Paramilitary ICE and CBP Units: Militarized Immigration Enforcement in America [2025]

When federal agents arrived at 37-year-old Alex Pretti's Minneapolis home on a January morning, they didn't knock and announce themselves like police. They breached the door with explosives, flooded in wearing tactical gear and military-style helmets, and within minutes, Pretti lay dead. He wasn't a fugitive. He wasn't wanted for a violent crime. He was simply in the wrong place when federal immigration agents decided it was time to execute a raid.

This wasn't an isolated incident. Just weeks earlier, in the same city, federal agents shot and killed Renee Good during another enforcement operation. Both deaths involved agents from specialized tactical units within the Department of Homeland Security—units that operate more like special forces teams deployed in Afghanistan than like local police departments.

These paramilitary units—ICE Special Response Teams (SRT), Customs and Border Protection SRT, and the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC)—have become the visible face of Trump administration immigration enforcement. They're characterized by militarized tactics, aggressive protocols, and minimal accountability. Understanding how these units operate, where they came from, and why they're being deployed in American cities is essential for anyone concerned about civil liberties, police accountability, and the militarization of federal law enforcement.

This comprehensive guide explores the structure, tactics, and impact of these paramilitary immigration units.

TL; DR

• Tactical units like BORTAC and ICE SRT use military-style equipment and breaching explosives typically reserved for war zones, including flash-bang grenades, tactical gear, and assault rifles
• These units have expanded from border operations to routine immigration enforcement in American cities, a role they weren't originally designed or trained for
• No DHS agents involved in shootings since July have faced state or federal charges, raising accountability concerns
• Personnel typically come from military special operations backgrounds, making them trained for combat rather than civilian policing
• Legal guidance has removed warrant requirements for arrests in some contexts, further reducing judicial oversight

Operation Metro Surge led to a high number of arrests across major cities, with Los Angeles seeing the highest estimated number of arrests. Estimated data based on enforcement reports.

What Are Paramilitary Immigration Units?

Paramilitary immigration enforcement units sound like an oxymoron. Immigration enforcement should involve identifying people without proper documentation and initiating deportation proceedings. It shouldn't involve military-style operations, explosives, and armed tactical teams.

Yet that's exactly what's happening across America.

These units aren't traditional law enforcement. They're patterned directly after U.S. military special operations teams. BORTAC, in particular, draws heavily on veterans from elite military units and U.S. Special Operations Command. When you recruit soldiers trained for counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, teach them immigration enforcement protocols, and send them into American neighborhoods with military-grade equipment, you get something that looks nothing like a local police department.

The distinction matters. Regular police are trained for community policing, de-escalation, and proportional response. They're accountable to local oversight mechanisms, city councils, and state laws. Tactical immigration units operate under federal authority with different rules, different training, and different accountability structures.

Imagine if your local police precinct suddenly started conducting raids with explosives, military assault rifles, and no-knock protocols for routine traffic stops. That would cause outrage. Yet when DHS units do exactly this for immigration enforcement, it often goes unnoticed by the broader public until someone dies.

As Gil Kerlikowske, former CBP Commissioner, noted: "BORTAC in particular is used to operating in the desert. They are not trained for urban policing. It's like using a chain saw to mow your lawn."

That's not just a colorful metaphor. It describes a fundamental mismatch between tool and task that directly endangers civilians.

The Origins of Special Response Teams

These units didn't appear overnight. They have a history that explains their militarized character.

ICE's Special Response Teams emerged from earlier enforcement divisions and were formalized as BORTAC expanded in the 1990s. BORTAC itself was established as a Border Patrol tactical unit in the early 1980s, specifically designed for high-risk border enforcement situations. The intent was reasonable: handle dangerous situations at the border where trafficking organizations or cartels might be involved.

CBP's Office of Field Operations established its own 143-member SRT in 2006, created following Hurricane Katrina when rapid-response tactical teams seemed necessary for emergency operations. Over time, these units became the standard for immigration enforcement rather than emergency-only tools.

The expansion accelerated after 9/11. As the Department of Homeland Security consolidated immigration enforcement, Border Patrol, and customs functions, the militarized approach became normalized. Units designed for border warfare got repurposed for interior enforcement.

Personnel and Military Background

These aren't regular law enforcement officers who received tactical training. Most come with military special operations experience.

The agencies actively recruit from military special operations communities. This makes sense from a recruitment perspective—soldiers with elite training bring expertise in tactics and weapons handling. But it creates a cultural and operational mismatch. These personnel are trained for military operations against armed adversaries in combat zones. Teaching someone to conduct counterterrorism operations and then reassigning them to immigration enforcement doesn't erase their training or the mindset it created.

Jonathan Ross, the ICE SRT agent who killed Renee Good, was hired by Border Patrol in 2007. His 2015 reassignment to ICE SRT represented his transition from traditional enforcement to tactical operations. Similarly, personnel involved in other deadly incidents come from military or tactical backgrounds, not traditional policing.

This recruitment pattern creates fundamental differences in approach. Military special operations teams train for high-casualty scenarios, operating in hostile environments against armed enemies. Civilian police train for de-escalation, proportional response, and community safety. Mixing military recruitment with civilian enforcement roles produces predictable results: military-style tactics deployed in civilian contexts.

BORTAC units are significantly more equipped and trained for high-risk operations compared to regular immigration enforcement, reflecting their specialized role. (Estimated data)

How Tactical Units Operate in Immigration Enforcement

The operational procedures of these units differ dramatically from standard law enforcement. Understanding these procedures is essential to understanding why deadly incidents keep occurring.

Equipment and Weaponry

Standard ICE and CBP officers typically carry handguns and may have access to less-lethal tools. Tactical unit members are equipped like infantry soldiers.

The standard loadout for SRT and BORTAC operations includes:

• Full tactical gear and body armor exceeding what most police departments issue
• Military-style combat helmets with face protection
• Assault rifles (typically AR-15 or equivalent platforms)
• Flash-bang grenades for disorienting occupants
• Pepper ball launchers and chemical dispersants
• Foam or rubber projectile launchers for crowd control
• Breach tools and explosives for door entry
• Night vision and tactical lighting for low-visibility operations

This equipment list reads like a military raid loadout, because that's exactly what it is. These are tools designed for combat operations, deployed in residential American neighborhoods.

During the Minneapolis operations in January 2025, federal agents deployed these weapons during operations targeting immigrant communities. Video documentation showed armed, masked federal agents in full tactical gear breaking into homes. The contrast with traditional police operations was stark.

Breach and Entry Protocols

One of the most significant operational differences involves how these units enter buildings.

Traditional police executing search warrants generally follow established protocols: knock and announce, give occupants time to respond, and use force only if necessary. These procedures exist to minimize civilian injury and provide people opportunity to comply.

Tactical units use dynamic entry breaching, which prioritizes speed and surprise over announcement. This involves:

• Using explosives to breach doors
• Immediate room clearance with weapons drawn
• Rapid movement through structures with minimal warning
• Assumption of hostile environment

These techniques make sense in military contexts where the enemy is likely armed and hostile. They create unnecessary danger in residential settings where occupants are usually non-threatening and surprised by sudden violence.

According to leaked ICE SRT operations guidelines from 2019, the units were previously restricted from routine warrant service. They were designated for high-risk operations only. This restriction has been eliminated, allowing tactical units to conduct operations they were explicitly deemed unsuitable for just years earlier.

Warrant Requirements and Legal Authority

A critical operational change has been the modification of warrant requirements.

Traditionally, law enforcement needed a judicial warrant from a judge before entering a home to make an arrest. This judicial oversight served as a check against arbitrary enforcement and protected against unreasonable searches.

According to whistleblower reports and DOJ guidance, ICE and CBP agents have been told they no longer need judicial warrants before breaking into homes or making arrests in certain circumstances. Instead, they operate under administrative warrants or mere ICE warrants (warrants signed by ICE officials, not judges).

This represents a significant removal of judicial oversight. A judge is neutral and required to find probable cause. An ICE official signing an internal warrant has every incentive to approve enforcement actions. The judicial check is gone.

This legal shift has enormous implications. Without judicial oversight, the only restraint on enforcement discretion is internal policy and supervisor approval. When those internal policies already authorize military-style tactics, civil rights protections evaporate.

The Minnesota Operations and Deadly Force Incidents

Minnesota became ground zero for tactical immigration enforcement operations in 2025. What happened there provides a clear case study in how these units operate and the consequences they produce.

Operation Metro Surge

The Trump administration launched "Operation Metro Surge" as a signature immigration enforcement initiative. The name itself reflects the military language that's become normalized in immigration enforcement discourse.

The operation's explicit goal was to conduct large-scale enforcement sweeps in major American cities, particularly those in Democratic-controlled states. Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Chicago became primary targets. The selection of these cities suggested the operation wasn't primarily driven by immigration policy concerns but by political considerations.

Gregory Bovino, Border Patrol sector chief, led the initial Minneapolis operations. Bovino had previously overseen enforcement in multiple cities, suggesting a coordinated national approach. The tactical units deployed under his command conducted raids in residential neighborhoods, schools, and daycare centers.

The scope of the operation became clear through reports: agents arrested teachers conducting lessons, parents picking up children, nursing home residents. The enforcement net was cast extraordinarily wide, suggesting the primary goal was visible enforcement activity rather than targeting genuine public safety threats.

The Death of Renee Good

On January 7, 2025, Renee Good was shot and killed by ICE SRT agent Jonathan Ross during an enforcement operation.

The circumstances around Good's death remain contested, as is often the case with police shootings. Official accounts claim she was non-compliant or posed a threat. Independent accounts from witnesses suggest she was unarmed and confused when she was killed.

What's consistent across accounts: tactical units broke into her location, chaos erupted, and Good ended up dead. The specific facts of how and why the shooting occurred have been obscured by the opacity that surrounds these operations.

This opacity is intentional. Tactical unit members often wear masks and have their faces blurred in official photos. Identifying individual agents is deliberately difficult. Few consequences follow shootings, creating a situation where tactical unit members operate with extraordinary impunity.

The Death of Alex Pretti

Three weeks later, federal agents killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse.

CBP SRT agent Raymundo Gutierrez was identified by Pro Publica as one of two masked federal agents who shot Pretti. Again, the specific circumstances remain contested. Officials claimed Pretti was dangerous. Witnesses questioned this characterization.

What seems clear: federal agents executed a dynamic entry into Pretti's home using tactical procedures and weapons designed for high-risk military operations. A person died. No judicial warrant had been obtained from a judge. The agents involved faced no criminal charges.

Greg Bovino, the operation's initial leader, made a public statement claiming Pretti intended to "massacre law enforcement." This claim, offered without evidence, shaped the narrative around the incident. It also revealed how these operations justify themselves: by claiming they prevent imaginary threats, they justify military-style tactics in civilian contexts.

Operational Expansion and Scope Creep

When Operation Metro Surge began, it started with high-profile targets. Gradually, the scope expanded to include routine enforcement operations.

Agents began conducting raids at schools and daycare centers, directly targeting parents and guardians during their workday. This wasn't targeting of dangerous criminals—it was targeting of working parents. The message was clear: immigrants should be too terrified to send their children to school or daycare.

This represents a fundamental shift in how enforcement operates. Rather than targeting specific individuals based on evidence of criminal activity, it became blanket surveillance and apprehension of immigrant communities. The goal transformed from criminal law enforcement to terrorizing a population.

The tactical units' militarized procedures meant these enforcement operations looked and felt like war zones. Armed, masked agents in full tactical gear breaking into schools created images of occupation, not law enforcement.

Enforcement operations significantly undermine trust, education, healthcare access, and economic stability in immigrant communities. Estimated data reflects the severity of these impacts.

Tactical Procedures and Civilian Risk

The procedures these units employ create inherent risks for civilians. Understanding these risks is essential to understanding why the death toll from these operations will likely increase without procedural changes.

Flash-Bang Deployment Without Warning

Flash-bang grenades (officially called flashbang stun grenades) are designed to disorient occupants through extreme noise and bright light. They're effective in military contexts where combatants expect violence.

In residential settings, their use is extraordinarily dangerous. Deploying flash-bangs in homes with children, elderly residents, or individuals with medical conditions creates serious risks:

• Temporary deafness can last hours, making communication impossible
• Bright light can trigger seizures in susceptible individuals
• The psychological impact of sudden explosive noise and light creates panic
• Occupants have no time to understand what's happening or comply
• The device has caused permanent hearing loss and eye injury

When deployed without warning in homes where residents have done nothing wrong, flash-bangs transform a potentially routine encounter into a traumatic assault. People don't have time to move children away from windows, position vulnerable family members safely, or even understand what's occurring.

No-Knock Entry Without Judicial Authorization

Traditional law enforcement conduct knock-and-announce entries, giving occupants opportunity to respond before force is used. This gives people time to reach doors, comply with instructions, and avoid sudden violence.

Dynamic entry with explosives eliminates this opportunity. Occupants don't know who's entering, why they're entering, or what's expected of them. In some cases, occupants have legally defended themselves with firearms, believing they were being invaded, leading to tragic confrontations with federal agents.

The legal justification for these entries has been weakened by allowing administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants. Judges have discretion to impose conditions on warrants, including requirements for announced entries or limiting use of explosives. Administrative warrants issued by ICE officials lack these safeguards.

Crowd Control and Protest Response

These units have been deployed to suppress protests and community responses to immigration enforcement operations.

When communities gathered to oppose enforcement sweeps—people exercising constitutional rights to assemble and petition—tactical units responded with:

• Chemical dispersants (pepper spray, tear gas) without warning
• Pepper ball launchers firing projectiles into crowds
• Foam/rubber launchers causing injuries
• Dogpiling techniques subduing people with overwhelming force
• Indiscriminate crowd clearing without dispersal orders

This represents use of tactical units for political purposes. Suppressing dissent against government immigration policy is a core First Amendment concern. Yet it's happened repeatedly without serious legal challenge.

Accountability Deficits and Legal Protection

One of the most troubling aspects of paramilitary immigration unit operations is the near-total absence of accountability.

No Criminal Charges for Deadly Force

The statistic bears repeating: zero criminal charges in 16 DHS shootings. Not zero convictions—zero charges even brought.

This stands in stark contrast to local police accountability trends. When police officers in Minneapolis kill unarmed civilians (as happened with George Floyd), charges are brought, trials occur, and convictions sometimes result. There's a national conversation about police accountability and use of force standards.

When federal tactical units kill unarmed civilians, nothing happens. No investigation by state authorities, no federal charges, no civil consequences. The agents involved continue working, conducting more operations, building track records of violence with impunity.

This creates obvious incentive problems. If agents know they'll never face charges regardless of circumstances, what restrains their conduct?

Agency Self-Investigations and Opacity

When incidents occur, the agency involved investigates itself. DHS opens a case, DHS interviews agents, DHS determines whether policy was followed.

This is an inherent conflict of interest. The investigating agency has every incentive to exonerate its personnel. Career advancement, unit reputation, and legal liability all point toward determining that agents acted appropriately.

Additionally, investigations remain secret. Even when completed, findings aren't disclosed to the public. Families of people killed don't receive detailed explanations. Communities aren't informed about what happened. Only vague official statements and agent claims shape the public understanding.

Compare this to civilian-involved shootings in most cities, where investigations are transparent, findings are published, and community oversight occurs. Federal tactical units operate with nearly complete secrecy.

Masked Identities and Accountability Prevention

Tactical unit members routinely wear masks during operations. Faces are blurred in official photos. Names aren't disclosed to the public.

This serves operational purposes (preventing recognition, maintaining tactical surprise), but it also serves an accountability-prevention purpose. If nobody knows who the agent was, they can't be identified for a lawsuit, can't be subpoenaed as a witness, can't be interviewed by journalists, and can't be held accountable through any mechanism.

Some independent researchers have begun identifying agents through facial recognition and other methods, publishing names and photos to social media. This has created controversy and received resistance from DHS. The message is clear: these agencies want to maintain the ability to operate anonymously.

Civil Rights Claims and Limited Remedies

Civil rights advocates have filed lawsuits alleging constitutional violations by these units. However, the remedies available are limited.

Individual agents typically aren't named in complaints—the agencies are. This means even when lawsuits succeed, liability falls on the government rather than individual agents. The agent faces no personal consequence.

Moreover, federal law provides broad immunities to federal officers, making it difficult to hold them personally liable even in lawsuits. Qualified immunity doctrines (where agents are protected from liability if the law wasn't clearly established) further protect officers.

The result: families of people killed can pursue civil lawsuits, but recovery is difficult, individual agents face no consequences, and the same conduct continues.

Paramilitary units have a higher focus on military tactics and desert operations, while regular police prioritize community policing and de-escalation. Estimated data based on typical training emphases.

Warrant Service and Expanded Operational Authority

One of the most significant operational shifts involves what these units are authorized to do.

Historical Restrictions on Tactical Units

Leak ICE SRT operations guidelines from 2019 made clear: these units were restricted from routine warrant service. They were designated for high-risk operations only. This made sense—tactical assault procedures should be used only when there's genuine risk.

Over time, these restrictions have been eliminated. Tactical units now conduct routine immigration enforcement operations that don't involve any indication of danger. They serve warrants to locate people who are undocumented but otherwise non-threatening.

This represents mission creep. If these units are designed for high-risk situations, why are they conducting routine operations? The answer reveals the enforcement strategy: they're designed to be visible, intimidating, and overwhelming.

Scalding in someone's door with explosives sends a message to immigrant communities: cooperate with federal authorities because immigration enforcement means military-style violence. This isn't evidence-based policing aimed at public safety. It's terror-based enforcement aimed at compliance.

Expanded Geographic Deployment

Historically, BORTAC operated in border regions. Tactical units existed in major cities but maintained traditional law enforcement standards.

Now, tactical units are deployed throughout the country, in small cities and rural areas, for operations that would never previously have triggered tactical response.

Gregory Bovino coordinated this expansion, leading operations in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Chicago, and elsewhere. The pattern suggests a coordinated national strategy to saturate communities with militarized enforcement.

This geographic expansion means even small communities now experience paramilitary-style enforcement operations. A city of 50,000 previously might have encountered such units rarely. Now they're common.

Scope Creep Into Schools and Childcare Centers

Perhaps the most controversial expansion involves conducting enforcement operations at schools and childcare centers.

When agents conduct raids at schools, they're targeting parents and guardians. Children witness federal agents in tactical gear removing their parents. Teachers are handcuffed in their classrooms. Daycare centers are raided.

This isn't incidental to immigration enforcement—it's deliberate. Targeting people at childcare centers maximizes visibility, creates fear in immigrant communities, and sends a message about who's vulnerable to enforcement.

It also directly harms child welfare. Children traumatized by seeing armed federal agents removing parents suffer psychological impacts. Schools become places of fear rather than learning.

Yet because this is immigration enforcement, not traditional policing, it receives less scrutiny and criticism than similar actions would receive from local police.

Personnel Training and Military-Police Cultural Divide

The fundamental issue underlying all these operations is the mismatch between personnel training and the work they're assigned to do.

Special Operations Background and Mindset

Personnel recruited from military special operations backgrounds carry that training and mentality with them.

Special operations forces are trained to:

• Assume environments are hostile
• Prioritize mission completion over civilian casualties
• Use overwhelming force to eliminate threats
• Operate in hierarchical command structures without questioning orders
• Maintain unit cohesion through adherence to unit culture

These principles make sense in military contexts. They're catastrophic when applied to civilian policing. A special operations soldier trained to assume hostility will assess civilian interactions through a combat lens.

Inadequate Civilian Policing Training

These units don't receive the training that would transform military personnel into effective civilian police officers.

Civilian police training emphasizes:

• De-escalation and conflict resolution
• Community relationship-building
• Proportional response based on actual threat level
• Understanding local laws and community context
• Civilian rights and constitutional protections
• Psychological understanding of diverse populations

Shorting this training to military personnel creates predictable outcomes. Personnel retain their military mindset without developing police expertise in de-escalation or community interaction.

The result: military personnel with police authority but without police training.

Unit Culture and Insular Accountability

These units develop their own culture, separate from broader law enforcement.

Unit cohesion is reinforced through shared experience, shared risk, and shared authority over routine police accountability. When an officer shoots someone, other officers vouching for the officer's story becomes determinative. External review is minimal.

This creates an us-versus-them culture where the unit's reputation is protected over civilians' interests. When an incident occurs, unit members instinctively support each other rather than critically examining conduct.

This isn't unique to federal tactical units—local SWAT teams develop similar cultures. But the insulation of federal units from public oversight makes the problem far worse.

Tactical units use a broader and more military-style range of equipment compared to standard officers, highlighting their combat-ready approach.

Constitutional and Legal Concerns

These operations raise profound constitutional concerns that extend far beyond immigration policy.

Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires, in most circumstances, that police obtain a judicial warrant before entering homes or arresting people.

Dynamic entry breaching using explosives without judicial warrants raises serious Fourth Amendment questions. When the government uses explosives to breach homes without a judge's authorization, isn't that unreasonable?

Additionally, courts have held that the manner of entry must be proportional to the threat. Breaking down doors with explosives for routine immigration enforcement isn't proportional—it's excessive.

These operations may violate the Fourth Amendment, yet federal courts have been reluctant to impose remedies. The trend toward weakening warrant requirements (allowing administrative warrants) has made constitutional violations easier to execute.

First Amendment: Assembly and Petition

When federal agents suppress protest against immigration enforcement through chemical dispersants, crowd control measures, and indiscriminate arrests, they're violating First Amendment rights.

People have a fundamental right to assemble and protest government action. When government responds to lawful protest with paramilitary force, it's suppressing core constitutional freedoms.

Yet these incidents receive minimal legal challenge. The government's position is essentially that immigration enforcement is too important to allow people to protest its methods.

Fifth Amendment: Due Process

The Fifth Amendment requires due process before government deprives people of liberty or property. The shift to administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants undermines due process protections.

When ICE officials can authorize arrests without judicial review, due process becomes circular: ICE says you should be arrested, so you're arrested. There's no independent check on whether probable cause actually exists.

Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Flash-bangs, pepper spray, and rubber projectiles deployed without warning in homes could constitute cruel and unusual punishment, particularly when used against vulnerable populations (children, elderly, disabled people).

The Eighth Amendment has been interpreted to require proportional response. Assaulting someone with flash-bangs for immigration enforcement isn't proportional—it's excessive and potentially cruel.

These constitutional questions haven't been adequately litigated because the affected populations lack resources for prolonged litigation and the government's legal position is aggressive and well-resourced.

Political Context and Expanded Enforcement

Understanding these operations requires understanding the political context driving them.

Trump Administration Policy

The Trump administration explicitly campaigned on immigration enforcement and hired Tom Homan—referred to as the "border czar"—to coordinate enforcement operations nationwide.

Homan replaced Greg Bovino in Minnesota operations, signaling continued emphasis on visible, aggressive enforcement. His public statements made clear the goal isn't just immigration enforcement but using federal authority to pressure state and local law enforcement to cooperate with immigration enforcement (despite state laws preventing such cooperation).

This represents a deliberate policy choice to expand these operations and continue deployment of tactical units in American cities.

Targeting Democratic-Run Cities

Operation Metro Surge specifically targeted Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other major cities run by Democratic mayors. This wasn't random—it was politically motivated.

These cities have policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The Trump administration's response was to deploy federal tactical units directly, bypassing local law enforcement entirely.

This represents a fundamental shift in federalism. Rather than persuading state and local governments to cooperate, the federal government deployed paramilitary forces in Democratic-run cities. This has obvious political implications.

Messaging and Political Theater

While enforcement operations are presented as necessary for public safety, they function more as political theater.

When agents conduct raids at childcare centers, it's not for public safety—it's to create visible enforcement activity and send a message. Similarly, targeted raids in Democratic cities serve political purposes beyond immigration enforcement.

The use of tactical teams, the militarized appearance, the aggressive conduct—these all serve to make immigration enforcement visible and intimidating. This supports the political message that immigration is a crisis requiring military-style response.

The chart highlights the stark difference in accountability measures between DHS and local police. While local police shootings often lead to charges and transparent investigations, DHS incidents rarely face such scrutiny. Estimated data.

Broader Militarization of Federal Enforcement

The operations of paramilitary immigration units reflect broader trends in federal law enforcement.

Rise of Tactical Units Across Federal Agencies

These immigration units aren't unique. FBI tactical teams, DEA tactical teams, and other federal law enforcement agencies similarly employ paramilitary procedures.

The expansion of tactical units across federal agencies suggests a broader federal law enforcement culture has shifted toward militarization. Rather than seeing themselves as civilian law enforcement, many federal agents see themselves as quasi-military operators.

This cultural shift has occurred gradually over decades, accelerating post-9/11. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan normalized military operations, military language, and military equipment. Federal agencies adopted similar approaches, convinced these methods were appropriate for domestic law enforcement.

War on Drugs as Prototype

The war on drugs pioneered many tactics these immigration units employ. DEA created tactical teams to conduct drug raids. These units developed the procedures—dynamic entry, flash-bangs, overwhelming force—that are now standard.

Over decades, these drug war tactics have permeated federal law enforcement broadly. Immigration enforcement units adopted them. Federal agencies training programs teach them.

The drug war normalized violence in federal law enforcement, making paramilitary operations routine. This normalization enabled their expansion to immigration enforcement.

CBP and Border Operations History

Customs and Border Protection's role in developing these tactics traces back to border operations. The U.S.-Mexico border has been militarized for decades, with increasing deployment of military equipment, military language, and military procedures.

BORTAC emerged from this militarized border context. As the unit expanded to interior enforcement, it brought its militarized border operations mindset with it.

The border, in the federal government's conceptual framework, has become a militarized zone. Extending tactics developed for border militarization to interior enforcement represents the militarization creeping inland.

Impact on Immigrant Communities and Civil Society

The consequences of these operations extend far beyond individual incidents.

Community Trust and Reporting Crimes

When immigrant communities experience paramilitary enforcement operations, they become afraid of law enforcement broadly.

This creates a profound public safety problem: immigrant communities won't report crimes, won't cooperate with police investigations, and won't seek police assistance when victimized. Criminals operating in immigrant communities face minimal accountability because witnesses won't cooperate with police.

This makes immigrant communities less safe, not more safe. Police who use paramilitary tactics against communities they're supposed to protect destroy the trust necessary for effective policing.

Schools and Healthcare

When schools and childcare centers are raided, children traumatize. When agents conduct operations at schools, they communicate that schools aren't safe spaces.

Parents keep children home. Schools struggle with attendance. Education suffers.

Similarly, when healthcare settings are raided (agents conducting enforcement at hospitals), immigrants avoid seeking medical care. Pregnant immigrants skip prenatal care. Diabetics skip insulin refills. People die from untreated conditions.

DHS tactics that prioritize enforcement over consequences are destroying healthcare access and education access in immigrant communities.

Economic and Social Impact

When parents are arrested at work, children are left at school with no pickup. Families collapse economically. Breadwinners disappear.

When agents conduct raids at childcare centers, parents lose care options and can't work. Economic activity decreases.

When communities live in fear of enforcement operations, economic investment declines. Businesses serving immigrant communities close. Landlords evict tenants. The community-based economy that sustains immigrant populations destabilizes.

These operations aren't just law enforcement—they're economic and social destabilization.

Psychological Trauma

Children who witness parents being removed by armed federal agents suffer psychological trauma. They have higher rates of anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems.

Adults living in fear of sudden enforcement raids experience chronic stress. Their health suffers. Their ability to function in daily life is compromised.

Flash-bangs and pepper spray deployed against peaceful people create lasting psychological impact beyond physical injury.

These are human costs that national security debates about immigration enforcement rarely address.

Legal and Policy Proposals for Reform

Addressing these operations requires multiple policy changes working together.

Warrant Requirement Restoration

Judicial warrants should be required for all home entries in immigration enforcement contexts. ICE memos and DOJ guidance weakening this requirement should be reversed.

A judicial warrant, signed by a neutral judge who determines probable cause, is a far stronger protection than an administrative warrant signed by ICE officials with enforcement incentives. Restoring this requirement would restore a critical check on enforcement discretion.

Tactical Unit Restrictions

Tactical units should be limited to high-risk operations where there's genuine indication of danger. Routine immigration enforcement shouldn't involve tactical teams.

BORTAC should remain focused on border operations where it has expertise. ICE SRT should be used only when there's genuine risk of violence, not for routine warrant service.

Operational guidelines from 2019 restricting tactical units to high-risk situations should be restored and enforced.

School and Healthcare Protections

Schools and healthcare facilities should be protected from enforcement operations. These are spaces where people should feel safe.

Federal law already provides some protections (Operation Safeguard limits immigration enforcement at schools), but these should be strengthened and extended to healthcare settings.

Accountability Mechanisms

Shootings by federal agents should be investigated by independent state authorities, not the federal agencies involved. Federal agents should face potential state criminal charges like any other law enforcement officer.

Investigations should be transparent. Findings should be public. Families of people killed should have access to full investigation results.

Individual agents should be identifiable. Anonymity should be eliminated. Accountability increases when people can be identified and held accountable for their conduct.

Training Standards

Personnel with military backgrounds should receive extensive training in civilian police procedures, de-escalation, and community relations before conducting immigration enforcement.

Tactical training shouldn't replace police training—it should supplement it. Personnel should understand civilian rights, constitutional protections, and proportional response before deploying paramilitary tactics.

State and Local Law Enforcement Resistance

Some state and local jurisdictions have begun resisting federal immigration enforcement operations.

Sanctuary City and State Policies

Many states and cities have enacted sanctuary policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. California, New York, and other states have laws preventing state and local police from assisting ICE.

These policies are controversial but reflect a deliberate choice that immigration enforcement should be a federal responsibility, not a responsibility for state and local police.

The Trump administration's response—deploying federal tactical units directly—circumvents these policies but also creates tension between federal and state authority.

State Investigation Proposals

Some states have proposed or enacted laws allowing state authorities to investigate federal police shootings. California, in particular, has considered requiring state investigation of federal law enforcement shootings.

These proposals directly challenge federal immunity from state oversight. They would transform federal agents from largely unaccountable to subject to state criminal law.

Police Union Opposition to Federal Enforcement

Interestingly, some local police unions have opposed federal tactical units operating in their communities. These unions view federal operations as competing with local agencies and potentially undermining local police-community relationships.

This creates potential allies for reform: local police departments and unions concerned about federal operations could support restrictions on tactical unit deployment.

International Comparisons and Lessons

How do other democracies handle immigration enforcement?

European Approaches

European countries with significant immigration also conduct immigration enforcement. However, they generally do so with substantially less militarization.

When German police conduct immigration enforcement, they don't use explosives or military-style tactics. When British police conduct immigration enforcement, they use proportional force appropriate to civilian contexts.

The U.S. approach is increasingly distinctive in the scale of militarization applied to immigration enforcement.

Canada and Australia

Canada and Australia similarly conduct immigration enforcement without comparable militarization. RCMP and Australian federal police conduct enforcement operations using standard law enforcement procedures.

The U.S. appears to be an outlier in the extent to which it has militarized immigration enforcement.

Implications

International comparisons suggest militarized immigration enforcement isn't necessary for effective enforcement. Countries are addressing immigration without tactical assault teams.

The U.S. choice to employ paramilitary units for immigration enforcement isn't driven by operational necessity—it's driven by policy choices to make enforcement visible and intimidating.

Future of Immigration Enforcement

Where is this trend heading?

Continued Expansion Likelihood

The Trump administration shows no inclination to reduce these operations. Tom Homan's appointment and statements about continued operations suggest this will intensify.

Tactical unit deployment to more cities and expansion of operational scope are likely without policy changes.

Congressional Oversight and Legislation

Congressional Democrats have called for investigations and limitations on these operations. Whether Congress will enact legislation is uncertain—Republicans control Congress and support expanded enforcement.

If restrictions are implemented, they'll come through legislation, not administrative decisions.

Court Challenges

Civil rights organizations continue filing lawsuits challenging these operations. Some cases may reach higher courts, potentially establishing legal precedent limiting enforcement procedures.

However, federal courts have generally deferred to federal law enforcement decisions. Judicial limitations on these operations seem less likely than legislative ones.

Public Opinion Evolution

As more people witness militarized enforcement operations and more deadly incidents occur, public opinion may shift. Families of killed individuals become advocates for change.

Media attention to these incidents has increased significantly. Public awareness of paramilitary immigration enforcement units has grown. This attention could drive political pressure for reform.

FAQ

What is BORTAC and how does it differ from regular immigration enforcement?

BORTAC (Border Patrol Tactical Unit) is a specialized tactical unit within U.S. Customs and Border Protection designed for high-risk border operations. Unlike regular immigration enforcement officers who conduct interviews and process paperwork, BORTAC deploys with military-grade equipment, assault rifles, and tactical gear. It's structured like a military special operations team, with personnel recruited from military backgrounds, trained for dynamic entry breaching, and authorized to use flash-bangs and explosive entry devices. BORTAC differs fundamentally in capability, training, and authorization compared to standard immigration officers.

Why are tactical units being used for routine immigration enforcement?

The expansion of tactical units to routine enforcement represents mission creep that has occurred gradually over several years. Previously, these units were restricted to high-risk operations where there was genuine indication of danger. Recent policy changes have eliminated these restrictions, allowing tactical units to conduct routine warrant service and routine enforcement operations that don't involve any indication of danger. This expansion appears driven by political goals (visible enforcement) rather than operational necessity, as agencies have demonstrated that routine immigration enforcement doesn't require tactical units. The shift prioritizes making enforcement visible and intimidating over using proportional force appropriate to actual risk.

What are the legal concerns with these enforcement operations?

These operations raise multiple constitutional concerns: Fourth Amendment concerns about unreasonable searches (dynamic entry with explosives without judicial warrants), First Amendment concerns about suppressing protest against enforcement, and Fifth Amendment concerns about due process (administrative warrants replacing judicial warrants). Additionally, use of flash-bangs and pepper spray without warning could violate Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The shift to administrative warrants removes judicial oversight that historically ensured probable cause existed before authorizing entries. These constitutional questions have been inadequately litigated because affected populations lack resources for prolonged court cases and the government's legal position is aggressive and well-resourced.

How have these operations affected immigrant communities?

These operations have created significant harm to immigrant communities including psychological trauma for children who witness parents being arrested, disruption of education (school attendance drops when children fear raids), disruption of healthcare (immigrants avoid medical facilities fearing enforcement), economic destabilization (when breadwinners are arrested, families lose income), and erosion of trust in law enforcement (immigrants won't report crimes or cooperate with police, making communities less safe overall). Communities experiencing militarized enforcement become afraid of law enforcement broadly, undermining the community trust necessary for effective policing. The operations have also created school and workplace uncertainty, with parents keeping children home and workers avoiding employment in certain locations.

What policy changes could reform immigration enforcement?

Effective reforms would include requiring judicial warrants signed by neutral judges for all home entries (rather than administrative ICE warrants), restricting tactical units to high-risk operations where there's genuine indication of danger, protecting schools and healthcare facilities from enforcement operations, requiring investigations of federal shootings by independent state authorities rather than self-investigations, ensuring individual agent accountability by eliminating anonymity, establishing transparent investigation processes with public findings, and requiring extensive civilian police training for military personnel before they conduct immigration enforcement. These changes working together could reduce harm while maintaining enforcement capability.

What happened in the Minnesota operations?

Minnesota became a focal point for Trump administration immigration enforcement under "Operation Metro Surge" led initially by Gregory Bovino. Between January 7 and January 24, 2025, federal tactical units conducted enforcement operations resulting in the deaths of two civilians: Renee Good (shot by ICE SRT agent Jonathan Ross) and Alex Pretti (shot by CBP SRT agents). Agents also conducted raids at schools and childcare centers, directly targeting parents. The operations used dynamic entry breaching, flash-bangs, and tactical procedures. Both deaths occurred without agents obtaining judicial warrants and resulted in zero criminal charges against the officers involved. Tom Homan subsequently took over operations, vowing continued enforcement despite the deaths and Minnesota law preventing state and local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

How is federal immigration enforcement accountable for misconduct?

Accountability mechanisms are minimal: zero criminal charges in 16 DHS shootings since July, investigations are conducted by the agencies involved (creating conflict of interest), investigation findings remain secret, agents often wear masks making identification difficult, civil rights lawsuits face federal immunity protections making recovery difficult, and individual agents face no personal consequences even when liability is established. The standard for bringing criminal charges against federal agents is higher than for local police, and federal courts have been reluctant to impose remedies. This creates a situation where federal agents operate with extraordinary impunity, knowing they're unlikely to face any consequences for their conduct regardless of circumstances.

How do other democracies handle immigration enforcement differently?

Countries including Canada, Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom conduct immigration enforcement without comparable militarization. These countries conduct enforcement operations using standard law enforcement procedures, proportional force, and judicial oversight similar to other policing activities. They don't deploy tactical assault teams with military equipment for routine enforcement. The U.S. approach appears increasingly distinctive in the extent of militarization applied to immigration enforcement, suggesting militarized tactics are driven by policy choices rather than operational necessity. International comparisons indicate immigration enforcement can be effective without paramilitary units.

Conclusion

Paramilitary immigration enforcement units represent a fundamental shift in how federal government conducts immigration enforcement in the United States. These aren't traditional law enforcement agencies operating under civilian norms. They're tactical units structured like military special operations teams, equipped with military hardware, staffed by personnel with military backgrounds, and authorized to use procedures designed for military operations in war zones.

The transformation from specialized units reserved for genuine high-risk situations to routine enforcement mechanisms conducting operations at schools, childcare centers, and in residential neighborhoods represents a dramatic escalation that poses serious risks to civilian safety and constitutional protections.

The deadly incidents in Minneapolis in January 2025 provided visible evidence of what happens when military-trained personnel operating under minimal oversight conduct enforcement operations in civilian contexts. Two deaths from federal enforcement operations that generated zero criminal charges illustrated the accountability deficit surrounding these operations.

Addressing these issues requires multifaceted reform: restoring judicial warrant requirements, restricting tactical units to high-risk operations, protecting schools and healthcare facilities, ensuring independent investigation of shootings, establishing individual accountability, and increasing training requirements. These changes won't eliminate immigration enforcement—they'll simply ensure it operates within constitutional bounds and uses force proportional to actual risk.

The stakes extend beyond immigration policy. The militarization of federal immigration enforcement represents a broader trend in federal law enforcement toward paramilitary operations. How the United States addresses this issue will have implications for law enforcement generally and for constitutional protections broadly.

Communities experiencing these operations have begun resisting. Some states have proposed laws strengthening oversight. Civil rights organizations continue filing lawsuits. The question is whether these bottom-up pressures for reform will influence policy before more people are killed and more communities are harmed.

What's clear is that military-trained tactical units operating with military procedures, minimal oversight, and zero accountability for deadly force represent a fundamentally unsustainable approach to immigration enforcement in a democracy. Change is necessary—the only question is whether it will come through reform or through continued incidents that force response.

The people killed in Minnesota won't return. The children traumatized by raids at their schools can't be made whole. But their cases can serve as catalysts for reform ensuring that immigration enforcement—like all federal law enforcement—operates within constitutional bounds and with meaningful accountability.

Key Takeaways

• Paramilitary units like BORTAC and ICE SRT employ military-style equipment (assault rifles, flash-bangs, explosives) designed for war zones, not civilian policing
• These units have expanded from border operations to routine immigration enforcement in residential neighborhoods and schools, lacking proper training for civilian contexts
• Zero criminal charges have been filed in 16 DHS shootings since July, creating near-total impunity for federal tactical unit officers
• The shift from judicial warrants to administrative warrants removes critical judicial oversight and enables enforcement without neutral judge review
• Enforcement operations targeting schools and childcare centers traumatize children and destabilize immigrant communities without genuine public safety justification

Related Articles

• ICE's Military Playbook: Why Paramilitary Tactics Fail in Law Enforcement [2025]
• Tech Leaders Respond to ICE Actions in Minnesota [2025]
• Minnesota ICE Coercion Case: Federal Punishment of Sanctuary Laws [2025]
• Right-Wing Influencers Push Fraud Allegations in California [2025]
• How to Film ICE & CBP Agents Legally and Safely [2025]
• Facial Recognition and Government Surveillance: The Global Entry Revocation Story [2025]