneapolis.

And when you put officers who don’t know the law, don’t know use of force policies, and don’t have all the training they need on their firearms in that situation, that’s a recipe for someone else to die, and potentially multiple people to die. This will be done by officers who deserve better from this government.

Jeff Bennett:

Ryan Schwank, David Kligerman, thank you for being here.

David Kligerman:

Thank you for having us.

Ryan Schwank:

Thank you. I appreciate it.