[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY: ICE, CBP, AND USCIS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 10, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-777 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York, Chairman
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Vice Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi,
Chair Ranking Member
Michael Guest, Mississippi Eric Swalwell, California
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida J. Luis Correa, California
August Pfluger, Texas Shri Thanedar, Michigan
Tony Gonzales, Texas Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
Morgan Luttrell, Texas Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Dale W. Strong, Alabama Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
Elijah Crane, Arizona LaMonica McIver, New Jersey
Andrew Ogles, Tennessee Julie Johnson, Texas, Vice Ranking
Sheri Biggs, South Carolina Member
Gabe Evans, Colorado Pablo Jose Hernandez, Puerto Rico
Ryan Mackenzie, Pennsylvania Nellie Pou, New Jersey
Brad Knott, North Carolina James R. Walkinshaw, Virginia
Vince Fong, California Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
Matt Van Epps, Tennessee Al Green, Texas
Vacant
Keighle Joyce, Staff Director
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
Honorable Andrew R. Garbarino, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Witnesses
Mr. Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Mr. Joseph B. Edlow, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Mr. Todd M. Lyons, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
For the Record
Honorable August Pfluger, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas:
Article, Manhattan Institute, February 2026.................... 38
Honorable Matt Van Epps, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Tennessee:
Chart.......................................................... 77
Quote, Sheriff Tim Eads........................................ 78
Quote, Sheriff Frankie Gray.................................... 78
Quote, Sheriff Mike Van Dyke................................... 79
Press Release, March 25, 2025.................................. 79
Article, WSMV, January 6, 2026................................. 81
Article, Fox News, January 30, 2026............................ 83
Article, Tennessee Tribune, January 7, 2026.................... 98
Press Release, May 13, 2025.................................... 102
Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Statement of the Refugee Council USA........................... 107
Statement of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty.. 110
Article, CBS News, February 9, 2026............................ 178
Article, NPR, January 25, 2026................................. 184
Article, The Marshall Project, December 17, 2025............... 188
Article, The Independent, January 29, 2026..................... 194
Report, Center for Election Innovation and Research, February
2026......................................................... 201
Article, AP.................................................... 212
Report, Brennan Center, November 21, 2025...................... 217
Report, The Guardian, March 18, 2025........................... 221
Honorable Delia C. Ramirez, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Illinois:
Article, Chicago Sun-Times, November 15, 2025.................. 116
Article, ABC7, October 8, 2025................................. 139
Article, ProPublica, January 13, 2026.......................... 147
Appendix I
Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Article, NBC News, February 10, 2026........................... 227
Honorable Timothy Kennedy, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York:
Letter, February 10, 2026...................................... 233
Appendix II
Questions From Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino for Rodney S. Scott.. 235
Questions From Honorable Tony Gonzales for Rodney S. Scott....... 238
Question From Honorable Brad Knott for Rodney S. Scott........... 240
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Rodney S.
Scott.......................................................... 240
Questions From Honorable Delia C. Ramirez for Rodney S. Scott.... 244
Questions From Honorable Jose Hernandez for Rodney S. Scott...... 245
Questions From Honorable Nellie Pou for Rodney S. Scott.......... 246
Questions From Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino for Joseph B. Edlow.. 247
Questions From Honorable Tony Gonzales for Joseph B. Edlow....... 248
Questions From Honorable Gabe Evans for Joseph B. Edlow.......... 249
Question From Honorable Ryan Mackenzie for Joseph B. Edlow....... 250
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Joseph B.
Edlow.......................................................... 250
Questions From Honorable Delia C. Ramirez for Joseph B. Edlow.... 251
Question From Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino for Todd M. Lyons..... 253
Questions From Honorable Tony Gonzales for Todd M. Lyons......... 253
Questions From Honorable Gabe Evans for Todd M. Lyons............ 254
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Todd M.
Lyons.......................................................... 255
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson on Behalf of
Honorable Veronica Escobar for Todd M. Lyons................... 262
Questions From Honorable J. Luis Correa for Todd M. Lyons........ 264
Questions From Honorable Delia C. Ramirez for Todd M. Lyons...... 267
Questions From Honorable Jose Hernandez for Todd M. Lyons........ 269
Questions From Honorable Nellie Pou for Todd M. Lyons............ 270
OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: ICE, CBP, AND USCIS
----------
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Andrew R.
Garbarino [Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Garbarino, McCaul, Guest, Pfluger,
Gonzales, Strong, Brecheen, Crane, Biggs, Evans, Mackenzie,
Knott, Fong, Van Epps, Thompson, Swalwell, Correa, Thanedar,
Magaziner, Goldman, Ramirez, Kennedy, McIver, Johnson, Pou,
Carter, Green, and Walkinshaw.
Chairman Garbarino. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order. Without objection, the Chair may declare the
committee in recess at any point.
The purpose of today's hearing is to conduct oversight of
the Department of Homeland Security and assess priorities for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services for the calendar year 2026.
Before we get started, I would like to remind the Members
and the public of the rules of decorum. These issues we are
debating are important ones that Members feel deeply about.
While vigorous disagreement is part of the legislative process,
Members are reminded that we must adhere to established
standards of decorum and debate. It is a violation of House
rules and the rules of this committee to engage in
personalities regarding other Members or to question the
motives of a colleague.
It is also a clear violation of the rules of the House to
make statements that might personally be offensive to the
President or the Vice President of the United States. Remarks
of that type are not permitted by the rules and are not in
keeping with the best traditions of our committee. The Chair
will enforce these rules of decorum at all times and urges all
Members to be mindful of their remarks.
Further, under the rules of the House, the Chairman is
responsible for maintaining order and preserving decorum in the
committee room. I expect audience members to be respectful of
the witnesses, Members, and the public. If members of the
audience are persistently or overly disruptive, it is a
violation of Federal law and you will be subject to removal and
arrest.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I want to start by thanking our witnesses for appearing
before the committee today. Today's hearing provides the
American people the ability to hear directly from the leaders
that enforce our Nation's immigration laws. It is our
imperative and as representatives of the people to be a voice
for the people.
Transparency, communication, and accountability are keys to
good government. This is why oversight is important. Informing
Congress and the public is not casting accusations, nor is it a
punishment. Congress has a duty to hear directly from the
Executive branch, a duty I take seriously. The Executive branch
has a duty to keep us informed.
While this hearing was long planned, we sit here today at
an inflection point, an opportunity to assess and reinforce the
integrity of immigration enforcement and to strengthen public
trust, an opportunity to emphasize and underscore the
Department of Homeland Security's no-fail mission as a whole.
My top priority as Chairman is and will always be protecting
America while ensuring the safety of law enforcement.
This is further important in the context of another
potential shutdown of the Department. Let me be clear. Shutting
down DHS makes America less safe and negatively impacts
thousands of Federal employees, like those at TSA and CISA.
The Department of Homeland Security is the Nation's largest
Federal law enforcement agency. It is this committee's duty,
regardless of administration, to conduct oversight. We need to
examine how DHS components are enforcing the law and ensure
they have the resources in place to do work safely,
effectively, and properly.
Last year, we provided historic resources through
reconciliation to strengthen public safety and support for the
Trump administration's unprecedented efforts to secure the
border. This was the single largest investment in the domestic
homeland security mission. To succeed, we all need to work
together seamlessly, and this committee is a partner in that
effort.
It is important to remember how we got here. For years, we
witnessed a blanket refusal to enforce the law, wide-open
borders, catch-and-release policies, and uncontrolled mass
migration. These policies undermined the rule of law and
endangered all Americans. Enforcing immigration law is not
optional.
The Trump administration's record on border security is
irrefutable. Nationwide border encounters last December
decreased 91 percent compared to 2023. Apprehensions between
ports of entry last December decreased 86 percent compared to
2024. We ended last year with 8 consecutive months of zero
parole releases by Border Patrol. Further, thousands of
criminal illegal aliens have been detained and deported. These
actions make America safer and more secure.
But the credibility of these successes is on the line. We
must take the temperature down and look at the record of
enforcement actions through rational eyes. We have seen a
significant increase in violent rhetoric and agitation. We have
seen a significant increase in attacks on Federal law
enforcement and in the number of threats facing them and their
families. This committee highlighted the threat increases to
law enforcement at an earlier hearing. We have seen State and
local jurisdictions refuse to protect Federal law enforcement
officers. Obviously, we have now seen the deaths of two
American citizens in Minnesota. This is all unacceptable and
preventable.
The safety of law enforcement and the communities they
serve and protect must always come first. When officials or
elected leaders rush to conclusions about law enforcement or
their fellow Americans, public trust suffers. There must be
complete and impartial investigation. I expect each of our
witnesses to keep this committee fully informed as the
investigations run their course, and I will ensure this
happens.
While these investigations are on-going, officials and
elected leaders cannot rush to judgment. I cannot put myself in
the shoes of law enforcement, nor can I imagine what the
families of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti are enduring today. Public
trust and public safety go hand-in-hand. We cannot have one
without the other.
I am encouraged to see that President Trump sent Border
Czar Tom Homan and Commissioner Scott to Minnesota to work with
Governor Walz, Mayor Frey, and other local leaders. I sincerely
hope this dialog continues. This should stand as an example of
cooperation to anyone who continues to incentivize reckless
behavior in our streets, unlawfully impede law enforcement
operations, or disparage their fellow citizens. State and local
officials should be partners, not obstacles when it comes to
public safety. Federal officials should keep in mind that this
kind of partnership is a two-way street. Everyone should have
the same goal of keeping America safe.
Transparency and communication are needed now more than
ever. The Department's no-fail mission hangs in the balance. A
rule-based order is not one-sided. Enforcing immigration law
and defending all Americans' Constitutional rights, including
the rights to peacefully protest, bear arms, and privacy are
not mutually exclusive.
I want to thank Secretary Noem for making these witnesses
rapidly available and again thank the three of you for being
here today. As Border Czar Homan recently said, you can't fix
problems if you don't have discussions. I hope we can have a
positive, civil, and productive discussion today. Only together
can we make our community stronger and the homeland safer for
the future of all Americans.
[The statement of Chairman Garbarino follows:]
Statement of Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino
I want to start by thanking our witnesses for appearing before the
committee today.
Today's hearing provides the American people the ability to hear
directly from the leaders that enforce our Nation's immigration laws.
It is our imperative, as representatives of the people, to be a
voice for the people.
Transparency, communication, and accountability are the keys to
good government.
This is why oversight is important. Informing Congress and the
public is not casting accusations, nor is it a punishment.
Congress has a duty to hear directly from the Executive branch--a
duty I take seriously--and the Executive branch has a duty to keep us
informed.
While this hearing was long planned, we sit here today at an
inflection point--an opportunity to assess and reinforce the integrity
of immigration enforcement, and to strengthen public trust.
An opportunity to emphasize and underscore the Department of
Homeland Security's no-fail mission as a whole.
My top priority as Chairman is, and will always be protecting
America, while ensuring the safety of law enforcement.
The Department of Homeland Security is the Nation's largest Federal
law enforcement agency. It is this committee's duty, regardless of
administration, to conduct oversight, examine how DHS components are
enforcing the law, and ensure they have the resources in place to do
this work safely, effectively, and properly.
Last year, we provided historic resources through reconciliation to
strengthen public safety and support the Trump administration's
unprecedented efforts to secure the border.
This was the single largest investment in the domestic homeland
security mission.
To succeed, we all need to work together seamlessly--and this
committee is a partner in that effort.
It is important to remember how we got here.
For years, we witnessed a blanket refusal to enforce the law, wide-
open borders, catch-and-release policies, and uncontrolled mass
migration.
These policies undermined the rule of law and endangered all
Americans.
Enforcing immigration law is not optional, regardless of the
previous administration's failure to act, and the Trump
administration's record on border security is irrefutable.
Nationwide border encounters last December decreased 91 percent
compared to 2023.
Apprehensions between ports of entry last December decreased 86
percent compared to 2024.
And we ended last year with 8 consecutive months of zero parole
releases by Border Patrol.
Further, thousands of criminal illegal aliens have been detained
and deported.
These actions make America safer and more secure.
The credibility of these successes is on the line. We must take the
temperature down and look at the record of enforcement actions through
rational eyes.
We have seen a significant increase in violent rhetoric and
agitation.
We have seen a significant increase in attacks on Federal law
enforcement, and in the number of threats facing them and their
families every day. This committee highlighted the threat increases to
law enforcement at an earlier hearing.
We have seen State and local jurisdictions refuse to protect
Federal law enforcement officers.
And, obviously, we have now seen the tragic deaths of two American
citizens in Minnesota.
This is all unacceptable and preventable.
The safety of law enforcement and the communities they serve and
protect must always come first.
When officials or elected leaders rush to conclusions about law
enforcement or their fellow Americans--public trust suffers.
There must be a complete and impartial investigation. I expect each
of our witnesses to keep this committee fully informed as the
investigation runs its course. And I will ensure this happens.
While this investigation is on-going, officials and elected leaders
cannot rush to judgment.
I cannot put myself in the shoes of law enforcement, nor can I
imagine what the families of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti are enduring
today.
Public trust and public safety go hand in hand--we cannot have one
without the other.
I am encouraged to see that President Trump sent Border Czar Tom
Homan and Commissioner Scott to Minnesota to work with Governor Walz,
Mayor Frey, and other local leaders. I sincerely hope this dialog
continues.
This should stand as an example of cooperation to anyone who
continues to incentivize reckless behavior in our streets, unlawfully
impede law enforcement operations, or disparage their fellow citizens.
State and local officials should be partners, not obstacles, when
it comes to public safety. And Federal officials should keep in mind
that this kind of partnership is a two-way street. Everyone should have
the same goal of keeping Americans safe.
Transparency and communication are needed now more than ever--the
Department's no-fail mission hangs in the balance.
A rule-based order is not one-sided.
Enforcing immigration law and defending all Americans'
Constitutional rights--including the rights to peacefully protest, bear
arms, and privacy--are not mutually exclusive.
I want to thank Secretary Noem for making these witnesses rapidly
available and again thank the three of you for appearing here today.
As Border Czar Homan recently said, ``you can't fix problems, if
you don't have discussions.''
I hope we can have a positive, civil, and productive discussion
today.
Only together can we make our communities stronger and the homeland
safer for future generations of Americans.
Chairman Garbarino. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning to all of you who are here. I thank you for calling
this hearing today.
This important hearing has drawn a great deal of interest
and attention and many of my colleagues who represent the
border city of El Paso and who have been leader on border
security, Veronica Escobar, has joined us today and would like
to ask questions of our witnesses. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the young woman from Texas, Ms. Escobar,
be permitted to sit with the committee and question today's
witnesses as we have afforded that to other individuals in past
hearings.
Chairman Garbarino. While I thank the gentlewoman for their
interest in today's important hearing, as I previously informed
both the Majority and Minority, committee will not be
entertaining off-committee Member requests. Therefore, I
object.
Mr. Thompson. Well, your objection is noted, Mr. Chairman.
But I would for the record want to say that it is highly
unusual that a Member of Congress sitting with as much impact
on immigration as her area is not afforded that courtesy. But
you are the Chairman and that is your prerogative as if it
would be anyone else's.
Chairman Garbarino. As the Ranking Member knows, we had
many requests. This is a very important hearing. It is my duty
to keep the wheels on this hearing and get actual answers on
the record.
I thank the gentlelady's interest. We had a lot of Members
who were interested in being here today, which is why we
thought it would be best just to keep it for Members of the
committee. These gentlemen have repeatedly testified before
many committees at the Capitol, and I am sure other Members
will get the opportunity to do the same questioning. This is
the Committee on Homeland Security. We had previously said we
would not waive on Members specifically for this hearing and we
are going to stick by that rule today.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. May I say to
Ms. Escobar, if there are questions you would like to have
asked of these witnesses, if you will provide those questions
to me or any other Member of the committee, we will be more
than happy to transmit them. Thank you so much.
I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that our job
is to conduct oversight, not cover for Donald Trump and his
out-of-control administration, which is running roughshod over
Americans' rights, killing U.S. citizens, and threatening our
very democracy. The disease rotting the Trump administration
from the inside out started at the top and has infected every
part of the Executive branch. Nowhere is that more evident than
at the Department of Homeland Security. This hearing is just
the start of a reckoning for the Trump administration and its
weaponization of DHS against American citizens and the
principle our country stands for.
DHS, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, must be held accountable
for its lawless immigration operation. They are reckless,
creating chaos in our communities, terrorizing adults and
children alike, and undermining our moral authority as a Nation
of liberty and rule of law.
Last month, an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good, a
Minneapolis mom, in cold blood as she drove away from him.
After killing her, the agent called her a disgusting name I
won't repeat here. Other agents refused to allow a nearby
physician to treat her. Democrats called for accountability.
Instead, Secretary Noem blamed the victim, Ms. Good, and
attempted to gaslight Americans with false claims that Ms. Good
was a domestic terrorist. Renee Good was nothing of the sort.
She was a mom, a wife, a neighbor, and an American citizen who
did not deserve to die at the hands of her own government. She
should be alive today.
Ever since, the Trump administration has devoted the full
resources of the Federal Government to blocking a legitimate
investigation into Ms. Good's killing. If that isn't a sign of
guilt, I don't know what is. Fellow prosecutors had a warrant
to collect evidence from Ms. Good's vehicle for a civil rights
investigation into ICE's use of force. But FBI Director Kash
Patel and other Trump administration officials demanded they
drop it. Career prosecutors, duly bound to the rule of law, not
the political prerogatives of the White House, resigned in
protest. Blocking an investigation into the Government's use of
force against one of its own citizens is a self-dictatorship,
not democracies. Every American should be outraged.
Democrats tried to get answers in the aftermath of Ms.
Good's shooting. We called on Acting Director Todd Lyons to
testify at the committee's hearing 3 weeks ago. Unfortunately,
he turned down the committee's invitation. This is part of a
pattern of the Trump administration's refusal to comply with
regular Congressional oversight.
Committee Democrats have sent multiple letters to ICE and
CBP on critical issues, but most of them, 10, have gone
unanswered. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include
all 10 of these records into the record--letters into the
record.
Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The documents were not available at the time of publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thompson. ICE has blocked Members of Congress from
visiting its detention facilities even after reports of
horrific conditions, detainee abuse, and a detainee being
murdered in a DHS facility. I was one of those individuals who
partied to a lawsuit to try to get ICE to just follow the law
that says Members of Congress can visit ICE facilities and
present themselves at any time. So I understand that it is
still being litigated, but I have been given authority to go
and I plan to do it this week just to test ICE's adherence to
the law.
Mr. Lyons is here today, nearly a month after we invited
him. I guess DHS needed time to get his story straight before
he came to testify under oath.
Fearing more violence from Federal law enforcement,
Democrats have also called on DHS to rein in immigration agents
and their brutal attacks on Americans immediately following Ms.
Good's murder. But DHS ignored our pleas. Instead, Greg Bovino,
who styled himself in Nazi attire and takes joy in deploying
tear gas at Americans, continued to roam around Minneapolis
with his masked gang, terrorizing people and violating their
Constitutional rights. Tragically, our worst fears were
realized.
Just days after the hearing Mr. Lyons refused to
participate in, CBP personnel shot Alex Pretti and he was face
down on a Minneapolis sidewalk, killing him in broad daylight.
In the video of the incident, a DHS agent can be seen cheering
Mr. Pretti's death. Americans watched the video in horror. Yet
once again, Secretary Noem gaslit the public, made up a
demonstrably false story about Mr. Pretti, and blamed the
victim for his own death. Mr. Pretti was a law-abiding U.S.
citizen and a VA nurse who dedicated his career to caring for
our veterans.
Mr. Chairman, at our last month hearing, I asked for a
moment of silence in the memory of Renee Good. Today, with
great sadness about another American killed at the hands of
DHS, I ask that the committee observe a moment of silence in
honor of Alex Pretti.
[Moment of silence.]
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The slaying of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti by DHS are the most
tragic examples of what is wrong with Trump's DHS, but far from
the only ones. Last fall, a Border Patrol agent shot Marimar
Martinez, a U.S. citizen and preschool teacher from Chicago, 5
times. The agent bragged in text messages about shooting her,
saying, ``I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in
your book, boys.''
Again, the Trump administration tried to blame Ms.
Martinez, the victim, but prosecutors dropped charges against
her when it became apparent that the evidence contradicted the
Border Patrol's phony account. Unlike Ms. Good's and Mr.
Pretti's, who can no longer tell their stories, Ms. Martinez
has shared her story about what Trump's DHS did to her. I want
to play a bit of the video here because people need to see what
ICE and CBP are doing to Americans.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Thompson. What happened to Ms. Martinez, Ms. Good, and
Mr. Pretti is a scourge on this country and shameful chapter in
our Nation's history. But tragically, there is more. DHS agents
recently used a 5-year-old Ecuadorian boy, Liam Ramos, as bait
to lure his family members outside their home to arrest them.
The family had entered the country legally as asylum seekers
and were living in Minnesota while awaiting their immigration
proceedings. DHS sent the little boy and his father to
detention in Texas for over a week. Thankfully, a judge ordered
him release, slamming DHS for its, and I quote, ``incompetently
implemented deportation campaign.'' Incompetently implemented
deportation campaign is putting it nicely, especially as it
relates to small children. More apt in the Bible quote from
John 11, Chapter 35, referenced at the end of the judge's
opinion, ``Jesus wept.''
DHS personnel are now forcing their way into private homes
without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. In one recent incident, ICE dragged a U.S. citizen
from his home at gunpoint in underwear before realizing they
had picked up the wrong person. The person ICE was actually
looking for was sitting in jail in Minnesota. The Minnesota
Department of Corrections says that ICE had this information
all along.
Bystander videos from Minneapolis and cities around the
country show ICE and CBP personnel behaving like unprofessional
goons, cursing at bystanders and mooning people from their
hotel rooms. News reports have a Border Patrol agent was found
passed out drunk and covered in vomit in a vehicle. ICE
personnel apparently stole a child's phone and sold it for
cash. It is an embarrassment and DHS's so-called leadership
should be ashamed. If only they had any shame.
Secretary Noem's Department of Homeland Security has the
blood of American citizens on its hand, but she takes no
responsibility for anything. To the contrary, Secretary Noem
was last seen in this committee room hiding behind her family
in a desperate attempt to distract from her Department's
failures and abuses. Then she ran from our questions, leaving
early under the guise of needing to attend a meeting that it
turns out didn't even exist.
Her inexcusable behavior should come as no surprise. She
has always been more concerned with photo ops and wardrobe
changes than following the law and fulfilling the mission of
her Department. Since being sworn in, Secretary Noem has
enriched herself, abused the power of her office, obstructed
Congressional oversight, and violated her oath to the
Constitution.
Donald Trump and Kristi Noem are doing real damage to this
country and to the Department that was stood up 25 years ago in
the wake of 9/11 to protect American citizens from future
attacks. Secretary Noem is a liar with no concern for the lives
of Americans killed by the Department she runs. She must go.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
February 10, 2026
I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that our job is to
conduct oversight, not cover for Donald Trump and his out-of-control
administration, which is running roughshod over Americans' rights,
killing U.S. citizens, and threatening our very democracy.
The disease rotting the Trump administration from the inside out
started at the top and has infected every part of the Executive branch.
Nowhere is it that more evident than at the Department of Homeland
Security.
This hearing is just the start of a reckoning for the Trump
administration and its weaponization of DHS against American citizens
and the principles our country stands for. DHS, led by Secretary Kristi
Noem, must be held accountable for its lawless immigration operations.
They are reckless, creating chaos in our communities, terrorizing
adults and children alike, and undermining our moral authority as a
nation of liberty and rule of law.
Last month, an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good--a Minneapolis
mom--in cold blood, as she drove away from him. After killing her, the
agent called her a disgusting name I won't repeat here, and other
agents refused to allow a nearby physician to treat her. Democrats
called for accountability.
Instead, Secretary Noem blamed the victim, Ms. Good, and attempted
to gaslight Americans with false claims that Ms. Good was a ``domestic
terrorist.'' Renee Good was nothing of the sort. She was a mom, a wife,
a neighbor, and an American citizen who did not deserve to die at the
hands of her own government. She should be alive today.
Ever since, the Trump administration has devoted the full resources
of the Federal Government to blocking a legitimate investigation into
Ms. Good's killing. If that isn't a sign of guilt, I don't know what
is.
Federal prosecutors had a warrant to collect evidence from Ms.
Good's vehicle for a civil rights investigation into ICE's use of
force, but FBI Director Kash Patel and other Trump administration
officials demanded they drop it. Career prosecutors--duty bound to the
rule of law, not the political prerogatives of the White House--
resigned in protest. Blocking an investigation into the Government's
use of force against one of its citizens is the stuff of dictatorships,
not democracies. Every American should be outraged.
Democrats tried to get answers in the aftermath of Ms. Good's
shooting. We called on Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons to testify at the
committee's hearing 3 weeks ago. Unfortunately, he turned down the
committee's invitation.
This is part of a pattern of the Trump administration's refusal to
comply with regular Congressional oversight. Committee Democrats have
sent multiple letters to ICE and CBP on critical issues, but most of
them--10--have gone unanswered. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to include these unanswered letters for the record.
ICE has also blocked Members of Congress from visiting its
detention facilities, even after reports of horrific conditions,
detainee abuse, and a detainee being murdered in a DHS facility. Mr.
Lyons is here today, nearly a month after we invited him--I guess DHS
needed time to get its story straight before he came to testify under
oath.
Fearing more violence from Federal law enforcement, Democrats have
also called on DHS to rein in its immigration agents and their brutal
attacks on Americans immediately following Ms. Good's murder. But DHS
ignored our pleas.
Instead Greg Bovino, who styles himself in Nazi attire and takes
joy in deploying tear gas at Americans, continued to roam around
Minneapolis with his masked gang terrorizing people and violating their
Constitutional rights.
And, tragically, our worst fears were realized. Just days after the
hearing Mr. Lyons refused to participate in, CBP personnel shot Alex
Pretti, as he was face-down on a Minneapolis sidewalk, killing him in
broad daylight.
In the video of the incident, a DHS agent can be seen cheering Mr.
Pretti's death. Americans watched the video in horror.
Yet, once again, Secretary Noem gaslit the public, made up a
demonstrably false story about Mr. Pretti, and blamed the victim for
his own death. Mr. Pretti was a law-abiding U.S. citizen and a VA nurse
who dedicated his career to caring for our veterans.
Mr. Chairman, at our hearing last month I asked for a moment of
silence in memory of Renee Good. Today, with great sadness about
another American killed at the hands of DHS, I ask that the committee
observe a moment of silence in honor of Alex Pretti.
The slayings of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti by DHS are the most tragic
examples of what is wrong with Trump's DHS, but far from the only ones.
Last fall, a Border Patrol agent shot Miramar Martinez, a U.S.
citizen and preschool teacher from Chicago, 5 times. The agent bragged
in text messages about shooting her, saying ``I fired 5 rounds and she
had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.'' Again, the Trump
administration tried to blame Ms. Martinez, the victim, but prosecutors
dropped charges against her when it became apparent that the evidence
contradicted the Border Patrol's phony account.
Unlike Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti, who can no longer tell their
stories, Ms. Martinez has shared her story about what Trump's DHS did
to her. I want to play a bit of that video here, because people need to
see what ICE and CBP are doing to Americans.
What happened to Ms. Martinez, Ms. Good, and Mr. Pretti is a
scourge on this country and shameful chapter in our Nation's history,
but tragically there is more. DHS agents recently used a 5-year-old
Ecuadorian boy, Liam Ramos, as bait to lure his family members outside
their home to arrest them.
The family had entered the country legally as asylum seekers and
were living in Minnesota while awaiting their immigration proceedings.
DHS sent the little boy and his father to detention in Texas for
over a week. Thankfully a judge ordered him released, slamming DHS for
its ``incompetently implemented'' deportation campaign.
``Incompetently implemented'' deportation campaign is putting it
nicely, especially as it relates to small children. More apt is the
Bible quote from John 11:35 referenced at the end of the judge's
opinion: ``Jesus wept.''
DHS personnel are now forcing their way into private homes without
a judicial warrant, in violation of the 4th Amendment. In one recent
incident, ICE dragged a U.S. citizen from his home at gunpoint in his
underwear before realizing they had picked up the wrong person. The
person ICE was actually looking for was sitting in jail in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections says that ICE had this
information all along.
Bystander videos from Minneapolis and cities around the country
show ICE and CBP personnel behaving like unprofessional goons, cursing
at bystanders and mooning people from their hotel windows.
News reports show a Border Patrol agent was found passed out,
drunk, and covered in vomit in a vehicle, and ICE personnel apparently
stole a child's phone and sold it for cash. It's an embarrassment and
DHS's so-called leadership should be ashamed . . . if only they had any
shame.
Secretary Noem's Department of Homeland Security has the blood of
Americans on its hands, but she takes no responsibility for anything.
To the contrary, Secretary Noem was last seen in this committee room
hiding behind her family in a desperate attempt to distract from her
Department's failures and abuses.
Then she ran from our questions, leaving early under the guise of
needing to attend a meeting that, it turns out, didn't even exist. Her
inexcusable behavior should come as no surprise. She's always been more
concerned with photo ops and wardrobe changes than following the law
and fulfilling the mission of her Department.
Since being sworn in, Secretary Noem has enriched herself, abused
the power of her office, obstructed Congressional oversight, and
violated her oath to the Constitution.
Donald Trump and Kristi Noem are doing real damage to this country
and to the Department that was stood up 25 years ago in the wake of 9/
11 to protect Americans from future attacks. Secretary Noem is a liar
with no concern for the lives of Americans killed by the Department she
runs. She must go.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record. I would now like to
formally introduce our witnesses.
First is Mr. Rodney Scott. Mr. Scott is commissioner of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection. After decades of service at
CBP, including extent as Chief Border Patrol, he has served as
the Senate-confirmed commissioner since June 2025.
Second is Mr. Joseph Edlow. Mr. Edlow is director of
Citizenship and Immigration Services. Director Edlow has served
in numerous legal roles across the Executive branch in
Congress, including chief counsel to USCIS. Mr. Edlow has
served as the Senate-confirmed director since July 2025.
Third is Mr. Todd Lyons. Mr. Lyons is the acting director
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Acting Director Lyons
began his Federal service in the U.S. Air Force in 1993 and
joined ICE as an agent in 2007. Mr. Lyons moved up the ranks
and has served as acting director since March 2025.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today.
Pursuant to committee rule VIII(C), I ask that the
witnesses please rise and raise their right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Garbarino. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you and
please be seated.
I now recognize Commissioner Scott for 5 minutes to
summarize his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RODNEY S. SCOTT, COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Commissioner Scott. Chairman Garbarino, Ranking Member
Thompson, Members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here before you today. I'm honored to
represent more than 67,000 dedicated men and women of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection who are tirelessly protecting
this great Nation every single day by simply trying to make
sure we know who and what is entering our homeland.
Border security is national security. Law enforcement
personnel that selflessly provide this service to America
increasingly perform under difficult conditions and intense
public and political scrutiny. But these brave men and women
deserve our gratitude and thanks. It's my privilege to be here
today joining my colleagues from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services. Our
agencies work in partnership to secure the homeland and uphold
the integrity of our immigration system.
CBP has spent the last year rebuilding what was an
intentionally broken border. As I informed Congress in 2021 and
again in 2023, the open border policies of the Biden
administration all but eliminated any meaningful border along
this--any meaningful border. It replaced it with a porous
geographic line defined by record-high encounters with illegal
aliens, overwhelmed facilities, and a work force that was
stretched so far beyond their capabilities that hostile nations
and the cartels exploited our border at will.
That all changed on January 20, 2025, under the leadership
of President Trump. We have now implemented effective policies,
established unified priorities and objectives across all
Federal departments, and empowered our work force to do their
jobs by simply enforcing the laws that already exist. We have
imposed consequences for those who break our laws, the laws
that this body enacted. Today the United States, because of
these efforts, enjoys the most secure border in our Nation's
history.
But this progress did not happen by accident. It's a result
of a comprehensive approach to border security. We ended catch-
and-release. We prioritized detention and removal authorities,
and we sent a clear message that illegal entry into the United
States will not be tolerated.
The numbers speak for themselves. We have achieved record-
low illegal crossings between ports of entry. Border Patrol
apprehensions along the Southwest Border totaled over 90,000
for the entire year. That's a number that used to represent a
single month under the Biden administration. Daily encounters
have dropped by 95 percent, averaging about 250 per day,
compared to 5,000 a day during the Biden administration.
Our increased enforcement also resulted in the seizure of
over 617,000 pounds of illicit narcotics. That's nationwide an
8 percent increase over the prior year. This included nearly
11,000 pounds of fentanyl and more than 186,000 pounds of
methamphetamines. This is what having a secure border looks
like.
None of this would have been possible, though, without the
vision and leadership of President Trump and the historic
investments made in border security. The One Big Beautiful
Bill, a $65 billion investment is enabling CBP to modernize
border infrastructure, deploy additional advanced technology,
and to grow our work force. Since January 2025, CBP is building
SmartWall at record levels. We're installing high-tech
attributes where the Biden administration had shut it off.
We're installing water barriers along the Rio Grande River,
which denies criminals access to these routes.
But that is not all. We're investing in technology at our
ports of entry, nonintrusive inspection equipment, biometrics,
and advanced surveillance to improve our ability to know what's
coming into this country, the land, air, and sea at and between
the ports of entry. CBP's work force is without a doubt the
greatest asset that we have. The One Big Beautiful Bill is
investing historic amounts of money in recruitment, hiring, and
retention and training to ensure that we have the most highly
qualified and capable law enforcement professionals securing
our border.
Due to the collaboration across all Federal departments,
the resultant record-low encounters, CBP has been able to surge
resources to support ICE's targeted enforcement operations
across the Nation. CBP has integrated with ICE and other
partners to identify and remove dangerous criminals and others
who remain in the country illegally.
As recent events have demonstrated, though, our officers
and agents are increasingly facing an unprecedented level of
aggressive interference and intimidation when executing the
laws that you have asked them to enforce. These attacks on
Federal law enforcement personnel are coordinated and well-
funded. This is not peaceful protest. No law enforcement
officer should be put at personal risk simply for doing the job
that we have asked them to do.
I thank you for your continued support of CBP's mission and
I look forward to answering your questions today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rodney S. Scott
February 10, 2026
introduction
Chairman Garbarino, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished
Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP)
immigration enforcement and border security operations.
I am honored to represent the more than 67,000 dedicated men and
women of CBP--the largest law enforcement agency in the United States.
We stand watch on the front lines of our country's borders to protect
the American people from external threats while facilitating lawful
trade and travel, often under difficult conditions and intense public
scrutiny, but always in service to the Nation. It is a privilege to
join my colleagues from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Together, our agencies work
in close partnership to secure our homeland and uphold the integrity of
our border.
The Human Cost of Failed Policy
The past year has been one of the most consequential in the history
of America's border security. Under the decisive leadership of
President Donald J. Trump, Secretary Kristi Noem, and Border Czar Tom
Homan, and thanks to the tireless efforts of the thousands of dedicated
public servants who work at our agencies to ensure border security, CBP
has fundamentally reversed years of open-border policies, achieving
record-low illegal entries between ports of entry. These results
reflect a clear commitment to restoring the rule of law, prioritizing
the safety of the American people, and empowering our officers and
agents to fulfill their critical mission.
CBP spent the last year rebuilding a devastated border defined by
record encounters, overwhelmed facilities, inadequate deterrence
measures, and personnel stretched to the limit.
We must be unflinchingly honest about the humanitarian catastrophe
that defined the previous administration's open-border policies. The
same critics attacking us today for enforcing the law were silent for 4
years as open borders empowered cartels to engage in industrial-scale
human trafficking. Nowhere was this failure more tragic than in the
treatment of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs).
A bombshell report from the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG)
in August 2024 exposed the depth of this betrayal of UACs. Under the
Biden-Harris administration, CBP encountered over 500,000 unaccompanied
children at the Southwest Border. Investigators revealed that the
Government on President Biden's watch had effectively lost track of
hundreds of thousands of these children, in an utter failure to ensure
their safety and well-being.
The details are damning. The DHS OIG found that more than 291,000
children--out of nearly 450,000 transferred to the Department of Health
and Human Services' custody--were never even issued Notices to Appear
in court, and many who were served notices missed their court dates. By
failing to initiate removal proceedings or determine the whereabouts of
those UACs who did not appear, the previous administration made ghosts
of these children, denying them any meaningful legal or physical
protection. The prior administration released these children into the
interior of our country with no supervision or controls, and no
assurances that they were not being handed directly from a coyote at
the border to a trafficker in the heartland, and left them vulnerable
to exploitation and other criminal acts.
Defeating the Cartel Business Model
This administrative negligence did more than just fail these
children; it financed their exploitation. The vast majority of illegal
immigration at our Southern Border is facilitated by sophisticated,
ruthless cartels that have built their business model on our own policy
loopholes. Cartels knew that under the Biden administration, trafficked
children would be processed and released into the interior with
virtually no oversight. ``Catch and release'' policies that allowed
illegal immigrants to remain in our country facilitated the presence of
those who trafficked these children on their arrival. By failing to
enforce our laws at the border, the Federal Government enabled human
trafficking, not just of children but of those exploited for labor, by
cartels, who profited from this trafficking and used the profits to
finance their illegal activities.
Breaking this cycle requires certainty of consequences and complete
border security. When we secure the border and deny illegal entry, we
are not just enforcing a statute--we are bankrupting a cartel operation
and protecting innocent people. When illegal entry no longer guarantees
release into the interior, and when UACs are protected and monitored,
the cartels lose their product, their presence in the United States,
and their ability to profit from our failures.
A Year of Unprecedented Enforcement and Deterrence
Today, by prioritizing law enforcement and leveraging the
authorities granted to us by Congress, the United States has the most
secure border in our Nation's history. We have realigned resources,
applied consequences for those who break our laws, and empowered our
workforce to do their jobs. Although we have experienced tremendous
success ensuring unprecedented border security, every day is a new
battle to prevent cartels and other criminals from operating within our
country and threatening their victims and the American people. We must
stay vigilant and continue to pursue effective policy and practice
daily so that our success is sustained.
National security cannot exist without effective border security.
Over the past year, our enforcement efforts have been nothing short of
historic across all our operational environments. As I alluded to
earlier, we have achieved the lowest annual encounters in CBP's
history. Total U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions along the Southwest
Border during the last calendar year were approximately 90,000--a
figure lower than the monthly average during the Biden
administration.\1\ Daily encounters declined by 95 percent, averaging
approximately 250 per day, compared to more than 5,000 per day
previously. We have also seen historically low numbers of gotaways--
illegal aliens who evade apprehension by CBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The average number of monthly apprehensions during the Biden
administration was 155,485, https://www.cbp.gov/about/history/cbps-
historic-first-year-under-current-administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This progress is the direct result of the administration's
comprehensive enforcement approach. We ended the practice of ``catch-
and-release,'' prioritized detention and removal authorities, and sent
a clear message that illegal entry into the United States will not be
accommodated or rewarded. Instead, consequences will be delivered
consistent with law. For 9 consecutive months, U.S. Border Patrol has
not released any alien who entered without authorization into the
United States, a powerful reflection of restored control of our border.
Policy changes and decreased encounters have allowed us to act more
strategically and execute data-driven targeted operations. This has led
to increased enforcement actions. For example, since January 20, 2025,
CBP seized nearly 620,000 pounds of illicit drugs nationwide, an 8
percent increase over the prior year. This included nearly 11,000
pounds of fentanyl, 185,000 pounds of methamphetamine, and significant
quantities of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.cbp.gov/about/history/cbps-historic-first-year-
under-current-administration, January 20, 2025-January 20, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP is also a foundational partner in the President's Homeland
Security Task Force (HSTF). Co-led by the FBI and ICE/HSI, these task
forces now operate across all 50 States to dismantle transnational
criminal organizations (TCOs) and foreign gangs. CBP's unique border
intelligence and interdiction capabilities are force multipliers for
the HSTF, ensuring that the border is no longer a gap for TCOs to
exploit, but rather the starting point to dismantle their operations
entirely.
Front-line Investments in Infrastructure, Technology, and our Workforce
None of these accomplishments would be possible without the
historic investments in border security made by this administration.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a $65 billion border security bill,
represents the largest investment in border security in a generation,
providing for modern infrastructure, advanced technology, and increased
law enforcement personnel.
CBP is actively executing Smart Wall construction consistent with
U.S. Border Patrol requirements from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of
America in support of the President's Executive Orders and CBP's
statutory mission to secure the border. CBP has already placed $12
billion in Smart Wall funding on contract, with all remaining barrier
contracts scheduled for award by June 30, 2026. We anticipate
completing 250 miles of new barriers by September 30, 2026.
Furthermore, in January 2026, we began installing waterborne barriers
in the Rio Grande, denying smugglers a key avenue for trafficking
people and narcotics, enhancing natural and land-based barriers, and
providing a safer operating environment for our agents.
The success of CBP's mission fundamentally relies on the expertise
and dedication of our workforce. CBP is prioritizing recruiting,
hiring, retention, and training to rebuild our workforce after years of
attrition. Over the past year, we saw historic levels of recruitment
and retention, with monthly averages showing an 84 percent increase in
new U.S. Border Patrol hires compared to the previous year. The Act not
only supports our hiring goals by funding 5,000 more CBP officers,
3,000 Border Patrol agents, and 200 Air and Marine agents, but also
provides funding for recruitment and retention, ensuring that we
attract, hire, and keep the best law enforcement professionals in
America.
In addition to personnel, CBP continues to invest in technology
that enhances CBP's operational capabilities to detect and intercept
individuals illegally crossing the border, dangerous goods and
materials concealed in cargo and vehicles, and illegal activity in the
air and maritime domains. With One Big Beautiful Bill funding, we are
investing in non-intrusive inspection, biometrics, border surveillance
equipment, aircraft, and communications systems. These investments
rapidly modernize our border security posture and ensure that we remain
ahead of current and emerging threats.
supporting the larger federal enforcement mission
With record-low encounters, CBP can enhance our support of
nationwide targeted operations and immigration enforcement priorities.
CBP's critical support of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
interior enforcement operations enables the removal of dangerous
criminals, gang members, and aliens who remain in the country
illegally. CBP personnel are deployed to support targeted operations in
more than 20 cities, resulting in thousands of arrests. I must note
that CBP officers and agents are increasingly encountering situations
in which agitators interfere with lawful enforcement actions, including
attempts to obstruct arrests or intimidate law enforcement personnel.
These situations are unprecedented in scale and intensity. The current
operational environment puts our officers, agents, and even their
families, at tremendous personal risk of violence.
Let me be clear. No law enforcement officer should be placed in a
position where executing a lawful warrant or simply performing his or
her lawful law enforcement duties becomes a flashpoint for
confrontation with third parties. CBP officers and agents are trained
to de-escalate, act professionally, and to use force only when
necessary. Training cannot fully mitigate all risks created when law
enforcement is undermined or publicly challenged in real time.
conclusion
In closing, I want to emphasize that the accomplishments of the
past year are not just numbers on paper. They represent lives saved,
communities strengthened, and a renewed sense of safety and security
for the American people. Under the unwavering leadership of President
Trump and Secretary Noem, CBP delivered on its promise to secure the
border, enforce the law, and protect our Nation from those who would do
us harm.
Our work is not complete, but we are determined to maintain and
consistently increase control over our borders. We are intercepting
dangerous aliens and preventing their entry. We are keeping America
safe. The men and women of CBP are proud to serve, proud to protect,
and proud to be part of a mission that puts the American people first.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Garbarino. Thank you, Commissioner.
I now recognize Director Edlow for 5 minutes to summarize
his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH B. EDLOW, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Garbarino, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of
the committee, it is an honor to speak to you about the
priorities and progress of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services. I'm grateful for your partnership as we work together
to uphold the rule of law, protect our citizens, and safeguard
our homeland.
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to President
Trump for his trust in me and to Secretary Noem for her
leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. I'm proud to
serve alongside a work force that's deeply committed to
advancing the President's agenda, protecting our communities
and restoring integrity to America's legal immigration system.
As director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
my vision has been straightforward and clear: restore
accountability to our immigration system and ensure that it
serves the interests of the American people first and foremost.
Today I want to highlight some of our most significant
accomplishments: ending the exploitation of immigration
programs, putting American workers first, protecting our
communities from public safety threats, protecting national
security, and combating immigration fraud.
Fraud isn't just a paperwork issue. It's a national
security and public safety concern. Often those who wish to do
us harm exploit weaknesses in our system. Over the past year,
USCIS has made nearly 33,000 fraud referrals to law
enforcement, a 138 percent increase over previous years. We
conducted thousands of site visits to homes and workplaces and
thousands of social media checks to ensure aliens aren't
espousing anti-American sentiment. Moreover, our fraud
detection and national security team completed over 21,000
investigations identifying fraud in approximately 65 percent of
those cases.
In Operation Twin Shield in Minneapolis-St. Paul back in
the fall, we uncovered marriage fraud, visa misuse, and student
visa abuses leading to denials of immigration benefits,
arrests, and removal proceedings. This work led to Operation
PARRIS, where we continue reexamining thousands of refugee
cases in Minnesota, conducting thorough background checks, and
in-person reviews.
We've also strengthened our vetting policies. If someone
falsely claims U.S. citizenship to get a public benefit or try
to vote, we hold them accountable through denial of citizenship
or loss of immigration status. We've tightened screening to
determine whether claimed marriages and family relationships
are legitimate. We've changed regulations to employee
authorization--excuse me, to employment authorization is no
longer automatically extended. Now we require more frequent
renewals so that we can vet aliens more frequently and ensure
that they deserve to remain in the country.
Additionally, we've taken action to end the exploitation of
immigration programs. Mass humanitarian parole programs were
being abused by the prior administration, so we've restored
them to Congress' original intent, allowing those benefits on a
case-by-case basis. Secretary Noem also ended decades of
temporary protected status for several countries, returning the
program to what Congress intended, temporary protection, not
permanent status in the United States.
Moreover, this administration is doing more to ensure the
integrity of our elections. We enhanced the SAVE program so
States can verify citizenship of those on their voter rolls
more effectively. Since January 2025, we've processed over 58
million queries and 27 States are participating. Additionally,
Federal agencies ran nearly 206 million SAVE queries last year
to identify fraud and preserve public assistance benefits for
lawful U.S. residents and citizens.
We're also putting American taxpayers and communities and
workers first. We affirmed that aliens should be self-reliant,
not dependent on public assistance, and that their sponsors are
liable for the cost of public benefits that they access.
The Department of Homeland Security is also working to
rescind the 2022 public charge rule, restoring our discretion
to determine if an alien will rely on Government assistance.
We've proposed protecting American jobs by prioritizing H1B
visas for higher-skilled, higher-paid workers so that companies
can't use those visas merely as a way to get cheaper noncitizen
labor. We've also streamlined agricultural visa processing to
better support American farmers.
A major milestone was implementing the One Big Beautiful
Bill, which added new fees for certain immigration processes.
USCIS collects those fees, but only retains a small amount of
the money while the rest goes to other agencies and deficit
reduction.
Finally, protecting the American people is at the heart of
everything we do. After the attack on 2 brave service members
of the National Guard last November, Secretary Noem directed us
to review immigration benefits for aliens from high-risk
countries.
In closing, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is
restoring integrity, accountability, and security to America's
legal immigration system. These accomplishments reflect the
dedication of our work force and the transformative leadership
of President Trump and Secretary Noem, both of whom have
allowed USCIS to do the job it was created by Congress to do.
We stand ready to continue working with Congress to protect the
homeland and uphold the rule of law.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edlow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph B. Edlow
February 10, 2026
Chairman Garbarino, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished
Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today. I am here to discuss the progress, priorities, and
challenges of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It is an honor
to testify before this esteemed committee, and I appreciate your
continued commitment as we work together to protect American citizens,
safeguard the homeland, and uphold the rule of law.
I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to President Trump
for the trust he has placed in me to lead USCIS, and to Secretary Noem
for her leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. I am proud
to serve alongside a dedicated workforce committed to advancing the
President's agenda, protecting our Nation and the safety of our
communities, and restoring integrity to America's legal immigration
system.
As director of USCIS, my vision has been clear: to restore
accountability and security to our legal immigration system, ensuring
that it serves the interests of the American people above all else.
Over the past year, USCIS has made historic strides in advancing this
mission. Today, I will highlight our major accomplishments in 6
critical areas: combating fraud, ending the exploitation of immigration
programs, upholding the integrity of the naturalization process,
putting American communities and workers first, implementing the One
Big Beautiful Bill Act, and protecting our communities from threats to
public safety and national security.
combating fraud
At the heart of our mission is the unwavering commitment to protect
the integrity of the legal immigration system from those who seek to
exploit, abuse, or undermine it. Fraud is a national security and
public safety concern because its often through fraud that many of
those who wish to do us harm have accessed the United States. Over the
past year, USCIS has implemented rigorous measures to detect, deter,
and disrupt fraud at every stage of the immigration process.
Since January 20, 2025, USCIS officers have made nearly 33,000
fraud referrals to our Fraud Detection and National Security
Directorate--a 138 percent increase compared to the average yearly
referrals of the previous administration. Our Fraud Detection and
National Security team completed investigations into more than 21,000
cases, identifying fraud in 65 percent of them. Our officers conducted
over 7,000 site visits and more than 26,000 social media checks to
identify national security, public safety, fraud, and anti-American
concerns.
This year, USCIS made history with Operation Twin Shield. Launched
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, this targeted initiative uncovered a
wide range of fraudulent schemes, including marriage fraud, misuse of
H-1B work visas, and student visa abuses. Operation Twin Shield focused
on more than 1,000 cases with fraud or ineligibility indicators,
attempted over 2,000 site visits, and completed nearly 1,500 in-person
interviews. The operation resulted in the denial of immigration
benefits, the filing of numerous Notices to Appear before an
immigration judge to initiate removal proceedings, and nearly a dozen
arrests by our partners at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). We also gained significant evidence that led to Operation PARRIS
Customs Enforcement (ICE). We also gained significant evidence that led
to Operation PARRIS.
Operation PARRIS is a sweeping initiative reexamining thousands of
refugee cases through new background checks and intensive verification
of refugee claims. We have referred cases of fraud and other crimes to
ICE. The initial focus is on Minnesota's 5,600 refugees who have not
yet been granted lawful permanent resident status (Green Card holders).
USCIS' newly-established vetting center is at the forefront of
Operation PARRIS, with adjudicators conducting thorough background
checks, reinterviews, and merit reviews of refugee claims.
In the last year, USCIS also strengthened policy guidance to ensure
that there is no legal defense if someone falsely claims U.S.
citizenship to gain a government benefit, with officers considering
only age or mental capacity to assess if a claim was made
intentionally. Such false claims historically and routinely allow
aliens unlawful access to benefits, services, and privileges reserved
for American citizens, and we are committed to holding violators
accountable. Lying about being a U.S. citizen, including attempting to
fraudulently vote in elections, is a clear violation of the INA \1\ and
will lead to the denial of a naturalization application and the alien's
immigration status. We also enhanced screening measures to vet
potentially fraudulent marriages and family relationships, ensuring
they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws.
Aliens seeking legal immigration status through family relationships or
marriage must prove their relationship is genuine and not a scheme to
commit immigration fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A false claim to U.S. citizenship is a ground of
inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) and a ground of
removability under INA 237(a)(3)(D), and generally, there is no
waiver available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we changed regulations to ensure that aliens no
longer receive automatic extensions of employment authorization when
seeking to renew that authorization in some employment categories. This
ensures that the U.S. Government doesn't allow aliens to work in the
United States without regular, on-going screening and vetting. We also
reduced the maximum period that certain employment authorization
documents are valid--from 5 years to 18 months, ensuring more frequent
vetting and screening.
ending the exploitation of immigration programs
USCIS has taken decisive action to end the abuse and exploitation
of immigration programs, restoring them to their intended purpose as
prescribed by Congress. This includes stopping the broad abuse of
humanitarian parole authority and terminating the so-called ``family
reunification'' and the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan
(CHNV) parole programs. Parole was never designed to be used as a
blanket authority, and we are returning it to the case-by-case basis
for only urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit
Congress intended.
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was always meant to be temporary.
Secretary Noem has taken her statutory duties seriously and has ended
TPS for many countries, restoring the long-ignored Congressional intent
of this classification. We strongly encourage aliens whose parole or
TPS was terminated to use the CBP Home app to self-report their
departure from the United States. Doing so will enable them to receive
a complimentary one-way ticket home and a $2,600 exit bonus to help
them get resettled.
Not only were CHNV and TPS never intended to be permanent pathways
to citizenship, but they were easily exploited by bad actors.
Individuals with criminal records, including those with links to
terrorism and human trafficking, obtained status via CHNV and TPS
through fraudulent applications and submission of fake documents,
including through the filing of Form I-134A (Online Request to be a
Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support) associated with CHNV
sponsorship applications that identified over 600,000 supporter
applications with suspected fraud and public safety concerns involving
hundreds of fictitious addresses, fraudulent identities and social
security number belonging to deceased individuals, exposing the
American people to dangerous threats within our borders. Returning
these programs to their statutory intent reduces this risk of
exploitation and unacceptable risk to our citizens.
These actions reinforce our commitment to upholding the rule of law
and ensuring that immigration programs are not exploited for purposes
beyond their statutory intent.
upholding the integrity of the naturalization process
Naturalization is a privilege, not a right, and USCIS has taken
extensive steps to reinforce the integrity of the naturalization
process. On September 17, 2025, we announced a revised version of the
civics portion of the naturalization test, expanding the total bank of
questions from 100 to 128 questions, increasing the number of questions
on each test from 10 to 20, raising the passing score from 6 to 12
correct responses, and revising the questions to provide a more
meaningful assessment of an alien's knowledge and understanding of U.S.
history and government.
We also restored the practice of conducting neighborhood
investigations of those seeking citizenship. This is an authority
provided for in statute, but long neglected in practice. These
investigations verify aliens' eligibility for naturalization by
reviewing actual residency, moral character, loyalty to the U.S.
Constitution, ensuring they have not falsely claimed U.S. citizenship
to obtain an unlawful benefit or registered to vote, and their
commitment to the Nation's well-being. Neighborhood investigations are
vital to maintaining the integrity of the naturalization process,
assuring proper assimilation into American values and culture, and
safeguarding the value and privilege of American citizenship.
We have also ensured that voter registration services offered at
administrative naturalization ceremonies remain strictly nonpartisan
and are conducted only by State and local election officials. This
practice safeguards the impartiality of voter registration for
America's newest citizens.
putting american communities and workers first
USCIS is committed to putting American communities and workers
first, ensuring that our immigration system serves the national
interest and protects the rights and opportunities of American citizens
first and foremost.
We have launched enhancements to the Systematic Alien Verification
for Entitlements service, better known as SAVE, allowing States to
verify citizenship using the last four digits of Social Security
numbers. States can run queries in bulk and use SAVE at no charge. By
allowing States to review and verify their voter rolls, this
administration is doing more to ensure the integrity of elections than
any previous administration. Since January 20, 2025, SAVE has processed
over 58 million voter verification queries, with 27 States signing
memoranda of agreement for voter verification with USCIS.
Moreover, we are cracking down on the abuse of public benefits. On
September 4, 2025, USCIS reaffirmed long-standing policy that aliens in
the United States should be self-reliant, and that government benefits
should not incentivize immigration. On September 25, 2025, we reminded
individuals who agree to financially sponsor an alien that they can be
sued to recover the cost of any benefits accessed by an alien whom they
sponsor.
Additionally, DHS proposed a rule to rescind the ineffective 2022
Public Charge final rule and restore USCIS' discretion when making a
determination whether an alien seeking legal status in the United
States would become reliant upon government assistance. To further
preserve public benefits for U.S. citizens who need them and to
identify potential fraud in public benefits programs, Federal agencies
responsible for providing oversight to benefit-granting agencies ran
nearly 206 million SAVE queries during calendar year 2025.
Another rule that DHS proposed prioritizes the allocation of the
limited number of H-1B visas to higher-skilled and higher-paid aliens,
better protecting wages, working conditions, and job opportunities for
American workers while also ensuring American employers can access the
best of the best foreign workers. We also published a critical final
rule enabling USCIS to streamline the process for agricultural work
visas, supporting America's vital agricultural industry.
implementing the one big beautiful bill act
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill
Act into law, adding new provisions and fees to the Immigration and
Nationality Act. USCIS did not receive appropriations from the bill,
but through the implementation of new immigration fees, $321 million
has been collected--of which USCIS retains only a small portion. The
revenue generated from immigration fees under the bill is allocated to
USCIS; the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR); the U.S. Treasury; U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP); and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However,
USCIS does not collect or track the revenue for CBP or ICE. USCIS moved
quickly to implement the new fees that the agency is responsible for,
publishing the July 22, 2025 Federal Register Notice approximately 2
weeks after the President signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into
law. USCIS has since published several Federal Register Notices
announcing the implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act fees.
The bill introduced fees between $100 to $1,000 for specific USCIS
benefit requests with limited exceptions. Congress designated portions
of each fee to specific Government entities, with USCIS retaining only
26 percent, and the remainder allocated to the United States Treasury.
Fees mandated by the bill are non-waivable and non-reducible,
regardless of eligibility for waivers under other USCIS regulations.
The law requires DHS to make annual adjustments based on the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers to ensure fees reflect inflation
and economic conditions. On January 1, 2026, USCIS implemented
inflation-adjusted fees, in compliance with the law.
We also updated our policies, guidance, and intake procedures to
close loopholes, limit improper fee waivers, and ensure applications
that do not comply with the law are rejected. These critical efforts
have strengthened the integrity of our legal immigration system,
reinforced accountability, and ensured that USCIS resources are
directed toward lawful, properly-filed cases. Under this
administration, USCIS is once again enforcing the law as written:
firmly, consistently, and with integrity. I'm proud of the
professionalism and discipline our workforce has shown in carrying out
Congress's mandate.
protecting american communities from threats to public safety and
national security
Protecting Americans is at the heart of everything we do at USCIS.
We are committed to safeguarding public safety and national security by
ensuring that every alien undergoes the most rigorous vetting and
screening processes possible.
Within hours of the November 26, 2025 attack where an Afghan
national allegedly murdered a National Guard member and severely
wounded another in Washington, DC, Secretary Noem directed USCIS to put
asylum processing on hold for aliens from every country, implement a
full-scale re-review of immigration benefits approved for aliens from
Presidentially-designated high-risk countries for the last several
years, and place a hold on the processing of immigration applications
and petitions for Afghan nationals and aliens from those additional
countries of concern.
We implemented critical national security measures requiring USCIS
officers to consider negative country-specific factors when vetting
aliens from 39 high-risk countries, ensuring that USCIS can more
meaningfully assess whether an alien is potentially a threat to public
safety or national security.
With the support of Secretary Noem, USCIS announced the creation of
a new vetting center to enhance screening and vetting of immigration
applications, with resources that allow us to better focus on
identifying terrorists, criminal aliens, and other threats to public
safety. The center leverages advanced technologies and works closely
with law enforcement and intelligence partners to strengthen our
ability to protect national security.
USCIS has referred over 14,400 aliens to ICE since January 20,
2025, for public safety, national security, and fraud concerns,
including 182 aliens who were confirmed or suspected to be national
security risks. We have actively collaborated with other agencies on
immigration enforcement and public safety efforts, resulting in over
2,400 arrests at USCIS field offices since January 20, 2025.
USCIS has begun recruiting a new class of immigration officers
called Homeland Defenders to better support the agency's mission and
bolster efforts to combat fraud and other threats. Since launching the
hiring campaign on September 30, USCIS has received more than 50,000
applications--the highest in agency history. The first Homeland
Defenders began reporting for duty in early December 2025.
USCIS is also exercising new law enforcement authorities delegated
by Secretary Noem and is hiring a new team of special agents who will
investigate and refer immigration law violators for prosecution.
Additionally, under an updated policy confirming USCIS' role as an
immigration enforcement agency, our immigration officers are once again
empowered to enforce immigration law by issuing Notices to Appear
before an immigration judge to initiate removal proceedings, and they
have done so in historic numbers. Since January 20, 2025, USCIS
officers have issued approximately 196,600 Notices to Appear.
USCIS has aligned immigration policy with our deeply-held American
values, issuing policy guidance emphasizing that there is no room in
America for aliens who espouse anti-American ideologies or support
terrorist organizations.
We have also launched an on-line process for aliens to comply with
a long-standing alien registration requirement that helps the
Government track and manage their presence to more effectively enforce
immigration law, supporting national security and public safety
efforts.
conclusion
In closing, I want to reiterate my commitment--and the commitment
of every USCIS employee--to restoring integrity, accountability, and
security to America's legal immigration system. The accomplishments of
the past year reflect the hard work and dedication of our workforce,
the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Noem, and our shared
commitment to putting the interests of the American people first.
USCIS stands ready to continue working with Congress and our
partners across Government to protect the homeland, uphold the rule of
law, and ensure that our legal immigration system serves the Nation's
interests. I thank the committee for its attention to our shared
mission and for its on-going support of USCIS.
I welcome your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Garbarino. Thank you, Director Edlow.
I now recognize Acting Director Lyons for 5 minutes to
summarize his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TODD M. LYONS, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE
DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Lyons. Good morning. Chairman Gabarino, Ranking Member
Thompson, distinguished Members of the committee, thank you for
the invitation to discuss the critical work U.S. Immigration
and Customs is doing every day to carry out President Trump's
agenda to keep America safe, restore order to our communities,
and return law--return the rule of law to this country.
Under the leadership of President Trump and DHS Secretary
Kristi Noem, the men and women of ICE have been empowered to do
exactly what they're trained to do: arrest and remove illegal
aliens and criminals from our communities. We are enhancing
public safety, securing our national security, and finally
restoring integrity of the immigration system that had been
allowed to collapse. We have supercharged our partnerships with
State and local law enforcement, empowering offices around the
country through the 287(g) program to help ICE identify and
remove criminal aliens. Those partnerships have increased more
than 900 percent since President Trump took office, and our
communities are safer for it.
I am also proud of our agency's unprecedented hiring
campaign that led to hiring of more than 12,000 officers and
special agents in less than a year, and more than 222,000
individuals submitted applications. This expansion of a well-
trained and well-vetted work force will help further ICE's
abilities to execute the President's and Secretary's bold
agenda.
Before discussing our broader operations, I must address
the situation in Minnesota and the dangers that ICE agents and
officers face nationwide. While the investigations remain on-
going, I'm encouraged that some Minnesota officials are finally
signaling the willingness to cooperate with ICE. But let me be
clear, promises are not enough. We need action.
In the wake of the unprecedented border crisis of the
previous administration, ICE has stepped into the breach to
enforce the law. This commitment has a cost. We are facing the
deadliest operating environment in our agency's history. In
fiscal year 2025, death threats against ICE personnel increased
more than 8,000 percent. Assaults on officers have skyrocketed
over 1,400 percent. One officer in Minnesota had his finger
bitten off by a protester, egged on by elected officials
characterizing our offices as Gestapo or secret police. The
families of personnel--ICE personnel have been made to feel
unsafe in their homes. I know this first-hand because my own
family was targeted.
But let me send a message to anyone who thinks they can
intimidate us. You will fail. Despite these perils, our
officers continue to execute their mission with unwavering
resolve. We are only getting started. ICE remains committed to
the fundamental principles that those who illegally enter our
country must be held accountable.
Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, we
have achieved historic results. From January 20, 2025, through
January 20, 2026, ICE has conducted nearly 379,000 arrests.
Among those arrests were more than 7,000 suspected gang members
and over 1,400 known or suspected terrorists. The President
tasked us with mass deportation, and we are fulfilling that
mandate. Thanks to the resources provided by this Congress, we
are ramping up detention capacities and removal flights daily.
In the last year alone, we conducted over 475,000 removals.
It's a brutal reality that criminal immigration today is
organized by sophisticated, ruthless transnational criminal
organizations. These include cartels and transnational gangs
President Trump has rightfully designated as foreign terrorist
organizations. The only way to defeat them is to destroy their
revenue.
Within Homeland Security Investigations, our special agents
are delivering critical outcomes in the fight against
transnational crime. We are seizing fentanyl before it kills
our children and dismantling the networks that poison our
communities. In fiscal year 2025 alone, we seized more than 2.5
million pounds of narcotics, a 50 percent increase from the
previous year and a critical blow to transnational organization
groups everywhere. HSI criminal arrests are at the highest
point in history.
However, our approach is just not about enforcement. It is
about restoring order and dignity to human beings sold alive by
smugglers and exploited by these TCOs. In August 2024, the DHS
Office of Inspector General released a report that concluded
that more than 291,000 unaccompanied alien children, out of
nearly 450,000 transferred from DHS to HHS custody, were simply
lost by the system. We are talking about children exploited in
factories, abused in sexual trades, and living as indentured
servants on American soil. HSI is leading the charge to find
them. We have conducted more than 71,000 field engagements to
locate children, verify sponsor legitimacy, and uncover
criminal activity related to exploitation. Since February 2025,
ICE has arrested more than 500 criminal sponsors of these
offenses, including sexual exploitation and forced labor,
dismantled more than 2,400 human smuggling operations, and
along with our Federal partners, located more than 145,000
children.
To further ensure TCOs can never threaten our Nation again,
President Trump dedicated the establishment of the Homeland
Security Task Force. The Homeland Security Task Forces
represent the most aggressive and coordinated attack on TCOs in
history. Through Cross-Border Financial Crime Center, we have
developed and implemented a strategy to combat rampant fraud,
including Government programs in Minnesota and across the
country. Using this strategy, HSI has opened numerous criminal
investigations into the complex fraud systems that have
resulted in the thefts of billions.
Much of the fight ICE faces continue to be fueled by so-
called sanctuary cities. These jurisdictions provided a shield
for criminal aliens when a local jail refuses to honor ICE
detainer and releases that predator back into the community.
ICE exists to enforce America's longstanding immigration and
custom laws. These laws are grounded in common sense, national
sovereignty, and simple morality. Our officers and agents
enforce these without hesitation, without apology. I ask that
all the Members of the committee treat them with profound
respect that they have earned.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd M. Lyons
February 10, 2026
introduction
Chairman Garbarino, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished
Members of the committee: Thank you for the invitation to appear today
to discuss the critical work U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) is doing around the clock to carry out President Donald J.
Trump's agenda to keep Americans safe, restore order to our
communities, and return the rule of law to this country. I stand before
you today with immense pride to represent the dedicated patriots who
have answered the call to serve their Nation. These men and women do
not just hold a job; they hold the line, saving American lives. They
unapologetically enforce the laws of the United States, and they do so
with a courage that humbles me every single day.
Under the leadership of President Trump and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, the men and women of ICE have
been empowered to do exactly what they were trained to do: arrest and
remove illegal aliens and criminals from our communities. We are
enhancing public safety, securing our national security, and finally
restoring integrity to an immigration system that had been allowed to
collapse. While all illegal aliens are eligible for removal, we have
prioritized and removed tens of thousands of the ``worst of the
worst''--known dangerous criminals, known or suspected terrorists, and
gang members who threaten our neighborhoods.
We have supercharged partnerships with State and local law
enforcement, empowering officers around the country, under the
authorities given to us by Congress through the 287(g) program, to help
ICE identify and remove criminal aliens from the United States. Those
partnerships have increased more than 900 percent since President Trump
took office, and our communities are safer for it. We encourage more
agencies and departments around the country to partner with us in this
noble effort.
I am also proud of the agency's unprecedented hiring campaign that
led to ICE hiring more than 12,000 officers and agents in less than a
year, after more than 220,000 individuals submitted applications. This
expansion of our well-trained and well-vetted work force will further
support ICE's ability to execute on the President and the Secretary's
bold agenda to enforce our laws and remove illegal aliens.
a deadly operating environment
Before discussing our broader operations, I must address the
situation in Minnesota and the dangers that ICE agents face nationwide.
While investigations remain on-going, I am encouraged that some
Minnesota officials are finally signaling a willingness to cooperate
with ICE. But let me be clear: promises are not enough. We need action.
The anti-ICE rhetoric from public officials not just in Minnesota but
throughout the country has fomented violence against dedicated American
patriots defending our homeland, and this must stop.
In the wake of the unprecedented border chaos of the previous
administration, ICE has stepped into the breach to enforce the law.
This commitment has come at a cost. Our increased enforcement has been
met with a surge in threats, assaults, and doxing incidents against our
employees.
We are facing the deadliest operating environment in our agency's
history. ICE personnel, not to mention their families, are under
assault like never before in this country. In fiscal year 2025, death
threats against ICE personnel increased by more than 8,000 percent.
Assaults on our officers have skyrocketed by over 1,400 percent. One
officer in Minnesota had his finger bitten off by a left-wing
protestor, egged on by elected officials characterizing our officers as
the ``gestapo'' or ``secret police.'' The families of ICE personnel
have been made to feel unsafe in their own homes simply because their
loved ones have the courage to enforce the laws passed by this
Congress. Notably, those criticizing ICE and encouraging this violence
against our officers and their families were silent amid the horrors
perpetrated by cartels and human traffickers due to a lack of
immigration enforcement under the Biden administration.
I know this reality first-hand. My own family has been targeted.
But let me send a message to anyone who thinks they can intimidate us:
You will fail.
the results of ice's increased immigration enforcement operations
Despite these perils, our officers continue to execute their
mission with unwavering resolve. We are only getting started. ICE
remains committed to the fundamental principle that those who illegally
enter our country must be held accountable.
Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, we have
achieved historic results. From January 20, 2025, through January 20,
2026, ICE conducted nearly 379,000 arrests. Among these arrested were
more than 7,300 suspected gang members and 1,400 known or suspected
terrorists. We have taken these dangerous individuals off our streets,
making our country dramatically safer.
The President tasked us with mass deportations, and we are
fulfilling that mandate. Thanks to the resources provided by Congress,
we are ramping up detention capacity and removal flights daily. In the
last year alone, we conducted over 475,000 removals. We are not just
inflating statistics by counting border turnarounds; these are real
removals of individuals with no lawful basis to remain in the United
States.
dismantling tco s and ending atrocities against children
It is a brutal reality that illegal immigration today is entirely
organized by sophisticated, ruthless Transnational Criminal
Organizations (TCOs). This includes the cartels and transnational gangs
that President Trump has rightfully designated as Foreign Terrorist
Organizations (FTOs). For too long, these terrorist groups have
effectively controlled our Southern Border, deciding who enters, what
enters, and at what price. These organizations treat human beings as
cargo and American laws as mere suggestions. The only way to defeat
them is to destroy their revenue stream.
Within Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), our special agents
are delivering critical outcomes in the fight against transnational
crime. We are seizing fentanyl before it kills our children and
dismantling the networks that poison our communities. In fiscal year
2025 alone, we seized more than 2.5 million pounds of narcotics--a 53
percent increase from the previous year and a critical blow to TCO
revenues. And, HSI criminal arrests are at their highest point in HSI
history.
However, our approach is not just about enforcement; it is about
restoring order and dignity to many human beings who have been sold a
lie by smugglers and exploited by these TCOs. Nowhere is the mission
more urgent, or the history more horrifying, than in the protection of
children. We must confront the atrocities that were allowed to fester
under the previous administration. In August 2024, the DHS Office of
Inspector General released a report that details a campaign of
negligence against the most vulnerable among us.
The report concluded that more than 291,000 Unaccompanied Alien
Children (UACs)--out of nearly 450,000 transferred from DHS to the
Department of Health and Human Services' custody--were simply ``lost''
by the system. These children were not just misplaced files; they were
human beings abandoned to cartels and traffickers. By failing to issue
Notices to Appear or locating minors who missed appearances, the Biden-
Harris administration effectively surrendered them to traffickers and
forced labor rings. We are talking about children exploited in
factories, abused in illicit sex trades, and living in indentured
servitude on American soil. This was a moral stain on our Nation and
one of the greatest humanitarian tragedies in our history, fueled by a
refusal to enforce the law.
HSI is now leading the charge to find them. We have conducted more
than 71,000 field engagements to locate children, verify sponsor
legitimacy, and uncover criminal activity related to exploitation and
trafficking. These operations have involved comprehensive criminal
investigations, intelligence gathering, and close coordination with
Federal, State, and local partners to identify fraudulent sponsors,
dismantle trafficking networks, and pursue individuals who prey on
vulnerable children. Since February 2025, HSI has:
Arrested over 500 criminal sponsors for offenses including
child sexual exploitation, forced labor, identity fraud,
immigration violations, and aggravated assault;
Dismantled more than 2,400 human smuggling operations,
including nearly 730 criminal prosecutions related to human
smuggling, human trafficking, immigration violations, and child
exploitation; and
Reached 45 million people nationwide through public
awareness campaigns focused on preventing child trafficking and
sponsor fraud.
Incredibly, under President Trump's leadership, HSI special agents
and others within DHS law enforcement and the Department of Health and
Human Services have also located more than 145,000 UACs who the Biden
administration lost--many of them exploited, trafficked, and abused.
ICE deportations break the back of the TCO business model that
relies on this trafficking and the abuse and neglect of our legal
system. When illegal entry no longer serves as a meaningful method to
plant operatives in the United States and to transport humans and
product across our borders, these criminal networks lose their sources
and methods of profit. By removing illegal aliens from the interior and
rectifying the Biden administration's failures, ICE is not just
enforcing the law; we are dismantling a machinery of human misery and
protecting those who were victimized by criminals taking advantage of
the prior administration's refusal to enforce the law.
Further, through the President's ``Project Homecoming'' and our
Incentivized Voluntary Departure pilot program, we are offering
individuals the right to self-deport with dignity. This program allows
aliens to return to their home countries on their own terms, without
the stigma of a forced removal order. Crucially, by choosing this
dignified path, they preserve the chance of coming back to the country
the legal way in the future. We are sending a clear message: Do not
trust the TCOs with your life. Respect our laws, return home with
dignity, and keep the door open to a lawful future.
homeland security task forces (hstf s) and illicit finance
To further ensure these TCOs can never threaten our Nation again,
President Trump directed the establishment of the Homeland Security
Task Forces (HSTFs). The HSTFs represent the most aggressive,
coordinated attack on TCOs in history. Our mandate is clear: dismantle
the FTO-designated cartels and transnational gangs root and branch.
A critical pillar of the HSTF mission is targeting the illicit
financing that fuels this violence. Under the direct umbrella of the
HSTFs, we have established the Cross-Border Financial Crime Center.
This Center is the tip of the spear in our financial war against the
TCOs.
Through the Cross-Border Finance Crime Center, we have developed
and implemented a targeted strategy to combat rampant fraud involving
government programs in Minnesota and across the United States. Using
this strategy, HSI has opened numerous criminal investigations into
complex fraud schemes that have resulted in the theft of billions of
taxpayer dollars. HSI is working side-by-side with Federal partners to
identify those responsible and aggressively recover hard-earned
taxpayer funds. We are cutting off the money, cutting off the supply,
and cutting off the leadership. We will not rest until these criminal
organizations are destroyed.
sanctuary cities
Much of the fight that ICE faces in keeping Americans safe is
fueled by so-called ``Sanctuary Cities.'' The concept of a ``Sanctuary
City'' is a dangerous lie. These jurisdictions do not provide sanctuary
for immigrants; they provide a shield for criminals. When a local jail
refuses to honor an ICE detainer and releases a predator back onto the
street, they are not protecting their community--they are endangering
it. They are complicit in every future crime that individual commits.
We are seeing the impact of these reckless policies in real time, where
innocent Americans are victimized by individuals who should have been
deported. Worse yet, many of these sanctuary jurisdictions provide
financial benefits and incentives to these illegal immigrants at the
direct expense of the American taxpayer. In our last election,
Americans voted unequivocally for support for immigration enforcement.
There is no right to obstruct Federal law enforcement that the American
people voted for by force or by policy, and we will use every tool
available to hold these jurisdictions accountable and protect the
American people.
congressional access to ice facilities
We have achieved these outcomes while maintaining transparency.
Under President Trump's leadership, and consistent with Secretary
Noem's guidance, ICE supported more than triple the annual number of
Congressional facility visits compared to the past 10 years. As of
January 8, 2026, due to the rise in political violence, we are
enforcing strict security protocols for these visits to ensure the
safety of our staff, the detainees, and Members of Congress themselves,
consistent with all court orders.
Even though these visits pull enforcement personnel away from
arresting and removing illegal aliens, including dangerous criminals
and those with final orders of removal, ICE supported more than 150
such visits between January 20 and September 30, 2025. We stand by our
world-class detention operation as we expand it to remove historic
numbers of illegal aliens.
ice will continue to execute its long-standing, statutory mission
My agency, ICE, exists to enforce America's long-standing
immigration and customs laws. These laws are grounded in common sense,
national sovereignty, and simple morality. Our officers and agents
enforce them without hesitation and without apology.
The men and women of ICE are dedicated, hardworking, and unmatched
in their professionalism. They are the shield that protects our
communities. I ask that all Members of this committee treat them with
the profound respect they have earned.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Garbarino. Thank you, Acting Director Lyons.
Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their
5 minutes of questioning. As we have when Secretary Noem was
here, we are going to limit it to the 5-minute rule. I am going
to be strict on that for both sides, so do not be surprised if
you go over I gavel you down.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
Acting Director Lyons, I understand that you cannot discuss
the details of the two recent shootings in Minnesota because
they are subject of several investigations, including by the
FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the DOJ Civil
Rights Division. Once concluded, will you commit to providing
the reports and findings of each investigation to this
committee?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we're fully committed to give
you the full and unabridged investigation and the outcome.
Chairman Garbarino. Thank you. Commissioner Scott, can the
committee have the same commitment from you?
Commissioner Scott. Yes, sir.
Chairman Garbarino. Thank you both. Commissioner Scott and
Acting Director Lyons, following this hearing, in writing I
would like to know what is the standard operating procedure for
each of your agencies for an investigation when deadly force is
used currently.
Acting Director Lyons, are those procedures being followed
for the two uses of deadly force in Minneapolis this past
January?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Garbarino. And Commissioner Scott?
Commissioner Scott. Yes, sir, they are.
Chairman Garbarino. Were the standard procedures followed
from the beginning, Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, they were.
Chairman Garbarino. Mr. Scott.
Commissioner Scott. Yes, for CBP they were as well.
Chairman Garbarino. Thank you very much. We are all
obviously concerned about officer safety and have seen and
heard about increasing threats and assaults against law
enforcement.
Director Lyons, are your officers trained regarding the
difference between a protected protest and what is unlawfully
impeding law enforcement?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Deportation officers and special
agents are taught at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center. They are taught in defensive tactics, personal safety,
but as well as, you know, laws to include 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,
10th, 14th Amendment. The officers are trained before they go
out into the field, and then while they're in the field, they
are specialized training with disturbance control and other
special tactics.
Chairman Garbarino. Commissioner Scott, are your officers
similarly trained?
Commissioner Scott. Yes, they are. At FLETC, on-going
training in the field. Then anytime we're deploying them to the
interior, they get updated law refresher training to include
the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment.
Chairman Garbarino. So I want to focus on the training here
because with the historic investment in both ICE and CBP, there
was a surge in hiring. I need to know, for these new hires, is
the training different than what other agents and officers
received before the hiring surge?
Mr. Lyons, I will let you start there.
Mr. Lyons. No, sir, it's not. The training was never--the
meat of the training was never removed. The time line was. We
took training from 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, to 6 days a
week, 12 hours a day.
In addition to that, training is different in the fact that
before officers even go to the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Academy, there's preemployment training, which we never had
before. On top of that, we've adapted our on-the-job training
program, which is much like a city or State field training
officer program, that once they are removed from the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Academy, have graduated, before they
return to their field offices they are assigned a field
training officer, and that's continued on after that.
Chairman Garbarino. So let me get to this. For ICE
officers, the curriculum has stayed the same, but it is now a
quicker training? The time line has moved up?
Mr. Lyons. That's correct, sir.
Chairman Garbarino. OK. But the curriculum is the same?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Chairman Garbarino. All right.
Commissioner Scott, can you talk about if there has been a
change in training since the hiring surge?
Commissioner Scott. There's been no change in the training
within Customs and Border Protection. Border Patrol agents go
through a 117-day academy. The CBP officers go through a 103-
day academy. That's actually training days. There's been no
changes to that. So the only change that has been made is in
our quarterly training. We've added scenarios based on what we
most likely think they will encounter in the field. So we've
encountered some of--we've actually added some of the protest-
type encounters as well.
Chairman Garbarino. So there has been no change in the time
line either? Same with ICE did that, you did not?
Commissioner Scott. No, we did not.
Chairman Garbarino. OK. While this is nothing while--
because I am--this is my last question I am sure. While
understanding there are not suitable verifications every
occasion, there has been a lot of talk about the use of deadly
force. Are agents and officers equipped with and trained in the
use of tasers or other less lethal alternatives to avoid the
use of deadly force?
Mr. Director Lyons, I will start with you and then Mr.
Scott, you can finish.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Every deportation officer and special
agent are trained in secretary--secondary weapons, which
include the taser, OC spray, and baton.
Chairman Garbarino. They are trained----
Mr. Lyons. Those are made available.
Chairman Garbarino [continuing]. And they are equipped?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Chairman Garbarino. Mr. Scott.
Commissioner Scott. It's a similar answer that all of our
agents have to carry a secondary weapon. They train at the
academy and then they go through quarterly refresher training
every 3 months.
Chairman Garbarino. OK. I appreciate it. I will have, I am
sure, some follow-up questions today and I will submit those to
you in writing.
But with that, I yield back. I now recognize the Ranking
Member for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lyons, how many ICE agents have cameras as of today?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, as of today, more than 3,000 ICE officers
have cameras that are active in the field, with another 6,000
being deployed, sir.
Mr. Thompson. So how many are in the field? How many ICE
agents are in the field as of today?
Mr. Lyons. Oh, I'm sorry sir. Agents in the field today?
Mr. Thompson. You said agents in the field. I am just
trying to get the number of ICE agents who have cameras on
their body as of today.
Mr. Lyons. Approximately 3,000, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Three thousand out of how many?
Mr. Lyons. Out of approximately 13,000, sir, that are in
the field.
Mr. Thompson. So you have 3,000 out of 13,000 who have
cameras?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Scott.
Commissioner Scott. I don't have the actual number in front
of me right now. It's about 10,000. We're building that program
out as we speak.
Mr. Thompson. Ten thousand out of how many?
Commissioner Scott. Out of about 67,000. But there, the
ports of entry, we have significant video.
Mr. Thompson. No, no, no, I don't want to go to ports of
entry. I just want to know how many cameras right now do you
have on your agents?
Commissioner Scott. When you say ``agents,'' Border Patrol
agents, there's about 10,000.
Mr. Thompson. Ten thousand out of how many?
Commissioner Scott. Out of 20,000 Border Patrol agents.
Mr. Thompson. So half of them?
Commissioner Scott. Approximately, yes.
Mr. Thompson. So I will give you a chance to look at that
since you said approximately, and get back to the committee on
what is the accurate number, not how many you are purchasing,
how many as of this day.
Commissioner Scott. Understood. I will get you that number.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Lyons, what is the regular time table of training an
ICE agent?
Mr. Lyons. Right now, sir--sorry about that, sir. Right now
the training is approximately 47 days at the Federal Law
Enforcement Academy. Overall training is about 3 months, sir.
Mr. Thompson. So you went from 3 months to 47 days?
Mr. Lyons. No, no, sir, the whole total training to include
the preemployment training and then the OJT program is 3 months
and 47 days in the law enforcement--Federal Law Enforcement
Training Academy.
Mr. Thompson. So they go to FLETC for 47 days or for 3
months?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir. You asked for the total training time.
The total training time now is a combined 3 months, sir, with
47 days at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Academy.
Mr. Thompson. So you didn't reduce the time line for any
ICE agents to come on board?
Mr. Lyons. We reduced the time line for the previous
certified Federal law enforcement officers or special agents,
where we went to the ones who are already trained in firearms
and defensive tactics and criminal procedure. We adapted to a
shorter program so they would just have the extensive
Immigration Nationality Act training, immigration law, and ICE-
specific training.
Mr. Thompson. So if you hired somebody for ICE today, how
much training would they receive before they become a full-time
agent?
Mr. Lyons. So for a person off the street who has never
been a law enforcement officer, they're looking at
approximately 3 months of training, sir.
Mr. Thompson. The 47 days is for who?
Mr. Lyons. That is for everyone that hasn't--who's never
worked for ICE, sir. So you could have someone that's a Capitol
Police officer, they would not have to go through extended
training for when it comes to defensive tactics, firearms, et
cetera. They would have to go through the rigorous immigration
training, which, unfortunately, immigration law is just as
confusing and long as tax code, which we have to ensure that we
devote that extensive time to.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you so much.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. But would you provide the committee with the
time line?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, we will provide you the----
Mr. Thompson. Because some of us understand it is 47 days.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, we will provide you----
Mr. Thompson. But you are telling us it's 3 months.
Mr. Lyons. From the beginning, sir, when they go ahead and
come on preemployment training to the OJT program afterwards.
But we will provide the committee with a full breakdown.
Mr. Thompson. OK. For Mr. Lyons and Mr. Scott, over the
past several weeks, the President has made a series of comments
regarding the midterm election. The President has urged my
Republican colleagues in Congress to nationalize elections.
Now, are you involved in any planning on guarding precincts in
this country as of today, Mr. Scott?
Commissioner Scott. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Lyons.
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. So there is no information? You have not been
asked to start deploying people for areas anywhere?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Lyons--I will
get it in writing, Mr. Chairman. I am going to follow your
directions on that.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back. Thank you,
Ranking Member.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, a decade ago when I chaired this committee, Mr.
Thompson and I passed a bill to authorize ICE into law. It was
a bipartisan effort. It passed the House overwhelmingly, both
Republican and Democrat. A decade later, here we are. The Dems
have called to abolish ICE. Now they are trying to shut it
down.
So what has happened in that 10 years? Let's go back to the
last 4 to 5 years what happened in this country and at the
border. As someone who lives in a border State of Texas, we saw
the most dangerous, wide-open border that I have seen in my 22
years in Congress, 10 to 12 million people, and that is what we
know about, I think it is far greater, came into this country,
many of them dangerous, violent criminals, some known or
suspected terrorists, which I find extremely dangerous.
That is why I served as an impeachment manager for Mayorkas
because he violated Federal law. The Federal statute says, as a
former Federal prosecutor, I know this, shall detain aggravated
felons. What did Mayorkas do? He told his agents, that is
discretionary, you can release them. As a result, we had tens
of thousands of aggravated felons left on the streets of
America to roam freely, not to mention the human and sex
trafficking of children, Mr. Lyons, as you pointed out.
So what is the administration trying to do? They are trying
to remove a public safety threat from the United States of
America. That is their job. Restoring public safety should be
the No. 1 priority.
One of the problems here, as I examine it, is that
Minnesota, Minneapolis, in particular, is a sanctuary city.
What does that mean? That means that it is a magnet for
illegal. They are protected under the current situation because
State and locals will not cooperate with Federal law
enforcement. In fact, Mr. Lyons, is it not true that they were
not honoring ICE detainers that were put on dangerous felons in
prison so that you could remove them from the United States?
Mr. Lyons. That is correct, sir. The detainees were not
honored at the local level in Minneapolis.
Mr. McCaul. This is the No. 1 violation. In addition, the
rhetoric on the left led to over 1,000 percent increase in
assaults on ICE officers, an increase of over 8,000 death
threats to them. All this created a perfect storm for our
officers being thrown into this situation.
Then Agent Bovino came into the picture. I would argue, in
fairness, that he escalated the situation by the way that was
handled.
Your officers are not trained to effectuate crowd control.
They are trained to move in, surgically, go in and remove these
dangerous, violent criminals from the United States of America.
I have called for deescalation after the two deaths, the two
shootings that took place. I believe that these roving patrols
should be down at the border rather than in the major cities of
the United States.
So when the President decided to remove Agent Bovino and
put in Tom Homan, who I have known for years, a consummate
professional, law enforcement professional, I commended the
President. What has been done since Mr. Homan came into the
job? We now have targeted law enforcement operations. He is
returning to the original mission of ICE. He is working with
State and locals to do the crowd control. He is getting them to
honor the ICE detainers. He is also getting the body cameras
put on them and the roving patrols, in his words to me, should
be done at the border, not in major cities.
My question to you, Mr. Lyons, is Mr. Homan now, are his
operations in Minneapolis now bringing the situation under
control?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, we have seen a deescalation in the fact
that the protests, while they still go on, have subsided and
ICE has been allowed to do their targeted, intelligence-driven
enforcement operation. Just the other night, local authorities
arrested 54 protesters at the local level where ICE officers
did not have to be engaged in that.
Mr. McCaul. My final question to you, do you believe the
model that Mr. Homan is now setting in Minneapolis should be a
model for the Nation?
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McCaul. If he can be allowed----
Chairman Garbarino. I understand that, but I am holding----
Mr. McCaul. I would like on the record an answer, Mr.
Chairman. Do you agree that Mr. Homan's model is one for the
Nation?
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McCaul. Yes or no?
Chairman Garbarino. I now recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Swalwell, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. A couple nights ago, I met with a woman who
works as a cashier at a grocery store, and I told her I was
coming to see you, Mr. Lyons. She said, will you ask him--and
she didn't want to give her name. She was terrified to give her
name. But she said, when I get off my shift around midnight and
I walk through the parking lot to my car, she said, if somebody
rolls up in an unidentified van and gets out wearing all black
and their faces covered and they don't have any identification,
and they ask me to get into the van, how do I know who they
are?
How does she know, Mr. Lyons? How does she know if they are
an ICE agent or bad guys?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, ICE agents have identifiable placards on
their uniforms as well as their badges, Representative. But you
won't see ICE agents rolling through the parking lots and just
snatching someone up. ICE does intelligence-driven, targeted
enforcement operations.
Mr. Swalwell. Well, Mr. Homan and others have said that
they target individuals based on the color of their skin and
the accents that they speak, and that is why people are running
through the fields and factories where they work.
Director Lyons, last year you said in Phoenix at the Border
Security Expo that you wanted to see a deportation process that
was like ``Amazon Prime, but with human beings.'' Mr. Lyons,
how many times has Amazon Prime shot a mom 3 times in the face?
Mr. Lyons. None, sir. But you're also----
Mr. Swalwell. It is the square root of zero. That is right.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Yes. But if we're going to go down
that route of my comment, I did say that comment. However, that
comment was taken out. If you go back and watch the video, I
did say that we need to be more efficient when it comes to
removing individuals from the United States. Because ICE
doesn't detain punitively, we detain to remove. I don't want to
see people in custody.
At the end of my statement was--and again, to your point,
it was a industry day for AI inefficiencies. But I did say at
the end of it, but we deal with human beings, so we can't be
like them.
Mr. Swalwell. Speaking of----
Mr. Lyons. That's the key part that you're leaving out.
Mr. Swalwell. Well, speaking of human beings, how many
times has Amazon Prime shot a nurse 10 times in the back?
Mr. Lyons. None.
Mr. Swalwell. How many times has Amazon Prime dragged a
woman out of her car by her hair and then dragged her down the
street?
Mr. Lyons. None.
Mr. Swalwell. How many ICE agents have been fired for their
conduct under your leadership?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I can get you that data. I'll get that back
to you.
Mr. Swalwell. Is it more than one?
Mr. Lyons. I'm not going to speak about personnel actions,
but I'll get you that data.
Mr. Swalwell. Can you tell us if at least--God, I hope at
least one person has been fired for their conduct since these
operations have begun. Are you telling us you can't even say
one person has been fired?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I'm not going to talk about personnel
actions, but we will get back to you.
Mr. Swalwell. But two people have been killed so far. Is
that right? A nurse named Pretti and a mom named Good. Two
people have been killed so far?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lyons, will you apologize to the family
of Renee Good for being called a domestic terrorist by the
President and his leadership?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Swalwell. Why not?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the
family in private, but I'm not going to comment on any active
investigation.
Mr. Swalwell. Is she a domestic terrorist?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I'm not going to comment on the
investigation. The President and Secretary Noem are elected
officials. That's their right to their comments. But as law--
career law enforcement, we won't speak to any.
Mr. Swalwell. Do you agree with their comments?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I'm not going to go ahead and talk about
any on-going investigation.
Mr. Swalwell. Will you apologize to the family of Alex
Pretti for also being called a domestic terrorist?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, again, I'm not going to speak to any on-
going investigation.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lyons, your staying to lead ICE is a
decision.
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I'm sorry?
Mr. Swalwell. Your staying on to lead ICE is a decision. I
have read your background. You have a decorated career, you
have served in the military. You are what I would call
otherwise employable. I think most people would agree this is
not the only job that you can get. But since you have been on
this job, women have been dragged by their hair through our
streets. A 6-year-old child battling stage 4 cancer has been
deported and it turns out he was a U.S. citizen. People are
running through the fields where they work. People who have
gone to the streets as allies have been shot and publicly
executed. It is a decision to stay on at this point.
Considering your honorable service in the past and the
dishonorable acts that those who have worked for you have
conducted, and the disgraceful statements that the leadership
above you have said, you now have a decision. Will you stand
with the kids who you are supposed to protect or will you side
with the killers bringing terror to our streets? Mr. Lyons,
will you resign from ICE?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir, I won't.
Mr. Swalwell. Why not?
Mr. Lyons. Because, sir, that child that you're showing
right there, the men and women of ICE took care of him when his
father abandoned him and ran from law enforcement.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Swalwell. He never should have gone into custody.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Guest, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, we stand on the verge of a second Democrat
shutdown of the United States Department of Homeland Security
just within the last 90 days. The Department of Homeland
Security employs 260,000 men and women across 22 different
agencies. Those agencies include 63,000 men and women who work
for CBP, 60,000 who work for TSA, 22,000 for FEMA, 18,000 who
works for USCIS, almost 50,000 civilian and military employees
with the United States Coast Guard, 7,800 Secret Service
employees, 2,500 CISA employees, and over 8,000 agents and
analysts with the Department of Homeland Security Investigation
who perform a crucial function, a crucial function to protect
and serve this country.
This second Government shutdown, led by my friends on the
Democrat side of the aisle, will leave our country less safe.
Don't just take my word for it. Let's look at the words of the
Biden administration. President Biden and Kamala Harris'
Department of Homeland Security, in September 2023, as the
Nation faced a potential Government shutdown, they issued a
fact sheet. That fact sheet is entitled, ``The Impact of
Government Shutdown on the DHS Workforce.'' This fact sheet
says this. It says, ``DHS work force is comprised of
extraordinary public servants who safeguard this Nation.'' It
goes on to say, ``Any lapse in Federal funding would disrupt
this vital work, leaving Americans less safe as a result.''
Those working without pay include law enforcement
conducting such acts as seizing illegal narcotics like
fentanyl, combating child exploitation and child predators,
identify and arresting human trafficking, responding to natural
disasters, preventing cyber attacks, and protecting U.S.
Government leaders.
So I ask you, gentlemen, as we are once again on the verge
of a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, if the
Democrats take us to the edge, if they refuse to sign a CR, if,
once again, the men and women who serve under your leadership,
if they are once again not paid, I ask you, how will that
impact our Nation? Will America be more safe or will America be
less safe if we are once again led into a Government shutdown
by the Democrat Party? Mr. Scott.
Commissioner Scott. I believe consistency in seeing support
from the leadership on both sides of this building and the
President is very important to border security. I think the
rhetoric and the back-and-forth, the politicizing of law
enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our
personnel.
Mr. Guest. Is it not important that we pay the men and
women who serve under your command?
Commissioner Scott. It's critically important.
Mr. Guest. In a Government shutdown, the bills don't stop,
do they not? The bills continue to accrue.
Commissioner Scott. Correct.
Mr. Guest. The deployment of technology ceases in many
cases and America becomes less safe. Would you agree with that
statement?
Commissioner Scott. I would agree America becomes less
safe.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Edlow, what about you?
Mr. Edlow. Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you're aware,
USCIS is a little different in that we are fee-funded. So
during a shutdown, the men and women working for USCIS will
continue to be paid.
However, in terms of our screening and vetting enterprises,
as well as everything else we do, we form very--we have formed
very, very strong working relationships with the other
components and that's critical for us to be able to do our
work. While we may be there, able to continue, without our
partners being paid and with them being furloughed it's going
to make America significantly less safe.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Lyons.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. It will have a great impact,
especially on the Homeland Security task forces and the men and
women that are focused on the transnational crime and foreign
terrorist organization.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Lyons, very quickly, we have had many
Members of this committee who have made allegations. The
Democrats have, once again, taken the mantle of the party to
defund the police and abolish ICE. Do you wish to take my last
few seconds to speak about the consequences that has on the men
and women that you serve?
Mr. Lyons. The men and women of ICE are sworn law
enforcement officers who are dedicated to do their mission to
protect the United States.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa,
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our
witnesses today.
Gentlemen, I wanted to start out by talking a little bit
about my district, Southern California, Disneyland. Southern
California is the center of manufacturing for the United
States. California, biggest ag State in the union. California,
also big donor taxpayer dollars to the United States. President
Trump got elected on the promise to deport the worst of the
worst. Your numbers, Mr. Lyons, less than 14 percent of those
arrested by ICE first year, 2025, had charges or convictions of
violence; 70 percent of those deported had not even a traffic
ticket.
Mr. Lyons, I think we are all patriots, but I am trying to
figure out how, this is a question to you, sir, how deporting a
nanny makes our Nation safer, stronger. How trying to deport
the father of three Marines make this country stronger. How
deporting the parents of number of Marines at Camp Pendleton
makes this Nation stronger.
Mr. Lyons. Sir, thank you for your welcome first off.
Just to address your--the numbers with the 14 percent, sir,
that's 14 percent that are listed as violent criminal felonies.
However, what's left out of that is the fact that what's left
off that----
Mr. Correa. Those 70 percent that don't have a traffic
ticket and deported, how has that made our Nation stronger?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, if you look at what ICE has done, more than
60 percent of every individual that is in ICE custody has a
pending or a conviction on a criminal charge. Not to count
the----
Mr. Correa. Sir, let me move ahead. I only have 3 minutes
and we will talk later.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. Let's talk about American citizens. Again, back
home, people, young people, asking me what do I have to carry
with me so I won't be deported? Is, Mr. Lyons, carrying a
passport, is that enough so they won't be detained or deported
in my district?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, an American citizen shouldn't carry--or
shouldn't feel the need to carry a passport.
Mr. Correa. Let me tell you what some of your ICE agents
have done. They pulled over a gentleman in a pickup truck,
showed his passport, they threw it to the side, detained him.
What do we have to do to show that we are American citizens?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, no American citizen falls under Title 8. No
American citizen will be arrested for being American citizens.
Mr. Correa. But you just said to my colleague that nobody
has been fired because of violations of the law for
disciplinary actions, yet this is happening in my district. Mr.
Lyons, we are a very boring district. We work hard, mind our
own business. ICE in our streets now. People are terrorized,
American citizens. Number of cases of Americans being detained,
being taken in, some being held for 5 days. Sir, what do we do
with those people in that situation? What do we tell them?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I don't know of any particular case that
you're speaking of an American citizen being----
Mr. Correa. I am more than happy to provide you a list,
sir.
Mr. Lyons. One hundred percent, sir.
Mr. Correa. So let me ask you, sir, are you surveilling
U.S. citizens today?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Correa. Those people protesting, practicing this First
Amendment right, photos of them, data taken, they are not being
placed in any kind of a database?
Mr. Lyons. There is no database for protesters, sir.
Mr. Correa. One of your officers in Maine said to one of
the individuals protesting, we are going to put your face in a
little database. What does that mean? Do you have a little
database----
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Correa [continuing]. Of Americans?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir, we don't.
Mr. Correa. Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing
to this individual when he said those statements?
Mr. Lyons. I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I
can assure you there is no database that's tracking United
States citizens.
Mr. Correa. Sir, California, we are a sanctuary State. Does
that cause you a problem picking up individuals?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. I have with me today some data from Sheriff
Barnes, Orange County sheriff. Very good friend, has been here
to testify numerous times. For 2025, he referred about 300
individuals for your office to pick up, 250 were picked up, 50
were never picked up. We had a long conversation saying what is
going on? If these are the worst of the worst, you have called
ICE to pick them up and you didn't pick them up. Can you
explain to us why you didn't pick up all these individuals that
were referred to your office to pick up?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. That's the key part of that, is the
referral. We make sure that those individuals are eligible to
be placed in detention and for movability. So in that case----
Mr. Correa. You never even looked at those individuals.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Correa. I would like to talk to you about this issue
later on, Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger, for
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Why are we here? I think it is pretty clear that until
proven otherwise, at 5 years of experience, that it seems like
one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to
abolish ICE. I hope that that can be proven wrong. The other
side of the aisle wants to enforce the laws that are on the
books.
Commissioner Scott, how many administrations have you
worked for in your career?
Commissioner Scott. Since the Clinton administration.
Mr. Pfluger. So multiple Republicans, multiple Democrats.
Commissioner Scott. Correct.
Mr. Pfluger. Is it a crime to enter this country illegally
and to skip a notice to appear, to skip a court-ordered
appearance, and to not comply with the laws that that are on
the books?
Commissioner Scott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pfluger. Has that changed since you started working for
President Clinton?
Commissioner Scott. No.
Mr. Pfluger. So I can't imagine, establishing the fact that
it is a crime to skip a notice to appear, we had 10 to 12
million people who entered this country illegally in the Biden
administration, as a conservative estimate. There are sanctuary
cities all throughout the United States who have said we will
not comply with Federal laws. That is why we are here today.
I can't imagine being a DHS officer, an ICE officer, and
being threatened with violence, having death threats, being
doxed, having your family identified, putting that on the
internet, and violently telling you that they are going to kill
you because you are enforcing the laws that are on those books
that were passed by both sides of the aisle in this body.
Director Lyons, how many of your agents are being doxed,
threatened, or harassed?
Mr. Lyons. We've had over an 8,000 percent increase on
death threats.
Mr. Pfluger. You know, I am in the middle of working a
bipartisan domestic terrorism working group with another Member
on this committee. There is a group called Defend 612 that has
come out with tactics, techniques, and procedures in
Minneapolis to do things like encourage protesters to impede
law enforcement, to push civilians toward legally and
physically risky confrontations, to help mobilize a
counterprotest, to help to coordinate strategies and trainings
to aid illegal immigrants to avoid detention. Are you familiar
with groups like this, Defend 612?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. We have multiple groups around that in
all 50 States.
Mr. Pfluger. There is an article written by Christina
Buttons and I would like unanimous consent to enter this into
the record, called ``Inside Minneapolis's ICE Watch Network.''
Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to enter this.
Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pfluger. This article talks about these tactics,
techniques, and procedures that put your law enforcement agents
and your agents at risk. What is different about Minneapolis?
What kind of coordination have you received from the local
police department that we don't see any of this in Texas? We
have not seen--and there have been many ICE operations that
have happened in Texas. But what is different from what you
have seen in Minneapolis?
Mr. Lyons. Unfortunately, sir, in the beginning of the
Minneapolis operation, we didn't see any cooperation at the
State or the local level, whether it be from the Minneapolis
Police Department or the Minnesota State Police, which led to
ICE officers and agents, as well as our other Federal partners,
pretty much having to defend themselves from whatever
impediment, riots, or protests.
Mr. Pfluger. Were they told by local elected officials not
to cooperate?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pfluger. Is that because they are a sanctuary city?
Mr. Lyons. I'm assuming that's what it is, sir. But I can't
speak to the mind over those elected officials, but they were
ordered not to stand up.
Mr. Pfluger. How did it make you feel as somebody who
carries out the laws that this body has passed, when you hear
the mayor of Minneapolis say, F ICE?
Mr. Lyons. Oh, sir, it's--I mean, from a morale standpoint,
it hurts us to the fact that for decades, and I've worked since
President Bush, ICE has always been in Minneapolis. We've
always been in every major city and State, so it wasn't like it
was a brand-new thing. We've always been doing immigration
enforcement. So that's demoralizing.
Mr. Pfluger. Commissioner Scott, are you separating
families?
Commissioner Scott. No.
Mr. Pfluger. Tell me about when you served President Obama.
Has anything changed in the policy of deportation? How many
people did President Obama deport?
Commissioner Scott. I don't have that number in front of
me. Policies and how things are enforced do change. The laws
have not changed. I believe what you're referring to is
literally when someone is arrested, whether it's on immigration
or whether it's a normal criminal offense and they have
children, we don't necessarily prosecute the children. But when
someone's deported, if they want to take their children with
them, they have that right. We do not separate them.
Mr. Pfluger. I hope that the other side of the aisle will
read this article on Defend 612 and look at the tactics,
techniques, and procedures. If this is domestic terrorism,
where we have a group that is on Signal, that is calling out
agents and doing things to interrupt, intercede, and prevent
law enforcement from carrying out the laws that this body
passed, that you will have the courage to call it domestic
terror terrorism if it is that way.
I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlemen yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Thanedar,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to our
witnesses.
Commissioner Scott, did the ICU nurse Alex Pretti deserve
to die?
Commissioner Scott. I cannot comment on an on-going
investigation, sir.
Mr. Thanedar. Do you believe that he deserved to die?
Should he be killed by your agents?
Commissioner Scott. I'm not going to comment on an on-going
investigation, sir, before it's concluded and all the facts are
available.
Mr. Thanedar. Do you agree with CBP Commander Bovino's
statement that Alex Pretti was planning to massacre law
enforcement agents?
Commissioner Scott. I'm not going to comment on an on-going
investigation, sir.
Mr. Thanedar. Director Lyons, did Renee Good deserve to
die?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I can't comment on on-going investigations.
Mr. Thanedar. Director Lyons, do you agree with Secretary
Noem and Vice President Vance's characterization of Renee Good
as a domestic terrorist?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I can't speak to their comments as that
they are their own, but as an on-going investigation, I can't
speak to that.
Mr. Thanedar. Director Lyons, what did your agents mean
when he said, ``You raise your voice, I erase your voice,'' in
the video just that we have seen, all of us have seen.
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I'm not aware of that video that you have,
sir. I can't comment on what that officer has said.
Mr. Thanedar. Does that statement, if that statement--if I
show you the video of that, does that statement reflect the
value of your agency? Does ICE respect and adhere to the First
Amendment?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. ICE does respect and refer to the
First Amendment, but that doesn't respect--that--your statement
you said doesn't represent the values of the men and women of
ICE.
Mr. Thanedar. Commissioner Scott, does CBP respect and
adhere to the First and Second Amendment?
Commissioner Scott. Yes, we do.
Mr. Thanedar. Don't you agree that Alex Pretti had every
right to exercise his First and Second Amendment freedoms
before being shot in the streets by one of your agents?
Commissioner Scott. I believe every person in the United
States has a right to their Constitutional rights.
Mr. Thanedar. Look, I have heard and seen enough. I am just
sick and tired of your agents running around in our cities, in
our streets, causing illegal activities. ICE and CBP thugs are
roaming our streets, attacking our communities, using our
children as bait, referring to people as bodies and numbers,
targeting people for their accents and the color of their skin,
and killing American citizens, all while showing zero remorse
for their actions.
Director Lyons and Commissioner Scott, do you think
President Trump will pardon you and your boss, Kristi Noem,
before he leaves office, just like he has for insurrectionists
and his political allies? Do you believe President Trump will
pardon you? Because--go ahead.
Commissioner Scott. I'm not going to speak on behalf of
President Trump. But I'll tell you, I signed up for this job to
protect America, and I'm very proud of the service that I
provide. I don't need a pardon from anybody.
Mr. Thanedar. Well, you better hope so. You better hope you
get--been pardoned because you will be held accountable for the
absolute disregard of the law your agencies have shown over the
past year.
Your agencies have lost the trust of the American people,
with millions taking to the streets to protest the illegal
actions of your agencies. That is why I introduced a bill in
the U.S. Congress to abolish ICE. ICE must be abolished.
I also cosponsored a bill to impeach Secretary Kristi Noem.
I believe Kristi Noem must be impeached. This Congress must do
everything in its power to carry out oversight actions against
these rogue departments, including----
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
A witness has requested a break. The committee will recess
for 5 minutes. Members of the audience will remain seated.
[Recess.]
Chairman Garbarino. The committee will come to order.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzales, for
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
for your service to our great country.
I was speaking to some agents that were deployed from Texas
to Minnesota, just asking for the ground truth of what was
happening. One of the things that stood out to me is one of the
agents said, Tony, it reminds me a lot of Fallujah. Having
someone that served in Fallujah, that caught my attention.
So my question first is to you, Commissioner Scott, is on
the safety of our agents. In particular, I see that these task
forces work, these anti-gang, these anti-terrorism task forces.
But thinking of Fallujah reminds me of we were fighting a war
that was the Persian Gulf, when the world had changed. So my
question is, is there a way we can protect our law
enforcement--our Federal law enforcement agents in particular,
through--I have got a bill, in particular through bulletproof
glass or ballistic windshields? Is that something you think
that could help protect the law enforcement officers that are
on the front lines?
Commissioner Scott. I think that can help protect the
officers on the front lines, but it goes much farther than that
because things have changed. So the tactical infrastructure at
the border, the bulletproof vests, all of that, that helps
tremendously. But we're fighting a different fight now. The
reason you saw so many people surged into Los Angeles at one
point and then now into Minneapolis was because we had to surge
additional resources in to protect the ICE agents that were
literally just going to try to make a lawful arrest. So we had
to put in two teams, one to do the arrest and another one to
deal with the protesters.
Luckily, CBP--well, not luckily, unfortunately--CBP has had
to build out this capability over the years because we had been
dealing with increased protests at the border, mass incursions.
So we trained our people how to do crowd control.
But let's not miss the fact that we have coordinated, well-
funded, and I think insurgencies or terrorist organizations,
however you want to call it, literally trying to prevent legal
laws from being enforced in the United States. That is a
dramatic change. That's why we've had to shift. So we got to
figure out how to protect our officers and agents more
holistically.
On social media, how do we keep them from being doxxed?
When somebody goes to like did to Director Lyons, they follow
his kid home and then have protests in his front yard and then
put it out live on video, that needs to be a crime. I don't
want to violate anybody's right to free speech, but going into
your front yard and harassing your family just because you're a
law enforcement officer, that should not be a protected action.
Mr. Gonzales. The world has changed and we need to change
with it to make sure our Federal law enforcement officers and
their families are protected.
My next question is for Director Lyons. Body cameras have
been deployed in Minnesota. I think transparency helps regain
public trust. Is there any plan to release any of the footage
to the public?
Mr. Lyons. One hundred percent, sir. That's one thing that
I'm committed to, is full transparency. I fully welcome body
cameras all across the spectrum in all of our law enforcement
activities. Yes, sir, body cam footage will be released.
Mr. Gonzales. I agree with you completely. Everyone assumes
this body camera footage is bad footage. In so many cases, it
is the exact opposite. We get a show from the officer's lens
where what exactly they are dealing with on a daily basis, not
just a 15-second clip we see on TikTok or whatever it may be. I
am very pleased to hear the releasing of more public footage.
My next question is for you, Commissioner Scott. As a
Member of Congress, I have a very similar--all of us--the
question is really for all of us. As a Member of Congress, what
can I do to make sure what happened in Minnesota doesn't happen
in my community?
Commissioner Scott. Put laws in place that protect our
officers and agents so they can go out and do their job
confidently and know they really truly have the backing. Then I
got to plug it, actually fund the programs. So when body
cameras got rolled out to CBP, the technical capability, the
camera got rolled out, but the funding for the personnel to
support the programs and the data, that can drain basically all
your other operations. So fund the entire program so that we
can be transparent and, and that we can make sure America knows
what we're doing because that trust is critically important.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you for that.
My next question is to Director Edlow. Too many times we
talk about the enforcement side, which I think is very
important. We see the millions of criminal aliens that are
loose in our country. We got to go out there and keep our
community safe. But we need to be talking more about the legal
aspect of it, the people that are doing it the right way. I was
very encouraged to see 65,000 visas get released not too long
ago. The question I have is what are the detail--what is the
time line behind that? What is the purpose of those? Can you
specifically speak to the legal visa process?
Mr. Edlow. Well, you're referring to the 65,000 that were
the supplemental H2Bs.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes. Exactly right.
Mr. Edlow. That's a--there's 60,000 or 65,000--66,000,
excuse me, that go out every year at 2 times in the year. Then
Congress has for many, many years given the Department the
authority through the Secretary to increase that based on the
needs of the country so that that--those visas were released. I
don't remember exactly when the----
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired. I
apologize. Again, any questions--I know I am being tight on the
rules, we have to be. There are a lot of questions. We want to
get through everything today. Any Members will be able to
submit questions in writing and you can detail these. Thank you
very much.
I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr.
Magaziner, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Magaziner. Mr. Lyons, has ICE hired anyone who is
charged with a crime related to the January 6 riot here at the
Capitol?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I don't have that information, but I would
say no.
Mr. Magaziner. Would you--could you find out and please
report back?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, I'll get that. I will take that as----
Mr. Magaziner. Would you hire someone who attacked police
officers here on January 6 even though they were,
unfortunately, pardoned by the President?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, we take assault on law enforcement very
serious. We have a good strenuous vetting program, I'm sure.
Mr. Magaziner. Thank you. Commissioner Scott, how many of
your agents have been disciplined for excessive use of force
over the past year?
Commissioner Scott. I cannot comment on on-going or----
Mr. Magaziner. I am not asking you to comment on specific
investigation. How many of your agents have been disciplined? I
am just asking for the total of excessive force.
Commissioner Scott. I'll get that number to you. I don't
have it in front of me.
Mr. Magaziner. All right. I sent you a letter asking that
question and haven't received a response. Will you commit to
sending a response to me, please?
Commissioner Scott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Magaziner. All right. I would like you to view this
video.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Magaziner. Are you familiar with this incident?
Commissioner Scott. Yes.
Mr. Magaziner. OK. Now, this is a family of United States
citizens who were out to get groceries at a Sam's Club in
Chicago. When they arrived, they could see that there was a
chaotic operation in the parking lot. They turned their vehicle
to leave, at which point your agents sprayed pepper spray out
of their vehicle and into the driver's side window of the
Verazas' family vehicle.
Is it proper procedure to aim pepper spray into the window
of a moving vehicle?
Commissioner Scott. I'm not familiar. I don't have all the
details on this. It's an on-going investigation.
Mr. Magaziner. I am not asking you about----
Commissioner Scott. But to answer your specific question--
--
Mr. Magaziner. Is it proper procedure?
Commissioner Scott [continuing]. We try to avoid that. No
is it not proper procedure.
Mr. Magaziner. You try to avoid it. Because you understand
it is dangerous, right? Not just for the driver, but for
pedestrians, for other people who could be hit by a car if a
driver is blinded, right?
Commissioner Scott. I 100 percent understand that, but
you're talking about intentional versus not intentional.
Mr. Magaziner. Well, now, listen, I mean, in the video----
Commissioner Scott. If you've been in a vehicle in one of
these situations----
Mr. Magaziner. Mr. Scott, reclaiming my time.
From the video, this was clearly intentional. You know as
well as I do that in any other law enforcement agency, if an
officer did this, they would be put on leave, investigated, and
likely disciplined. Were any of your agents ever investigated
or disciplined for this incident?
Commissioner Scott. I have to get back to you on this
incident.
Mr. Magaziner. So you don't know.
Commissioner Scott. I believe it's still an on-going
investigation, but we have at least 10 open cases.
Mr. Magaziner. I would like to show you another video. This
one is from Minneapolis.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Magaziner. So, as you can see, the agent sprayed pepper
spray at close range directly into the face of an individual
who had already been pinned to the ground by 3 other agents.
There is a picture of this behind me to give you a better view.
Is this proper procedure for the use of pepper spray?
Commissioner Scott. I cannot comment on that because you're
only showing one piece, and----
Mr. Magaziner. Has this agent been investigated?
Commissioner Scott [continuing]. That subject's clearly not
compliant.
Mr. Magaziner. But this is not the intended use of this
weapon, correct?
Commissioner Scott. The intended use is to try to avoid
escalating. It's to deescalate the situation and get the
individual compliant.
Mr. Magaziner. All right. Well, he was already pinned to
the ground by 3 other agents. I think he had been deescalated.
Is there any investigation into this agent for doing this?
Commissioner Scott. I'll get back to you. There are several
open investigations.
Mr. Magaziner. All right. Listen, there has been no
accountability in your agency under the Trump administration.
None. Your agency has repeatedly been caught on tape using
unnecessary violence against civilians. You can't even tell me
if any of these agents have been investigated or disciplined.
You are supposed to be making people safer and, instead, your
agents are being unnecessarily violent. That is why the Trump
administration has lost the trust of the American people on
immigration.
Understand, it is not just the actions of the agents in the
field. It is the lack of accountability from the top that has
caused public trust to erode. There need to be major reforms
before we vote to give any of you any more funding.
Your agencies need to act like other law enforcement
agencies. Take off the masks, wear badge numbers, enforce
discipline with real standards of conduct. But accountability
starts at the top. Kristi Noem is completely unfit and should
be removed from office.
All of the operations that we just watched were overseen by
Commander Gregory Bovino, who himself engaged in excessive use
of force. He even admitted that he lied to a Federal judge when
he claimed he had been hit by a rock prior to throwing tear
gas--a tear gas canister at a crowd of civilians. But then
after the footage came out and that turned out to be not true,
he admitted that he had lied about it.
Mr. Scott, what disciplinary action do you plan to take
against Mr. Bovino?
Commissioner Scott. I cannot comment on personnel actions
on any----
Mr. Magaziner. Is there an investigation under way or being
considered into Mr. Bovino?
Commissioner Scott. Every allegation and every use of force
is fully investigated within DHS.
Mr. Magaziner. Well, please investigate him.
Commissioner Scott. It goes through a review board and----
Mr. Magaziner. You need to start----
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's----
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. Enforcing discipline in your
agency.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Strong, for
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Chairman Garbarino, Ranking Member
Thompson, and thank you to all our witnesses for being here
today.
Let me start with the simple facts. The border is now
closed. Fentanyl poisonings are down by more than 35 percent. I
thank each of you for your service to our country.
I remember in April 2023 when then-Secretary Mayorkas
testified before this very committee that the U.S. border was,
and I quote, ``secure,'' and not open. At the same time, under
his leadership, illegal alien population surged to over 11
million. They were coming from more than 160 different
countries as migrants were released into our country by the
millions. That is what the Biden administration, in concert
with Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, did to America. They sold
America out.
The consequences of their failures were predictable. When
the United States failed to enforce its border, the winners are
not legal immigrants or American communities. It is the
cartels, drug smugglers, human traffickers, and violent
criminals. We didn't need new laws to stop this crisis. We
needed a President willing to enforce the laws already on the
books. President Trump did exactly that. Another promise made,
another promise kept. Today, the number of illegal aliens being
released into our country is zero. Zero. That is what it took,
a President to make the hard decisions. America is better
because of it.
So my question is straightforward, Commissioner Scott. Was
Secretary Mayorkas telling the truth when he testified before
this committee that the border was secure?
Commissioner Scott. Consistent with my prior testimony, no,
he was not.
Mr. Strong. As you stated earlier, the underlying
immigration laws haven't fundamentally changed in decades. What
has changed is how different administrations choose to enforce
these laws, particularly during the previous administration. It
was 100 percent orchestrated to allow illegal aliens to invade
our country under the Biden administration.
From an operational standpoint, how important is
consistency and enforcement for deterrence and border control?
Commissioner Scott. It's extremely important. We keep
talking about immigration, but let me remind people, border
security really is national security. The cartels use illegal
immigration to literally overwhelm law enforcement at the
border and bring in all kinds of other threats. It's the second
wave that always is the most critical.
The interior enforcement sent a message around the world
that we're not going to just let you go. It took away the
marketing ability of the cartels to get people to come to the
border and overwhelm law enforcement. This all works together.
It's critically important because it is national security.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Commissioner. The men and women of
DHS deserve our respect and the ability to do their job
effectively without mixed signals from Washington.
I also want to be clear, I support the men and women who
work every day to secure our borders and enforce Federal
immigration laws. But lately we have seen growing strain on
political rhetoric that goes beyond policy disagreement and
targets the legitimacy of law enforcement itself, rhetoric that
puts a target on the backs of agents doing their jobs.
Acting Director Lyons, we keep hearing calls from left-wing
politicians to abolish ICE. Some, including many who should
know better, have denounced Federal law enforcement as secret
police. How would you respond to these reckless attacks?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I can speak from personal experience,
having served multiple administrations, that the men and women
of ICE are out there every day doing the law as it's written.
Mr. Strong. What are the consequences of not enforcing
Federal immigration laws?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, if you look at what ICE has done, if you
look at the amount of, as I said earlier, the amount of known
and suspected terrorists that we removed from the country, we
arrested 1,477 this year and removed 1,480. Just that impact
alone, along with the 7,800 gang members, makes a significant
impact on public safety and national security.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. Turning to you, Director Edlow, the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service plays a role in
administering legal immigration and protecting the integrity of
the system. When immigration enforcement is undermined or
treated as illegitimate, how does that affect USCIS's ability
to manage lawful pathways, prevent fraud, and maintain public
confidence in the legal immigration process?
Mr. Edlow. It makes it absolutely impossible, Congressman.
That's why we've done everything we can to administer that
system now and to not cut corners that were previously cut
during the last administration.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize a gentleman from New York, Mr. Goldman, 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lyons, what guidance have you given to your agents
about asking people walking on the streets of America to show
proof of citizenship?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, as I stated earlier, the men and women of
ICE Deportation Office, special agents, we conduct targeted,
intelligence-driven operation. We don't walk around on the
streets asking people about their American citizenship.
Mr. Goldman. Really? So all of those individual American
citizens who have been randomly asked are lying? Is that what
you are saying?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, if the men and women of ICE are conducting
an investigation, whether it be for Title 8 immigration
enforcement or Title 18 criminal enforcement, they'll ask
someone their nationality.
Mr. Goldman. Right, but that is not targeted because they
are asking all sorts of American citizens, including off-duty
law enforcement. Now, have you directed at any point your
agents, under the Supreme Court's racial profiling ruling, to
only stop nonwhite people and those who look like immigrants to
ask for their citizenship papers?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir, I haven't.
Mr. Goldman. Now, you are aware, of course, and there is
well-documented--numerous well-documented instances of people,
American citizens being asked to show and prove their
citizenship. Do you know what other regimes in the 20th Century
required similar proof of citizenship?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goldman. What?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, there's very--various nefarious regimes
that did that.
Mr. Goldman. Is Nazi Germany one?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, but I----
Mr. Goldman. Is the Soviet Union one?
Mr. Lyons. I honestly----
Mr. Goldman. Sir, I am asking the questions. Is the Soviet
Union one?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, but I totally--this is the wrong type
of question you can ask me.
Mr. Goldman. No, I will tell you what the wrong type of
thing occurs.
Mr. Lyons. But actually, sir, it's the Holocaust Museum has
got----
Mr. Goldman. Reclaiming my time, sir. Reclaiming my time,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lyons [continuing]. Not the men and women of ICE that
are out there doing it every day. So to say it to men and women
of ICE they're Gestapo----
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, I am reclaiming my time. I would
like my time back, please.
Mr. Lyons [continuing]. It's wrong.
Mr. Goldman. Please give me another 15 seconds because he
was unnecessarily speaking. You said in your opening statement
that references to ICE as the Gestapo or the secret police
encourages threats against ICE agents.
Mr. Lyons. One hundred percent.
Mr. Goldman. The problem is you have it backward, sir.
People are simply making valid observations about your tactics,
which are un-American and outright fascist. So I have a simple
suggestion. If you don't want to be called a fascist regime or
secret police, then stop acting like one. But people are simply
just observing what they are seeing. That is why people are
making those comments.
Now, I was a prosecutor for 10 years. Prosecuted mob
bosses, organized crime, violent criminals, the actual worst of
the worst. Not a single criminal law enforcement agent that I
worked with wore a mask to conceal their identity. But your
Department, which is a civil law enforcement agency, is
defending the use of masks by your agents because of a so-
called rise in threats and assaults against your officer.
Now, you said in your opening testimony that assaults
against ICE officers are up by more than 1,400 percent, which
is now even more than the 1,300 percent that your gaslighting
spokesperson Tricia from Ohio has recently been citing. But
here is the problem. There are 2 separate, very detailed, very
thorough investigative reports based on your own data that both
conclude that assaults against ICE officers are up about 25
percent, which is far less, of course, than you assert and far
less than you would expect from an agency that has more than
doubled its hiring and has an even greater increase in arrests.
Now, why is that a problem, Mr. Lyons? It is a problem
because the explanation that your agents are wearing masks
because of fear of assaults or doxing is outright bogus. You
and your untrained, unqualified, unvetted, unidentified agents
are intentionally terrorizing our cities and communities all
over this country to avoid accountability for their excessive
force and their lawless actions. That is why you are wearing
masks, so no one can hold you accountable. You know that the
FBI is not going to because notwithstanding all of the
investigations all of you say are going on, the Department of
Justice and the FBI has stated they are not investigating those
2 murders.
This is not the America that I know and love. This is not
the America my immigrants came to. It is long past time that
you rein in your out-of-control agency and start following the
law and the Constitution.
I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane, for
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is interesting being in this hearing today, you know,
where my Democrat colleagues continue to demonize ICE and
Homeland Security. I think history and context are very
important here. It is not lost on most of the American public
that my Democrat colleagues actually caused this entire crisis
with their open-border policies that they all voted for,
letting in close to 15 million illegal aliens.
I also want to go through real quick some numbers of ICE
deportations with other Presidents who I believe both you, Mr.
Scott, and you, Mr. Lyons, have worked for. Under President
Clinton, 12 million illegal aliens were deported and removed
from this country, some voluntary, some departures; key, no
riots. Under President Bush, 2 million, no riots. Obama, who
was often referred to as the Deporter-in-Chief, 5 million,
including returns, no riots. President Trump in his first term,
2 million deported, no riots. President Biden, 4 million,
including expulsions varying by estimates, no riots. President
Trump again this year, 625,000 with 2 million voluntary leaving
through CBP Home app.
Mr. Scott, can you explain why these other Presidents that
you work for, both Democrat and Republican, have deported far
more people than this President and we have seen no riots?
Commissioner Scott. I would say it has a lot to do about
rhetoric and misleading the American public about what's really
going on and how important border security really is to this
Nation.
Mr. Crane. Let's talk also about my Democrat colleagues and
something they also supported, and that is these sanctuary
cities. I think that is very important. I don't think a lot of
Americans really understand these sanctuary cities.
Mr. Scott, Mr. Lyons, is it true that you would rather send
your officers into a jail to get some of these illegal alien
criminals? Is it safer for your agents and also the illegal
alien criminal if your officers are able to go into a jail
instead of having to go out and find them on the street?
Mr. Lyons, I will start with you.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. It would be. You wouldn't see the
amount of law enforcement officers involved in immigration
operations.
Mr. Crane. Right. How about you, Mr. Scott?
Commissioner Scott. I 100 percent agree with the director.
More--just as importantly, it would allow me to put more agents
back on the border to prevent people from getting in here in
the first place.
Mr. Crane. Let's also talk about these riots. Mr. Scott,
Mr. Lyons, do you guys remember any riots, you know, when--for
some of these victims that were assaulted and victimized by
illegal alien criminals, like Nate Baker, Laken Riley, Fletcher
Harris, Skyler Provenza, Ivory Smith? I have got a whole list
of them. Do you remember any riots from our Democrats or their
constituents when any of these American citizens were
victimized by illegal alien criminals?
Commissioner Scott. No, sir.
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Crane. Why do you think that is? Because that is the
question that I get asked all the time. Congressman, why do the
Democrats care more about illegal alien criminals than they
care about these American citizens? Many of them who are young,
have their entire lives ahead of them, didn't show up to a
protest, right, to obstruct Federal law enforcement. They are
just going about their daily lives and they get victimized by
people who aren't supposed to be here. Why do you think they
don't care about American citizens?
Commissioner Scott. I cannot speculate, but when I look at
the chaos that it creates and the corrosive nature that it
creates, I go beyond the politics of the United States and I
look at our nation-state adversaries like Iran, Russia, and
China, and their influence on social media to keep this
negative discourse going. I think this is a much bigger issue
than we're actually admitting that it is in here.
Mr. Crane. I want to tie this together to something that is
very pertinent that is going to happen this week here in
Congress where the American people are going to see the bookend
of what is going on. We are going to attempt to pass the Save
America Act, OK, which requires documentary proof of U.S.
citizenship to register to vote. It imposes photo ID
requirements to vote and it penalizes officials who do not
enforce these requirements. You won't see most of these folks
over here on the other side that are demonizing you guys right
now, you will not see them support it.
So they let millions and millions of illegal aliens into
the country. They set up these sanctuary cities so you can't go
enforce these Federal laws that are on the books that Congress
has passed. Now they won't vote to stop these illegals from
voting in our elections. If the American people don't
understand what this whole thing is about, it is about one
word, and it always has been, and that is power. They want
power. They need these illegals to vote in our elections. That
is why they don't care about the fraud either because they need
those votes as well.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Ramirez,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman.
My mother, a Guatemalan immigrant and an American, taught
me that I have the responsibility to look evil in the eye and
to fight it back. Mr. Lyons, Mr. Scott, Mr. Edlow, you have
used your power to perpetrate great evil. It is about time you
answer this committee for the lawlessness that you have
empowered and defended in your testimony.
Mr. Lyons, I want to start with you and I want to talk
about ICE. Because under your leadership, ICE has shot and
killed Silverio Villegas Gonzalez and Renee Good, violated
nearly 100 court orders in January alone. You have used banned
choke holds in more than 40 cases, engaged in warrantless
arrests despite of a consent decree, and you used children as
bait to put 3,800 children in detention. You created traps for
people at immigration court who are following the law and doing
it the legal way. You broke the law by entering to people's
homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
Now, let's talk about you, Mr. Scott, and CBP next. Under
your leadership, CBP has attempted to execute Marimar Martinez,
shooting her 5 times and not releasing the footage that you
should release so that we can see the evidence; murdered Alex
Pretti; used chemical agents dozens of times in Chicago after a
judge ordered you to stop; conducted warrantless surveillance
and racial profiling; and acted with total disrespect and
disregard for the law while engaging in roving patrols, plate
switching, dangerous traffic maneuvers, and observer
intimidation. Again, criminals act with that total disregard
for the law and we continue to see it.
You would both have us talk about respect for your mission
and your agents, but your agencies are unaccountable
paramilitary forces. I have just as much respect for you as I
do for the last white man who put on masks to terrorize
communities of color. I have no respect for the inheritors of
the Klan hood and the slave patrol. Those activities were
immoral then and criminal, and so are yours.
That brings me to you, Mr. Edlow, and USCIS. Truly, USCIS
is the most disappointing part of this whole panel for me. Mr.
Edlow, let me ask you a question. Is USCIS's mission to uphold
America's promise as a nation of welcome and possibility with
fairness, integrity, and respect for all we serve? Yes or no.
Is that the mission?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, the mission is to administer the
lawful immigration----
Mrs. Ramirez. So let me move on. So it is not for the
possibility of fairness, integrity, and respect. I get that.
I want to tell you about Mr.--about Steven, my constituent,
Mr. Edlow. Steven is a 14-year-old with autism who is seeking
asylum. This child has spent 60 days in detention center after
he was detained with his dad and at a check-in. Let me ask you
this. What kind of agency would strip asylum protections from
children, even those with pending asylum claims, and deport
minors without due process? You don't have to answer that. It
is your agency, Mr. Edlow. You are doing that to Steven, my
constituent, an eighth grader.
You have abandoned the mission and allowed USCIS to become
a tool in DHS's abusive enforcement apparatus, Mr. Edlow. It is
shameful to see what USCIS has become.
As I have said before, DHS, ICE, and CBP, they are not
really rogue. Congress designed DHS to violate our rights under
the pretense of securing our safety. I am going to say it loud
and clear, and I am proud to stand by what I say. DHS cannot be
reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its
place. Because if we let DHS persist, it will continue to be a
weapon that can be pointed at anyone the Government considers
the public enemy. Let me tell you, fascism always requires a
public enemy. But the power of the people is stronger than the
weapons they would wield against us.
So, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Scott, Mr. Edlow, you have weaponized
the Government. You have supported a fascist enterprise at the
expense of our Constitutional rights. You have violated the
law. But let me remind you, you will not always be in power.
One day you will be held accountable for your role in this dark
moment in America, in our Nation's history. I guarantee it.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlelady yields back.
As I said, the issues we are debating here are important
ones that Members feel deeply about. While vigorous
disagreement is part of the legislative process, Members are
reminded that we must adhere to established standards of
decorum and debate. Witnesses are here today voluntarily. I
will continue to remind Members that while oversight is
important, aggressively attacking witnesses personally is
inappropriate and not in keeping with the best traditions of
our committee.
I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Brecheen,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses.
I want to start with a display over my shoulders. This is
something that is not specific only to Oklahoma. This is
something that every Member of this committee, if you will go
to the DHS website, every constituent of every Member of
Congress, if you're curious of really the dark days, I want you
to go to the DHS website and I want you to look at those not
far from where you live, Moms and Dads. The arrest of illegal
aliens who are preying on minors.
Just because of a really intentional act by Kate Bryan on
my staff to go a couple of weeks ago and look just in eastern
Oklahoma, on the right side of me here, just in eastern
Oklahoma. I represent almost all the entirety of eastern
Oklahoma. These are just the individuals, heinous acts to
include those with children. Yet I am going to read you in the
wider to my left over here, what is happening in the State of
Oklahoma. This person was picked up. Angel Nick, sexual
exploitation of a minor. Renton Andrew, molestation of a minor.
Chan Truding, child fondling. Feliciano Garcia, enticement of a
minor. Cayetano Lopez, statutory rape. Erasmo Avila, rape and
lewd acts with a minor.
So for everyone who is in short-term memory as the way
things operate in the court of public opinion, everyone is
looking and you are forgetting the conversations you were
having 2 and 3 years ago. If you had teenage kiddos wanting to
go outside of your home and you knew that they were going to go
to Dallas, Texas, or some city and you knew that you had to
have a conversation with them with what was happening, the 15
million you knew were in the country illegally, that you had no
idea what they would be doing, who would they be preying upon.
Moms and Dads, don't you feel just a little bit safer if we are
going to be gut-level honest?
That is the realization of what the generational
opportunity this administration has afforded this country. It
is the ability to feel safe over the madness of opening the
border for that 4-year period that allowed 15 million people
you don't know where they came from, you don't know their
background, you don't know their history. This that is
occurring right now is designed to make sure we have law and
order in this country. If you do not have law and order, you
don't have prosperity.
So to all those who are second-guessing the reactionary
moments, to the law enforcement who have to respond in real
time, the quarterback whose questions Monday--is questioned
Monday morning because he is facing the 300-pound defensive
lineman, it is easy to do that. But law enforcement walks out
of their home every day and is faced with life-or-death
questions. We have to understand they are the ones who are
affording us the opportunity for our children to feel safe
against these that are in your back yard. It is not just in the
north, it is not just in Minneapolis, it is not just in
Minnesota. They are in every State in the country. Go to the
Department of Homeland Security website and Google your area
and look at who is being picked up in your backyard. That is
how we recenter this conversation to truth.
I want your children protected. I am grateful for this
President who wants your children protected, and an
administration.
The same playbook is happening now to create chaos and take
your eye off the real goal, which is to secure our communities
to get back to a place of safety.
Mr. Lyons, can you describe because of not allowing these
people to stay in jails, these sanctuary cities are letting
them go, thousands released from jail because they will not
cooperate with ICE, and when ICE tries to execute a detainer,
ask him to hold a criminal illegal alien for potential
deportation, how is this compared with other nonsanctuary city
regions in the country?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, it's night and day. With the jurisdictions
that we do have cooperation, we're able to take that individual
in a safe, secure environment. Not only is it a safe, secure
environment for the officers and agents, but it's also for the
individual and the community because we only need 1 to 2
officers to make that arrest. Where now we're historically 5 or
6, we need up to 15.
Mr. Brecheen. From what you have seen in terms of protests
in Minnesota and elsewhere, do you get the sense these
agitators are trying to provoke your agents into reactions?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brecheen. Can you expound upon that?
Mr. Lyons. We've seen multiple times and, unfortunately, we
saw, like the shooting in Dallas, where agitated groups use
apps to identify the location of ICE officers, sometimes prior
to even the law enforcement action begins, and sometimes using
those apps put the officers and as well as other Federal
agencies and local agencies with them in danger because it
exposes the fact of our law enforcement operation is happening.
Mr. Brecheen. Mr. Scott, can you describe how the 300,000
children, the UACs, unaccompanied minors, that we are trying to
find them, how these protests are stopping us from being able
to recover those?
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman will respond in writing
to that question.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Kennedy,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Mr. Lyons, your written testimony today does not make one
single mention of Renee Nicole Good or Alex Pretti. Not one.
Two American citizens have been murdered at the hands of your
agency, and you have deliberately chosen under oath before
Congress to ignore these tragedies. So today, in my 5 minutes,
I look forward to getting the American people some answers and
some accountability that I believe they deserve.
Mr. Lyons, I have some simple yes-or-no questions. Do you
believe the U.S. Constitution provides due process for everyone
in this country?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you believe American citizens have the
right to protest freely without being assaulted or killed by
our Government?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you believe there should be an independent
investigation when an innocent person is killed by a law
enforcement agency in this country?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you believe your agency has a legal
obligation to follow court orders?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Lyons, you have a very strange way
of showing it with a Federal judge finding that your agency is
in violation of 96 orders in 1 month alone, and that is just
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
This administration and the agencies represented before us
have shown a complete and utter disregard for the law and the
Constitution. Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, both American
citizens, both dead at the hands of Federal agents. Alex Pretti
was a VA ICU nurse who dedicated his life to healing people,
healing veterans. I worked as an occupational therapist for
over a decade. In that video that we have all seen, it was Alex
Pretti who was doing what health care workers do, what nurses
do. They help people, help people who are hurting, help people
who are in trouble, in this case helping a fellow peaceful
protester who was shoved to the ground right before your agents
shot him 10 times.
We are now learning that FBI Director Kash Patel stopped
the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota from investigating the
death of Ms. Good because of fear that an investigation would
contradict President Trump's falsehoods, that she violently,
willfully, and viciously ran down an agent. Six Federal
prosecutors resigned rather than participate in a cover-up.
Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, and you, Mr. Lyons, have appointed
yourselves judge, jury, and executioner, allowing American
citizens to be gunned down in our streets with impunity.
We all know the President is a liar. He sold snake oil his
entire life. But he can't tell us and the American people that
we did not see with our own eyes what we saw in that video: two
Americans shot dead in cold blood. The American people aren't
stupid like he thinks we are. The fact that our Government
murders American citizens, lies about it, and then refuses to
investigate or seek justice is beyond abhorrent. It is un-
American.
Mr. Lyons, in America, we shouldn't have secret police. We
shouldn't have masked Government agents executing citizens in
the streets. The Constitution does not give your agency the
right to hide their faces while they kill Americans. Will you
commit, yes or no, to immediately unmasking every agent
conducting immigration enforcement and requiring them to wear
standard uniforms with identifiable badges?
Mr. Lyons. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, that is a sad response. Your answer is
completely unacceptable.
People who are proud of what they do aren't hiding their
identity. We are a Nation of laws. You, your boss, Secretary
Noem, and Donald Trump are not above the law. The American
people are angry, and they are demanding accountability and
justice from those giving the orders.
Mr. Lyons, yes or no, do you believe that Secretary Noem
should resign?
Mr. Lyons. I'm not going to comment on that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So you are going to look the families of Renee
Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in the eye and tell them Secretary
Noem should keep her job after their loved ones were killed?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, the loss of any life is unacceptable. The
heart--my heart, prayers, and thoughts go out to anyone who--
tragically losing his life, especially a child, since I've
suffered personal loss in my life, but I'm not going to comment
on on-going investigation.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Lyons, the American people are
watching. Your unwillingness to demand accountability from your
own leadership speaks volumes. Two American citizens are dead.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Kennedy. The American people deserve accountability.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time is expired. It is
a--Members are reminded that we must adhere to established
standards of decorum and debate. It is a clear violation of the
rules of the House to make statements that might be personally
offensive to the President or the Vice President of the United
States.
I now recognize the gentlelady from South Carolina, Mrs.
Biggs, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Garbarino, and thank you to
our witnesses. A big thank you for what you do each and every
day to secure our border and to carry out the will of the
American people.
You know, this Trump administration and the CBP and ICE,
they have done a stellar job of securing our border. We can
just look at the numbers. They tell the facts. Crossings are
down from a high of over 300,000 a month under President Biden
to around 10,000 a month under President Trump.
However, the lax border policies of the Democrats have
flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal
immigrants. This invasion was facilitated by sanctuary cities.
Most cities will hand over criminal aliens with a deportation
order to ICE. But sanctuary cities refuse to do so, often
releasing them back into the public around our communities, our
children, and making it unsafe. Cities like Minneapolis pick
and choose which laws they want to enforce. By doing that, they
place our Federal law enforcement in danger, forcing ICE agents
to make arrests out in public, something that could be avoided
if sanctuary cities simply cooperated with the Federal law. At
the same time, radical leftists have stirred hysteria over
routine immigration enforcement, calling immigration officers
the secret police and even the Gestapo.
Let me be very clear. This rhetoric has consequences.
Between 2024 and 2025, we saw a more than 16,000 percent
increase in threats of assault against immigration officers and
over 8,000 percent spike in death threats targeting those who
enforce our laws. In Minnesota alone, there have been over 60
threats and 20 assaults to ICE officers. Just think about that,
if you were going to work every day and had to deal with that.
Sanctuary cities, they choose criminals over citizens. My
bill, the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, would cut
off every single Federal dollar to any city that helps illegals
instead of law enforcement.
Mr. Lyons, my question is to you. Why should taxpayers fund
far-left politicians who put your agents at risk?
Mr. Lyons. Ma'am, unfortunately, what we've seen over and
over is just the fact that there's so much rhetoric out there
against the work the men and women of ICE have done. Again,
going back on my career, this is my second decade, multiple
administrations, and it's never been like this. The actual
public safety impact that the men and women of ICE do every day
is significant, and it should still be true for all 50 States.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you. So I want to take it a little closer
to home. What is happening in my district, the Third District
of South Carolina, it should alarm every single individual.
These are real crimes committed by individuals illegally in our
country, right here in our communities, confirmed by the
Department of Homeland Security. We heard a little bit from my
colleagues earlier.
So let me just give you a few of the worst. Vehicular
homicide, child cruelty and indecent exposure, armed robbery,
assaulting a police officer with a weapon, and making terrorist
threats, and I could go on and on. We are also seeing
convictions for drug trafficking, burglary, forgery, repeated
illegal reentry, and more and more. This is what I consider
chaos. It is the direct result of open-border policies that put
American lives at risk.
But amid all of this, we are seeing true heroes step up.
Our Federal immigration officers are on the front lines of
securing safety and prosperity for us and for our children.
They have been given a difficult task, but they are up to the
job and certainly meeting the demands. We stand behind our
immigration officers and their historic mission to restore the
rule of law and to the United States. Right here at home, our
local law enforcement is rising to meet the challenge, and I am
very grateful to them.
So just look at Anderson County Sheriff's Department, which
you will see in the photo behind me, which recently seized 180
pounds of cocaine. That is 180 pounds of deadly drugs that will
never reach our streets, thanks to the courage and commitment.
So I just want to say thank you, and I am grateful for the job
that you do.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs.
McIver, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. McIver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Mr. Lyons, as the senior official lead in ICE enforcement,
much of today's scrutiny falls on you, and it should. You have
seen repeatedly--we have seen repeatedly that Republicans,
Trump administration, its DHS, and your agency will do
absolutely anything to avoid answering for your actions.
When I showed up to inspect Delaney Hall, a private prison
that you contract with, ICE tried not to give us an oversight
tour. Then instead of taking accountability for ICE's attempts
to keep us from seeing this facility's conditions, to know if
people's basic rights were being upheld, this administration is
doing all they can to try to put me in prison for 17 years.
When ICE shot and killed Renee Good, Kristi Noem called her a
domestic terrorist. When Alex Pretti, you all tried to tell us
he was threatening officers with a gun, but all we saw was a
phone. This administration's clear lies fell apart not because
someone had a come-to-Jesus moment, but because we saw these
murders from every angle. You are only here because public
outrage has become so unavoidable.
You are here, Mr. Lyons, because white people are getting
shot in the face and chest when the cameras are rolling.
Because now my Republican colleagues care about optics. But
when Keith Porter, Jr., a Black American citizen, a son, a
father, and a man loved by many, was killed by an off-duty ICE
agent on New Year's Eve, there were no hearings. So this is for
him today.
In my district, Jean Wilson Brutus, a Haitian immigrant, a
beloved family man, died within 24 hours of being in ICE
custody. He is just one of more than 30 people who have died in
ICE custody last year. This is for all of them, every human
being your rogue, out-of-control agency has hurt, hunted down,
imprisoned, killed, and continue to hold hostage even after
they have agreed to be deported.
We know this administration doesn't care about protecting
people or sparing lives. We all see so plainly what you are
doing, what you have been doing to Black and Brown folks,
immigrants, people silenced in the shadows, now in broad
daylight to people peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in
the streets, which is their right to do. This is the despicable
but predictable result of an agency that laughs at oversight,
receives billions to deploy lethal force on our neighborhoods,
and seems to believe that they are above the law and should be
without accountability.
This administration believes it can act first, explain
later, or hell, never, never explained at all, as we see here
today. You all seem to think you are the highest power who
decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due
process. But you are wrong. We are here for answers. We are
here for accountability. We are here because people are dying.
Let me repeat that. People are dying. You don't seem to care.
So, Mr. Lyons, I have heard my colleagues ask many
questions over and over again, and you cannot answer them. So
let me ask you some questions that you may be able to answer.
Mr. Lyons, do you consider yourself a religious man?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. McIver. Oh, yes. OK. Well, how do you think Judgment
Day will work for you with so much blood on your hands?
Mr. Lyons. I'm not going to entertain that question.
Mrs. McIver. Oh, OK. Of course not. Do you think you're
going to hell, Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. I'm not going to entertain----
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlelady----
Mrs. McIver. Of course not.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlelady----
Mrs. McIver. How many Government----
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlelady will suspend. The
gentlelady will suspend.
Mrs. McIver. Chairman----
Chairman Garbarino. As I--the gentlelady will suspend. As I
said, the issues we are debating here are important to ones
that Members feel deeply about.
Mrs. McIver. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Garbarino. While vigorous disagreement is part of
the legislative process, Members are reminded that we must
adhere to established standards of decorum and debate. The
witnesses are here voluntarily. I will continue to remind
Members that while oversight is important, aggressively
attacking those witnesses personally is inappropriate and not
in keeping with the traditions of our committee.
Mrs. McIver. Mr. Chairman, I am just asking a question. You
guys are always talking about religion here and the Bible. I
mean, it is OK for me to ask a question, right? But let me
continue on. I got your note.
Chairman Garbarino. All right. The gentlelady may resume.
Mrs. McIver. Thank you so much. Let me get back to my
questioning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, I appreciate you.
How many Government agencies, Mr. Lyons, are you aware of
that routinely kill American citizens and still get funding?
Mr. Lyons. Ma'am, I'm not going to entertain that.
Mrs. McIver. Of course you're not.
Mr. Lyons. I much rather talk about the criminal----
Mrs. McIver. Exactly. Exactly.
Mr. Lyons [continuing]. Aliens in your district than talk
about that.
Mrs. McIver. Once again, questions that you cannot answer.
That is exactly why, Mr. Chairman, and to this committee, to my
colleagues and to my colleagues across the aisle, this is
exactly why we should not be funding this agency. The people
are watching you. They are watching you. This is why we need to
abolish ICE.
With that, I yield back. Thank you kindly.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, for
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for
this important hearing.
This past year has been historic for national security,
thanks to the joint work between the agencies present today and
our Republican colleagues. The Big Beautiful Bill unlocked
billions of dollars to finally secure the border and deliver
much-needed support for law enforcement officials who keep us
safe every day, slashing things like the scourge of overdose
deaths that claimed approximately 400,000 lives under the
previous administration. This is despite increasing violence
against Federal officers, which has been inspired by fear-
mongering from the Democrats.
As a soldier for 12 years, as a cop for 10 years, and as
the only Latino in Colorado's delegation, it has been my long-
standing position that with a secure border, we must use all
available resources to target the worst of the worst, violent
offenders like murderers and rapists, and so-called nonviolent,
like drug dealers and thieves and child porn producers. Get the
gangsters, not the grandmas.
Director Lyons, is ICE's priority the apprehension and
removal of criminal noncitizens rather than the broader
population of illegally present individuals?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. ICE has continued focus is on the
criminal aliens that are in our neighborhoods.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. Unfortunately, Democrats in my State
in Colorado champion soft-on-crime sanctuary policies at the
State level and in cities like Denver, which borders my
district. These policies not only impede Federal investigations
that target cartels, gangbangers, entities like Tren de Aragua,
MS-13, the Sinaloa Cartel, but they also endanger our
communities by releasing dangerous criminals back into the
streets who continue to traffic drugs, steal cars, intimidate
families, and recruit children. In fact, fentanyl overdose
rates in Denver are going up in 2025.
It is common sense that when local or State police arrest
an individual for a crime, those officers should be able to
obtain basic information about the arrestee. Those State and
local officers should then be allowed to share information with
Federal law enforcement to communicate threats, honor detainer
requests, and work together to ensure national security and
public safety.
So, Director Lyons, can you please explain how ICE works
around sanctuary policies to go after the worst of the worst?
Do these sanctuary policies that release criminals back into
the community increase or decrease ICE's presence in the
community and the temperature of the interactions that ICE has
with the community?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, when we deal with sanctuary jurisdictions,
we do have to have more law enforcement officers on the street.
Like I said earlier in my testimony, we'd much rather have the
chance to take a aggravated felon, repeat DUI offender into
custody at a prison, local jail, or some type of lock-up
environment where it's safer for my officers and for not only
the individual, but that community as well. Then given the
opportunity to take that person into custody before that person
can reoffend.
Unfortunately, as a field office director, when I ran the
Boston field office, we saw too many times that we placed a
detainer on a sexual assault individual, who just went out
later, after the detainer was dropped, to rape again. That is
why we need cooperation at all levels, especially local and
State.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. Director Lyons, my district, 40
percent Hispanic. It is full of successful business owners and
strong immigrant families. Unfortunately, my colleagues across
the aisle are fanning the flames of fear for their own
political gain in my Hispanic communities, scaring people over
events that haven't happened in my district. So I would like
for you, for just a brief moment, to speak directly to my
constituents who are legally present in the United States, not
criminals, but who are fearful of being searched or detained
via immigration efforts. Should they fear ICE? What policies
does ICE have to prevent the seizure of people with legal
status?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, ICE officers and special agents are trained
in the Immigration Nationality Act. So anyone that is here
legally or lawfully or a U.S. citizen should not be concerned
about being deported or detained.
Unfortunately, many times there are individuals that are
with criminal illegal aliens. Sir, as you being a former law
enforcement officer, you know, you arrive on a scene, you ID
everyone in that case. If, you know, if we're looking for an
individual and someone is here present in the country
illegally, then we're going to take action. We're not going to
turn a blind eye no more. But someone that's in the country
lawfully should not feel scared to walk down the street,
drive----
Mr. Evans. Thank you. Sorry, sorry, I got 23 seconds left.
I have one thing that I want to ask. As a cop, if I had an
arrest warrant, and there is a difference between arrest
warrants and search warrants, if I had an arrest warrant for an
individual and I thought they were in the house, or if I was
assisting Social Services with a child removal, I still had to
have an arrest warrant to go in the house. So I have many
questions about the memo saying that you don't need a warrant
to go into the house. Will you commit with me at a later date
to discuss this?
Mr. Lyons. One hundred percent, sir. I look forward to
sitting down and discussing that.
Mr. Evans. Yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for
5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to, Mr. Lyons, I wanted to just follow up on a
statement that you just made, which is that if you are here
legally and lawfully, you should not worry. I think the problem
is there are many, many immigrants that are here legally and
lawfully that are very worried because they have been snatched
off the streets, they have had their face beat in by ICE
agents, they have been yanked out of their car, they have been
driven around and harassed. So that is, I think at the end of
the day, you know, the key of the crux here, which is that,
unfortunately, there is not just this focus on criminals and
that people who are here in legal status.
For example, I have an example of this that I would like to
highlight for you. Back in October, Maher Tarabishi, a North
Texas resident, who was allowed to be in this country legally
and was under a supervision order to check in on an annual
basis since 2008, and did that because he had an adult disabled
son. He was here working as an IT consultant and was here in
the legal process to take care of his adult legal son. He went
to check into his appointment and it so happened to be at the
time that the Dallas ICE office was closed due to the shooting
and so he was not able to check in. When he went back to check
in, he was immediately snatched up and detained because he
missed his appointment. That was unavoidable because the office
was closed.
He told everyone he was in legal status. He had been here
since 2008, and he had an adult disabled son that would likely
pass away if he was not released. He was not released. His son
died. Then to complicate it, he was not allowed to go and
attend the funeral and he is still in detention in the
Bluebonnet facility in Texas. He is not a criminal. He has no
criminal history. He was here legally. That is an unacceptable
outcome.
I would like to know if you are willing to review his case
and help us get his release, because he should not be in the
Bluebonnet detention facility under these facts.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, ma'am. I'm committed to reviewing that case
for you.
Ms. Johnson. I appreciate that. The other issue that I am
really very concerned about is these warrantless entries into
people's homes. It is a problem that is of epic proportion.
There was just recently, yesterday, circulation, a Latino
family, ICE just broke into their home without a warrant. There
was an example where they arrested a man in his pajamas, who
had every right to be here as a U.S. citizen, but wrongfully
snatched out in the freezing cold without a warrant to do so.
The problem that we are having. Nobody wants to see attacks
on ICE agents, sir. But this is something I have brought up in
this committee time and time again, which is, unfortunately,
under your leadership and under Secretary Noem's leadership,
this rogue brutality that ICE agents are inflicting upon the
people of this country is not being reined in. It is not
being--the agents who are abusing their power are not being
held accountable.
I am sure that there are many, many fine agents who are
doing everything they can to exercise their duty lawfully. But
the problem is there are agents who are not. The power that
they have has gone to their head. They use that power
unconstitutionally, in violation of many people's direct
Constitutional rights. What you are seeing in this country is
the fact that your agency--you are not--it is not stopping.
Rather than saying, yes, we are going to take steps to keep
these people who are abusing their power and who are
terrorizing citizens of this country wrongfully, that we are
going to hold them account, rather than--that is what we want
to see. You are doubling down on that we are only going after
criminals, which is, in your own comments, you said that you
had 397--I think that is right, 379,000 arrests, but only 8,700
of them were suspected gang members or known suspected
terrorists. That is 2 percent. The problem is we can't
terrorize 98 percent of the people in this country that have
been wrongfully detained for 2 percent. That is not how the
system works, and that is not OK. So we have to do a better
job.
So what procedures are you putting in place to hold agents
accountable who clearly have a hot trigger and who clearly
abuse their authority because someone has a phone and a
whistle?
Mr. Lyons. Ma'am, ICE does have the Office of Professional
Responsibility. It's a robust internal investigation agency
that does investigate allegations of special agent or
deportation officer misconduct. We do take everyone seriously,
and we do investigate those.
Ms. Johnson. Well, those are not being publicly reported.
So that is where there is a huge breach of the public trust
because there does not appear to be any accountability, sir.
Thank you. I will yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Mackenzie, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Mackenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of
our testifiers being here today.
Before I begin, I would like to thank all of our members of
law enforcement across the country who work every day to keep
our communities safe and also to their families that sacrifice.
We know that it is a challenging job, and the environment is
made particularly challenging by those who want to oppose our
law enforcement from carrying out their lawful duties to keep
everybody in our country and our community safe.
As was discussed earlier, there are a couple areas, though,
where I think it is appropriate to discuss potential reforms
and the way that we can improve our Government operations. DHS
guidance indicates that ICE does not arrest or detain U.S.
citizens. On the other hand, social media is full of reports
and accusations that this is occurring. As you know, any
accusation that an American citizen's rights are violated is
very serious.
Can you clarify, Mr. Lyons, whether this is something that
it occurs, and what are the circumstances where a U.S. citizen
might be detained and what steps does ICE take to prevent
mistakes?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, I appreciate the question. Well,
unfortunately, there's a misnomer that ICE is just a civil
enforcement agency, and that's completely wrong. ICE enforces
over 400 criminal statutes as well. Special agents, especially
with the Homeland Security Investigations, they're consistently
out there doing human trafficking cases, drug cases, terrorism
cases. We do encounter U.S. citizens, and those who do commit
Federal crimes are arrested. But under Title 8, no U.S. citizen
is subject to civil immigration enforcement, and that just
doesn't happen. There are multiple safeguards in that way. If a
U.S. citizen is detained in the course of an immigration
investigation, they're quickly released. We don't take action
on American citizens.
Mr. Mackenzie. If it does occur where a U.S. citizen is
detained during the course of another investigation, how is
that documented and conveyed to the public about the fact that
this did occur and what the circumstances around that were?
Mr. Lyons. So, sir, if you say it is a separate
investigation, if it comes to a criminal case, obviously a lot
of those are under seal or on-going investigations. We won't
expose that. But we're transparent in the case when it comes to
any U.S. citizens that's detained in any law enforcement
operations that's subsequently arrested.
Mr. Mackenzie. I appreciate that. I think greater
transparency could be beneficial for both the American public
and everybody involved here if we clearly articulate what
occurred in many of these instances. I have seen it myself when
I am looking into local issues in our community. There are
oftentimes two sides to the story. When it is actually conveyed
what did occur and why it occurred, there is a greater
understanding in our local community of the law enforcement
activities that occurred.
The second thing I would like to hit on is jurisdictions
which are sometimes referred to sanctuary cities. Not a clear
definition, as we all know, but local authorities in our
community, we have Northampton County which does not honor ICE
detainer requests for 48 hours and properly convey to ICE and
law enforcement about the release of that individual, when that
may occur, or even during that detainer period allow ICE to
come onto their property to make an arrest in a secure
facility. Obviously, that leaves our community in a vulnerable
position. In our case, members of Tren de Aragua, domestic
abusers have been released onto the street and ICE had to stake
out that location, making the arrests in an unsecure way out in
the local community.
From your perspective, how does this dynamic affect public
safety and day-to-day operations? Where or how can we change
and improve the coordination between ICE and State and local
partners?
Mr. Lyons. Thank you, sir, again. What I would say is just
very basic communication would go a long way for public safety.
You know, ICE respects and abides by State and municipality
laws well, where sometimes you can't hold for any reasons. But
a simple phone call to let us know that that individual is
going to be released or if that individual is released, sharing
that biographical data with us will go a long way. Because the
last thing we want is a criminal illegal alien to go back into
the community. More often than not they prey upon other
migrants who are coming here for a better life, yet that they
can hide in plain sight because the sanctuary jurisdictions
won't just pick up a phone, notify ICE that they're being
released.
Mr. Mackenzie. Well, I appreciate that. I think we want
full cooperation between our local law enforcement and Federal
agents when they are trying to do their job. If somebody is on
a detainer, they should be allowed onto that property, given
the ability within that detainer window to make a lawful
arrest. I think it would go a long way to keeping our community
safe.
I would like to thank all of you again for being here. The
fact that you are here and present for this kind of testimony,
I think brings greater accountability and increases the ability
for us to make reforms in Congress. Thank you again.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Pou,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to our Ranking Member
Thompson. Gentlemen, thank you so very much for being here.
Let me just be clear. Secretary Noem must step down or be
impeached by the House, period. The lawlessness, the cruelty,
the outright viciousness that she has created has destroyed an
agency whose very mission is to protect our country. Under
Noem's leadership, Congressional oversight is ignored,
detention visits are blocked, due process is ignored, and laws
are broken without thought.
This is the first time any of you have testified before our
committee. It took two American citizens being murdered in cold
blood to get you to show up. ICE raids schools, churches, and
hospitals. Let's not forget 5-year-old Liam Ramos. You used him
as a bait and then detained him despite his father's legally--
his father legally seeking asylum. Liam is the face of your
cruelty.
My district is one of the most ethnically diverse in
America. Our diversity is our strength. But somehow you all
seem to believe it is a weakness. Last fall, the Supreme Court
greenlit ICE's ability to yank people off the street based on
one thing such as ``the type of work one does, speaking
Spanish, or speaking with an accent and their apparent race or
ethnicity.''
Mr. Lyons, I speak Spanish. If I wasn't wearing any--if I
wasn't wearing my Member pin, would me being a Latina or
speaking Spanish be enough for ICE agents to harass me or shove
me into one of your unmarked cars?
Mr. Lyons. No, ma'am.
Ms. Pou. I speak for all of us when I say that I think we
know the real answer to this. These are the realities
traumatizing my constituents. We know that ICE is transferring
New Jersey detainees to other States, like Texas, ripping them
from their families and leaving them unable to challenge their
detention.
Mr. Ice, yes or no--I am sorry, Mr. Lyons, yes or no? Will
you provide us with a list of people ICE has transferred from
New Jersey to other States so that I can inform their families
where they are?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Pou. These are people like my constituent, Leqaa
Kordia, who ICE shipped to Texas and continues to detain,
despite 2 judicial orders compelling her release. Over the
weekend Leqaa was hospitalized for 72 hours while her family
had no idea where she was at nor the status of her condition.
Mr. Lyons, would you be willing to look into this to make
sure to release my constituent? Why have we failed? Why have
you failed to inform her family where she was sent and the
status of her condition? When will she be freed?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, ma'am. You have my commitment that I'll
look into that.
Ms. Pou. Thank you. Now, soon, Mr. Lyons, and all of you,
my district will host the World Cup matches and hundreds of
thousands of visitors will come. Visitors' confidence is
plummeting and jeopardizing the World Cup.
Mr. Lyons, will ICE commit, will you commit to ensure that
pausing its operations and raids at FIFA matches and other FIFA
sanctioned public events?
Mr. Lyons. Ma'am, ICE, specifically Homeland Security
Investigations, is a key part of the overall security apparatus
for the World Cup. We're dedicated to securing that operation.
We're dedicated to the security of all our participants as well
as visitors.
Ms. Pou. You realize that if they feel that they are going
to be wrongfully incarcerated, wrongfully pulled out, that is
going to hurt this entire process. I hope you realize that.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, ma'am. ICE is dedicated to ensuring that
everyone that visits their facilities will have a safe and
secure event.
Ms. Pou. Without these assurances, our local communities
and national reputations will indeed be suffered.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Knott, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Using the trope
diversity is our strength as an excuse for lawlessness is
unbelievably naive and dangerous. Nobody in this room would say
that diversity is a bad thing. Lawlessness is a bad thing. Law
and order is much more of our strength than open border
policies that welcomes anybody with no vetting. When you get
down to the nuts and bolts of this issue, we would not be
having this hearing if the Democrats attacked illegal
immigration with the same vigor that they are attacking law
enforcement and the men at this table. That is a fact.
It is worth noting that the dishonesty in framing these
issues has been unbelievably obvious. It has been consistent
and just to--as an anecdote. Mr. Lyons, was Liam used as bait
by your agency?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir. Actually, law enforcement officers took
care of the child after the father abandoned him at a----
Mr. Knott. Walk us through what that means.
Mr. Lyons. So, sir, the individual that was driving that
vehicle with--Liam was in, fled from the scene, from the
officers. He was obviously upset. We comforted him. The
officers actually placed him in one of our vehicles, played his
favorite song, favorite music. Then they took him to
McDonald's.
Mr. Knott. You all got him McDonald's. So you all did not
abduct him. You did not use him as bait. Any characterization
of that is a lie. It has been repeated over and over by the
Democrats to frame your agency.
You know, it is worth noting again that the Democrats
fought to prevent any vetting of 20 million illegal immigrants
into this country over the last 4 years. They attack agents
rather than those who are assaulting agents today. They
continually misframe what is happening on the ground. They
continually malign the law enforcement officers who are
providing legal structure to otherwise lawless landscapes in
this country. It is worth noting that there have been roughly 2
million people in the country who have been removed in the last
year, some voluntarily and then some by forced deportations.
We have heard roughly about 25 cases of alleged abuse. Some
of them, as I just pointed out, are dishonestly framed. But
let's do a favor to the Democratic side. Let's increase that
number by 1,000 times, 25,000 cases of alleged abuse or
improper protocols. We are still operating at roughly 99
percent proficiency. Given the scale of the problem, the scale
of the solution that you all are operating under, your agents
are doing a remarkable job, and I thank you.
But one issue that I want to talk about is this idea of
sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies is not just a passive
relinquishing effort. It is an active obstruction. Isn't that
true, Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Knott. What I mean by that is when I say it is an
active, to be specific, there are sanctuary States and cities
that will release violent criminals rather than handing them
over to pursuing Federal law enforcement. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Lyons. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Knott. I left the hearing a few moments ago just to
find a quick example. Here is one right behind me. Just 30
hours ago, an illegal alien arrested for stabbing an American
in the back. He was charged with attempted murder. He pled to a
lesser offense. The Feds wanted him, sought a detainer, and
then rather than hold him for your agents' pickup, he was
released back into the streets of Maryland. That is not an
unusual action from local hostile law enforcement, is it, Mr.
Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir. That's what we face every day.
Mr. Knott. So we have heard the Democrats complain that we
are not getting the worst of the worst. But their sanctuary
jurisdictions that control roughly 40 percent of this country's
population will actively release sex predators, drug dealers,
violent offenders, rather than hand them over to you for
deportation. These are people who are already in custody. Am I
correct, Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. The individuals are already deemed a
public safety threat by local or State law enforcement.
Mr. Knott. Then when they get a Federal detainer, they will
release them on the street rather than turn them over for
deportation?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Knott. It is disgusting. Mr. Scott, I want to talk to
you briefly. I am running out of time. How many cities does
your agency operate in?
Commissioner Scott. We operate nationwide.
Mr. Knott. Why is it that there is so much tension in
Minneapolis-St. Paul right now?
Commissioner Scott. Because paid agitators are actively
trying to stop law enforcement action. Without that, you
wouldn't even have any idea most of these arrests were taking
place.
Mr. Knott. In many parts of the country, local law
enforcement assists your efforts to bring legal structure to
these lawless areas, isn't that correct?
Commissioner Scott. That's correct.
Mr. Knott. When order is maintained, you can do your job
peacefully, correct?
Commissioner Scott. Correct. All we've ever asked is for
law enforcement to do their job, not necessarily----
Mr. Knott. In Minneapolis-St. Paul, local law enforcement
in some cases have been prohibited from maintaining order so
you can do your job, isn't that correct?
Commissioner Scott. Correct.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Knott. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Garbarino. I now recognize the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Walkinshaw, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Lyons, your opening statement referenced the
importance of protecting children and I am glad to hear your
commitment to that. I want to focus on one of President Trump's
mass deportation policies that the experts say harms children:
child detention. In this administration, under your watch, ICE
has booked nearly 4,000 children and 1,000 of them have been
held longer than the court-ordered 20-day limit.
Recently, ProPublica obtained handwritten letters and
drawings from children detained by ICE. These are letters from
children describing what it feels like and what it does to them
when the Government locks them up.
This is Ariana. She is 14 years old, detained for 45 days.
``Since I got to this center, all I feel is sadness and mostly
depression.''
This is Mia, 7 years old, ``I don't want to be in this
place. I want to go to my school.''
This is Scarlet, 17 years old, ``I feel very bored and
overwhelmed because I am locked up.''
This is Gabby, 14 years old, ``I feel so much sadness and
depression of not being able to leave.''
This is Maria, 9 years old, ``Me and Dilly am not happy.
Please get me out of here.''
This is a 12-year-old, ``Going to the doctor and the only
thing they tell me is drink more water. The water here is what
makes people sick.''
This one got me, Mr. Lyons, because this is a 5-year-old,
Louise Annie, ``My son's five. He can't write many words, but
he can communicate through drawings like this.'' This is a
picture of Louise Annie's family. You might be able to see that
none of the faces are smiling.
Child detention is not required by law. You know that. It
is not the only option available and it is not effective. We
know that community-based alternatives can ensure compliance
with proceedings without traumatizing these children. Yet you
continue to detain and hold children for weeks or months,
depriving them of school, stability, leaving them afraid, sick,
and confused. One of the key reasons for your mass detention,
including the detention of Liam and his father, is to pressure
people to give up their legal opportunities and pathways to
remaining in the United States. Liam's father was following the
rules, following the legal process, with a valid claim.
Let me be clear. No child, not Liam Ramos, not Gabby, or
any of these children should be used as pawns in Stephen
Miller's sick and twisted Great Replacement agenda.
Mr. Lyons, in 2025, the British Journal of Psychiatry
analyzed all of the data on the impact of immigration detention
on children's health. Have you read that study and analysis?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir, I haven't.
Mr. Walkinshaw. You are the director of the--you are not
familiar with that literature?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Walkinshaw. You could tell me, I am sure, chapter and
verse on the tactics and the equipment that your agents use,
military-style equipment across the country, in American
cities. But you don't know anything about the literature of the
impacts of your policies on children. You haven't read it?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Walkinshaw. The Flores Agreement, I am sure you know
that, sets a 20-day limit on detaining children. You and the
Trump administration are trying to terminate that agreement.
How long would you like to hold children, 20 days, 40 days, 60
days, 100 days? What is the right number, Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, we wouldn't like to hold any children. We
would like to remove that family unit together, safely and
humanely and as quickly as possible.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you. Since you haven't read the
literature, let me tell you what it says. ``Detention harms
children.'' No period, no period, not 20, 40, 75 days that you
are holding children, can be deemed safe. All detention of
children has adverse impacts and is profoundly detrimental.
Your policies are profoundly detrimental to children.
I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Fong,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. For those
who are here testifying. I want to thank you, to you and your
teams and your personnel for what you do.
Commissioner Scott, you mentioned and you in your
testimony, National Security cannot exist without effective
border security. Couldn't agree more. Everyone on your teams
are doing tremendous work under difficult conditions. I want to
thank you all.
I do want to ask and dive in a little deeper as a
Californian on the dangers and the consequences of these
sanctuary policies.
Director Lyons, I was in the State legislature in 2017 when
sanctuary State policies were put in in California. I opposed
S.B. 54 because at the time, and everything has proven to be
true, it was outlined that the impact on ICE and Border Patrol
agents was that there would be reduced information and access,
agents would be conducting higher-risk enforcement operations,
and that there will be operational constraints when it comes to
limiting cooperation between State and local law enforcement. I
wanted to get your perspective, Director Lyons, and I will go
to you Commissioner Scott as well. What--can you give specifics
on how these sanctuary State policies impact your operations in
real time compared to nonsanctuary operations?
Mr. Lyons. Well, sir, for ICE, what I kind-of--I will refer
back to what we talked about earlier in my testimony. The fact
that when State or local or county agencies don't cooperate
with Immigration Customs Enforcement, it forces us to go back
into the community, which we don't want to do. It also
increases the number of assets we have to put toward that
arrest. Like I said earlier, I would much rather send one or
two agents or officers to make that arrest in a safe, secure
location rather than being out in the street. It is safer for
everyone involved.
Mr. Fong. Before you--before I go to you, Commissioner
Scott, and answer, I just want to let everyone know in
California, and I think it was just reported a couple days ago,
there are currently 33,179 illegal aliens in the custody of
California jurisdictions with active detainers. The crimes of
these aliens include 399 homicides, 3,313 assaults, 3,171
burglaries, 1,011 robberies, 8,380 dangerous drug offenses,
1,984 weapon offenses, and 1,293 sexual predatory offenses.
These are the real-world consequences. Isn't that right,
Commissioner Scott? When we don't have cooperation, they are
released into the community.
Commissioner Scott. Those are exactly the consequences. I
would just add California-specific, they went above and beyond
everybody else, I mean, in a negative way. They prohibited
State and locals when they saw a crime taking place in front of
them from sharing that information with us.
San Diego, for example, right after that law was passed, a
highway patrol pulled over a U-Haul van and it was a smuggling
event, probably a human trafficking event. A Border Patrol
agent just happened to roll up on it and found out, luckily,
but that highway patrol was disciplined and actually
investigated internally. That sent a chilling effect across the
entire State of California that not only can you not actively
take--like help us, you couldn't even pass information to us in
a normal course of duties.
Border security law enforcement is a team sport. We need to
be working together, not against each other.
Mr. Fong. Now, can you explain what would have happened,
and I think you alluded to it, but what would have happened
prior to that if there was local and State coordination with
Federal law enforcement?
Commissioner Scott. On a daily basis, especially along the
Southwest Border, and let's not forget and the coast, because
we have boats coming in, when a State or local agency would see
illegal activity that they had--they could take action on, and
then they saw a Federal crime, they would contact us. It
happened all the time. That completely ceased to exist when
S.B. 54 was passed.
Mr. Fong. These crimes, of course, as you mentioned before,
if you go into specifics, I mean, this is trafficking, both
humans and drugs, this is rape, assaults, I mean anything. You
are telling me that if any of those crimes occurred, if right
now under--in California, if someone witnessed it, if a State
law enforcement or local law enforcement witnessed these crimes
being committed, they could not notify you.
Commissioner Scott. They have some felony exceptions, but
in most cases, you don't know until you start asking questions
if it's just a smuggling event or a human trafficking event.
Until you actually pop the trunk of the vehicle or the back of
the car, you don't know what commodity is back there, if it's
people or something else. It put a chilling effect beyond the
actual written language on any kind of cooperation in the
State.
Mr. Fong. Well, I want to thank you for that. Yes, there
were some exceptions when it comes to felonies, but as someone
who lives in California and was there for the discussion and
debate, everything we warned about when it came to sanctuary
State policies and the consequences to our community and the
consequences to public safety, they have come true. That is sad
and unfortunate and we need to undo those policies.
So I want to thank you all for your leadership and
testimony and your work. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. To our
witnesses, thank you for being here.
What we have heard today and seen play out in the streets
of this Nation for the past year, straight out of the Trump
administration's fascist playbook: cheat, murder, lie about it,
practice the art of mass distraction. The American people are
not happy about this.
This administration's officials are sitting before us, two
people are dead. I understand that there is an investigation
and you cannot go into the details about that, but there
certainly appears to be no shame on the part of these
officials, who have undoubtedly watched some of your officers
conduct themselves in ways that I know you don't condone, not
as law-abiding people. Right? So I got to give you the benefit
of doubt. I can't understand why you show no shame, no
contrition, no remorse for the human lives that have been lost
or for the trampling of the Constitution and the tearing apart
of the moral fiber of our Nation.
They think, apparently, you think, apparently, you have
been coached, apparently, you have been called out of the room
with a forced break to be told to be more aggressive, to push
back against questions. The American people saw that happen.
The American people watched as you all looked at each other,
oh, I didn't ask for a break. Clearly you were called in the
back to be coached, a halftime locker room pep talk. This isn't
a game. These are people's lives.
We should all be, you should be, your officers should be
held accountable that no one is above the law. No one can evade
the Constitution. No person can evade what is right, even
though you think that Donald Trump will protect you, and maybe
he will for now. But there will be a time that you have to
answer these questions.
While you have worked on many administrations and it has
been asked, you worked on different administrations, what is
different? I will tell you what is different. The approach. The
approach of how you conduct your search and seizure. The reason
there were so many others and they were not riots was because
people were not being trampled. You had trained officers who
knew the art of deescalation. They understood the rule of law.
They understood the Constitution. Yet now we continue to hear
lies.
Last year, I took Members of Congress on an oversight visit
to ICE facility. We were told certain things that turned out to
be patent lies. They told us things that we witnessed within
moments of being there to not be true. Yet we continue to hear
you and some of my colleagues suggest, don't believe your eyes,
don't believe your ears, just trust us. Well, the American
people can see.
This notion that Democrats don't want enforcement, those
are talking points that are wrong. We want rapists and
murderers off the street. We want the bad, the worst of the
worst, to be arrested and to be deported if they aren't
supposed to be here. What we don't want is citizens running
down the street being chased by ICE agents, people being shot
on the streets by rogue officers who are, in fact, American
citizens. What we don't want is to see people like Ms. Good or
Mr. Pretti simply doing what we often say if you see something,
say something. We don't want to see people dying on the
streets.
So let me ask you a quick question. Mr. Lyons, has ICE ever
detained American citizens such as they are not free to leave,
whether it is on the sidewalk, street, or thrown into the back
of an ICE vehicle because they looked or sound a certain way,
even though they said they were American citizens? Yes or no,
quickly. I only got 38 seconds.
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Carter. That has never happened before?
Mr. Lyons. That we've arrested one? No, sir. We've detained
individuals to verify identity, but we haven't arrested or
deported. No, sir.
Mr. Carter. Detained, arrest, check it out.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. It is the same thing, right. All right. What
does an undocumented person look like or sound like? Does it
look like Mr. Garbarino? Does it look like me?
Mr. Lyons. Could look like anyone, sir.
Mr. Carter. OK. Well, how are you training your people?
Because you have said and others have said, if they sound a
certain way, they look a certain way, we are going to stop
them. That was quoted by your people. What do you say to that?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, what I say is that ICE does criminal
targeted enforcement based on intelligence, and we don't use
the color of skin or accents for that.
Mr. Carter. So the person who said that was wrong?
Chairman Garbarino. We will----
Mr. Carter. Yes, the person was wrong?
Chairman Garbarino. We will let the gentleman get that
answer in writing. His time has expired.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Van
Epps, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Van Epps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing and to our witnesses for testifying today.
I want to commend the job the Trump administration and you
gentlemen are doing to secure the border, enforce Federal
immigration laws, and keep dangerous criminals off our streets.
Under President Biden, we saw unprecedented levels of illegal
immigration, and many of those who came across the border were
connected to transnational criminal organizations and have
continued to commit crimes while in the United States. Despite
doing everything they could to secure our borders, our brave
CBP officers and Border Patrol agents were undermined at every
turn by the Biden-Harris administration. Yet under President
Trump, CBP, Border Patrol, and ICE have been empowered to do
their job and fulfill their mission.
As a representative from Tennessee, I can't help but
compare operations in Minneapolis to those in Memphis. Federal
law enforcement operations in Memphis have been successful by
every standard and metric, with Memphis Safe Task Force
arresting over 6,000 people. While immigration enforcement
isn't a stated goal of this task force, there is no question
that it is also taking place. The successful operations are due
in large part to the outstanding leadership of Governor Lee,
who has worked closely with Federal partners.
Over the last year, the Trump administration has arrested
numerous gang members, pedophiles, and drug traffickers in
Memphis with little fanfare or interference from activists. As
a result of this cooperation, murders in Memphis are down by 47
percent since President Trump took office and overall violent
crime is down by 30 percent.
In May of last year, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
worked with Tennessee Highway Patrol and DHS components to
successfully arrest 196 criminal illegal aliens across the
greater Nashville area. I am grateful for the role the members
of the Tennessee Highway Patrol played in that operation. Their
cooperation has made my district significantly safer. Since
then, over 56 partnering agencies are working together
alongside ICE to keep Tennesseans safe.
ICE has carefully highlighted the worst of the worst
criminal aliens it has arrested. Today I will be entering into
the record nearly 120 illegal aliens that have been arrested in
Nashville with rap sheets ranging from identity theft to drug
smuggling, larceny to arson, and robbery to rape. Federal
agents are executing their mission to defend American citizens
and protect our communities.
The major challenges we have seen in Minneapolis and
similar cities are directly caused by sanctuary city policies
and the refusal of local leaders to enforce the law, preventing
local law enforcement from working with ICE. This leaves ICE
and others unsupported, having to manage protesters and
domestic friction in addition to their actual mission of
enforcing immigration law. Local law enforcement is crucial to
facilitate the mission.
Director Lyons, contrast ICE's experience in Minneapolis
with other cities around the country, including Memphis and
others, that have agreements to work with ICE. What can
successful partnerships with local law enforcement and other
partners look like?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, thank you. I would say that Memphis is a
prime example and I have to, you know, give credit to the U.S.
Marshals Service that's leading that operation. Homeland
Security Investigation agents are out there every day with the
men and women of Tennessee Highway Patrol and Memphis Police
Department, and the reduction in crime has been significant.
But if you look across the country, almost at every State
we do have cooperative jurisdictions. If you look at Texas,
Texas we have outstanding cooperation. You don't see any riots
or anything like that. You see side-by-side law enforcement
working together as it would be. If you look at the State of
Florida, State of Oklahoma, State of Louisiana, all across the
Nation, we do have that. What it is, is public safety.
Mr. Van Epps. Thank you. Next, I want to commend the Trump
administration for locking down our Southern Border. A year
ago, it was a highway for illegal aliens and illicit materials.
Today, it is secure and closed.
Commissioner Scott, as Congress and the Trump
administration enabled DHS to secure the Southern Border, how
are cartels and other criminal organizations adapting to
effective border enforcement?
Commissioner Scott. They're going to continue to push back.
I think some of it is in these protests because if we can shut
down interior enforcement, that allows them to basically market
their goods, if you will, to smuggle people in. They need those
people to be distractions because without it, they have to
start digging million-dollar tunnels. Without it, they have to
spend a bunch of money on drones, which we're countering.
Without it, they have to go out into the ocean where they stick
out like a sore thumb. We're increasing our radars on the West
Coast and increasing our air coverage. Basically, it affects
their bottom line and it makes it harder and harder for them to
bring their poison and anybody that wants to threaten this
country that's willing to pay them here.
Mr. Van Epps. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move to submit for
the record a list of DHS worst of the worst in Tennessee, 3
quotes from Tennessee-7 sheriffs supporting ICE, and 5 news
articles germane to the hearing in Tennessee.
Sir, I yield back.
Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr.--sorry, Mr. Chairman, can you
hear me now? Is it----
Chairman Garbarino. Move the microphone right there.
Mr. Green. Well, will you give me a moment to get a bit
closer, please?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I say it sincerely, I believe this
is a most valuable hearing, and I am honored that Ranking
Member would be here with us to accommodate us, as is the case
with you.
Mr. Lyons, is it true that you have a criminal justice
degree, a bachelor's degree in criminal justice?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Green. Is it also true that you have a master's degree
in criminal justice leadership?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, I do.
Mr. Green. Would you, as a professional with 2 degrees in
criminal justice, indicate to us that if an officer commits
murder, that that officer should be prosecuted?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, any law enforcement misconduct needs to be
investigated and prosecuted.
Mr. Green. Investigated and prosecuted. Have you seen the
widely-published video of the killing of Mr. Alex Pretti?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. Sir, my assumption is that if I ask you whether
this was an injustice, you would say you cannot comment because
of an on-going investigation. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. What is the rationale for not responding to an
on-going investigation?
Mr. Lyons. Sir, I don't want to impede----
Mr. Green. I don't want you to.
Mr. Lyons [continuing]. Or jeopardize the investigation.
Mr. Green. No, no, no. Not this one. Any. Any. As you--in
your profession now. But any investigation, what is the
rationale? Not this one. Any.
Mr. Lyons. Same for any investigation, sir. I don't want
to----
Mr. Green. You would not----
Mr. Lyons. I don't want to bias or put my finger on the
scale of any investigation.
Mr. Green. You are not. What is the rationale for your not
testifying about it, is my question.
Mr. Lyons. I don't understand your question, sir.
Mr. Green. Why would--what does the law say? What is the
rationale? What harm would it do if you testified?
Mr. Lyons. Because I don't want--have the full facts in the
case yet, sir.
Mr. Green. Exactly. That is what I expected you to say. You
don't have the full facts. Thank you.
I assume you would agree with this, Mr. Scott, is this
true?
Commissioner Scott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. Mr. Edlow, you would agree?
Mr. Edlow. I assume so. I'm not a professional in law
enforcement.
Mr. Green. Well, but you are a professional person with a
degree of intellect such as you can comment on whether or not
it would cause harm.
Mr. Edlow. Well, I certainly would not comment on anything.
Mr. Green. Not a specific case. We are talking about now
any case. Would you agree that it would cause harm for you to
testify before there is an investigation?
Mr. Edlow. Certainly, without having all the facts.
Mr. Green. All right. Surely you would agree.
Which brings us to Secretary Noem. Secretary Noem accused
Mr. Pretti of brandishing a firearm while wishing to inflict
harm on the officers. Secretary Noem. Same rules that apply to
you apply to Secretary Noem. Accused these--this gentleman, Mr.
Pretti, of brandishing a firearm. Secretary Noem doing this
when she did without an investigation. We have to agree that
there has not been an investigation. I don't think I have to
ask you that. Not a complete investigation that we know of
anyway. She did it right afterwards. Having done this, she is
violating this very basic principle that you have called to our
attention today.
We have to ask ourselves, why would she go so far as to say
brandishing when he did not? The video will clearly show it.
She said wishing to inflict harm. Did not inflict any harm. But
the Secretary, without an investigation, made these comments.
I will tell you why. The Secretary was in a rush to cover
up, to make sure that she was protecting the officers without
regard for the life that was lost. In doing this, she was
violating not only this basic moral concept, she was breaking
the law. The Secretary should be investigated right along with
those officers who were out there engaged in this ungodly
conduct. She should be investigated.
In my opinion, based upon my observation, the Secretary
should not only be investigated. The Secretary should be
prosecuted right along with those officers. This man did not
brandish. This man was not armed. This man did not attempt to
hurt those officers. They should all be prosecuted. You persons
associated with the Trump----
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Green [continuing]. Administration said lock her up. I
say lock her up.
Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for UCs.
Mr. Thompson. That is correct, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to insert 2 statements for the record,
one submitted by the Refugee Council USA and the other from the
Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty.
Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mrs. Ramirez, I
ask unanimous consent to include in the record 3 articles. One,
the Chicago Sun Times article describing how U.S. Border Patrol
has separated a family. No. 2, an ABC-7 Chicago article that
describes how ICE's warrantless arrests in Chicago has been
ruled unlawful by a Federal judge. Third, a ProPublica article
documenting how immigration agents are using banned chokeholds
and other moves that can cut off breathing.
Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
insert in the record the following articles. A CBS News article
that states that contrary to the administration's claim, only
14 percent of those arrested by ICE had violent criminal
records. An NPR story about a DHS memo that says ICE can enter
people's home without a judicial warrant, which has alarmed
Members on both sides of the aisle. An article from the
Marshall Project that alleges that there are thousands of kids
in detention, many for longer than the court-prescribed limit.
An article from The Independent about a sick 5-year-old Liam
Ramos asking for his mom in a detention center, which rebuts
testimony we heard today that ICE was taking good care of him.
A report from the Center for Election Innovation and Research
updated this month that found that noncitizen voting is rare
and allegations of the practice are a result of
misunderstandings or fabrication. An article from the AP which
highlights that Federal authorities are monitoring and tracking
individuals who criticize immigration enforcement operation. A
report from the Brennan Center titled ``ICE Wants to Go After
Dissenters as Well as Immigrants.'' A report from The Guardian
that describes the terrible condition in ICE facilities and
that ICE deny urgent medical care to a 10-year-old.
Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Garbarino. I want to thank--the gentleman yields
back.
I want to thank the Members--or the witnesses for being
here today and all the Members for their questions. Members of
the committee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses and we ask that the witnesses to respond to these in
writing. Pursuant to committee rule VII(E), the hearing record
will be held open for 10 days.
I want to let the audience know that please still be seated
while the witnesses and their teams leave.
Without objection, this committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X I
----------
Article Submitted by Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter Submitted by Honorable Timothy Kennedy
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A P P E N D I X I I
----------
Questions From Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino for Rodney S. Scott
Question 1. Please provide the standard operating procedure for
your agency for an investigation when deadly force is used.
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) Special Agents (SAs) are responsible
for investigating incidents involving the use of deadly force by CBP
personnel. These investigations are conducted in close collaboration
with local, State, Tribal, and Federal law enforcement agencies with
concurrent jurisdiction over the incident.
Upon notification of a use of deadly force incident involving CBP
personnel, OPR SAs immediately initiate a comprehensive investigation
and respond to the incident scene. The investigative process includes,
but is not limited to, the following steps:
Immediate Scene Management:
Involved Officers/Agents:
Involved officers and agents are separated to ensure the
integrity and independence of their statements.
Scene Security:
The incident area and all potential evidence are secured
to protect them from environmental factors and unauthorized
access until involved agencies complete their investigation
of the scene.
Medical Aid:
Immediate medical assistance is provided or ensured for
any injured individuals.
Identify Witnesses:
All civilian and CBP personnel witnesses who saw, heard,
or possess relevant information about the incident are
identified and located.
Evidence Collection & Preservation:
Digital Evidence:
Body-worn cameras, dash-cams, any other available
surveillance footage, and available audio recordings,
including radio transmissions, are secured.
Physical Evidence:
Weapons, shell casings, and other relevant items are
collected and processed.
Documentation:
Comprehensive photographic and/or video documentation of
the scene, injuries to any involved parties (suspects or
officers), and any key evidence is completed.
Medical Records:
Records pertaining to the medical treatment of any
injured individuals are obtained.
Interviews & Statements:
Subject/Suspect:
Individuals involved in the incident are afforded the
opportunity to provide video-recorded statements if they
choose.
Witnesses:
Detailed video recorded interviews are conducted with
all identified witnesses.
CBP Personnel:
Video-recorded statements are obtained from CBP officers
and agents involved, in collaboration with other law
enforcement agencies, giving careful consideration given to
Garrity rights if a parallel criminal investigation is
under way.
Administrative & Criminal Review:
Initial Assessment:
OPR Field Office SAs, and OPR Headquarters conduct an
initial review of the facts gathered.
Chain of Command:
The investigation proceeds through the established chain
of command to determine whether the facts and circumstances
surrounding the use of force have been thoroughly
investigated.
Parallel Investigations:
Separate criminal investigations (to determine if laws
were violated) and administrative investigations (to
determine policy compliance) may be bifurcated and
conducted concurrently by separate investigative teams.
Reporting & Adjudication:
Documentation:
Thorough and detailed investigative reports are
compiled.
Congressional Notification:
If the use of deadly force results in an in-custody
death, CBP transmits a Congressional Notification to
relevant oversight committee staff with 72 hours of when
the incident occurs.
U.S. Department of Justice Reporting:
If the use of deadly force results in an in-custody
death, CBP provides an annual report to the Federal Death
in Custody Reporting Program in line with the requirements
outlined in the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013.
Final Determination:
Criminal Investigation:
The lead investigative agency conducts a review of
investigation and if potential criminal conduct exists, the
case is referred to the relevant prosecutorial agency (U.S.
Attorney Office and/or local District Attorney) for a
prosecutorial determination.
Administrative Investigation:
CBP OPR SAs present the facts of the investigation to
CBP's National Use of Force Review Board (NUFRB). The NUFRB
reviews each incident to determine if the use of force was
consistent with CBP policy, if there are issues regarding
potential administrative or policy violations (including
potential misconduct) warranting referrals to CBP OPR (if
not already previously identified by OPR), and to identify
and assess any issues involving training, tactics,
equipment, or policy.
Question 2a. DHS has managed an unprecedented volume of tariff
adjustments this year, requiring significant agility across CBP's trade
processing systems. With a related Supreme Court decision nullifying
IEEPA tariffs and requiring the administration to rapidly shift its
tariff strategy, there remains a clear need for flexible responsiveness
of the system.\1\ In addition, there are major economic events on the
horizon--including the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, (2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What specific steps is the Department taking to ensure its trade
and tariff collection infrastructure remains stable, outage-free, and
continues to keep pace with the rapidly-developing environment?
Answer. Implementing new tariffs is something that CBP is uniquely
well-positioned to accomplish.
The technical implementation of new tariffs is done in the
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the technological backbone of
the U.S. international trade system.
Between January 20, 2025, and February 27, 2026, CBP implemented 49
Presidential tariff actions. Additionally, CBP deployed 4 enhancements
to ACE to automate the creation of ACE Portal accounts supporting the
mandated February 6, 2026, transition to electronic refund
transactions, in accordance with Executive Order 14247. Also, in
anticipation of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, CBP is deploying an ACE
enhancement that will expedite the secure review and clearance of goods
that are temporarily imported by truck, such as competitors' equipment.
Question 2b. Are there capacity, technology, or workforce needs
that Congress should be aware of, and what is DHS's plan to sustain the
accurate and timely flow of goods into the country under these
compounding pressures across these areas?
Answer. Today's rapidly-evolving trade environment requires
substantial and on-going upgrades and improvements for ACE to ensure it
remains a robust, reliable, and efficient system. The U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and CBP continue to advocate for sufficient
ACE funding, as it is critical to ensuring a safe, secure, and
efficient U.S. economy. The fiscal year 2027 President's budget
includes $136 million and 31 positions for ACE modernization to
finalize modernization efforts essential to address growing trade
volumes and evolving enforcement priorities.
Question 2c. Are there any planned transitions or changes being
made to the system or how it is continuously modernized, sustained, and
operated to meet the administration's tariff objectives, including the
industrial base supporting it?
Answer. CBP's Office of Trade is executing a major technology
modernization of ACE that will include the addition of new components
and capabilities to enhance security, ensure scalability, and position
the system to adapt to evolving processes and trade requirements.
Key initiatives include completing cloud migration, strengthening
revenue protection, reducing manual processes, and enhancing
enforcement against violative parties. ACE modernization will help CBP
enforce tariff requirements, protect U.S. interests, and maintain a
resilient, compliant system.
As CBP navigates the path for ACE modernization, it continues to
optimize ACE through the regular deployment of system enhancements and
swift implementation of Executive Orders and proclamations.
Question 2d. If so, are any of these changes self-imposed by the
department, and have they been fully reviewed by all relevant
stakeholders, including technical authorities (e.g., OIT, CIO, and
others) to ensure no lapses in the technology required while aligning
the system to updated tariff strategies?
Answer. ACE Modernization adheres to the Modernized Tailoring
Approach as a post-Full Operational Capability IT modernization effort,
as approved by DHS and other relevant stakeholders. Tailoring means
modifying the traditional DHS Acquisition Lifecycle Framework to fit
the program based on risk, complexity, delivery model, or mission
urgency. Tailoring enables IT programs like ACE to execute delivery
using agile methodology with a customized acquisition process that
focuses on delivering value, not volume, and enables faster response
without eliminating acquisition governance. Using this approach, we
have the flexibility to support Executive Orders, Presidential
proclamations, and legislative mandates, without compromising or
eliminating critical technical reviews and checkpoints.
Question 3. Commissioner Scott, my office has been tracking the
Consolidated Tower and Surveillance Equipment program very closely and
following the future of border surveillance towers and autonomous
capabilities. Through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress provided
U.S. Customs and Border Protection with an unprecedented level of
funding for border security and encourages the swift and effective
execution of those funds. Please provide a comprehensive time line for
acquisition and deployment of towers along our borders. In your
response, please include award dates and a forecast of deployment
dates, quantities, and locations of the towers.
Answer. CBP anticipates awarding contracts under the Consolidated
Tower and Surveillance Equipment program in late May/early June 2026. A
solicitation was released on March 9, 2026.
Below is the current time line and key milestones for the
Consolidated Tower and Surveillance Equipment (CTSE) program:
CTSE Contract Award.--CTSE multiple-award indefinite-
delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts were awarded in
September 2023.
Deployment.--Delivery Order 01 was awarded in September 2023
for 15 autonomous towers, deployed across El Paso (Santa
Teresa), San Diego (Campo), and Del Rio sectors. All towers
meet the Working Families Tax Cut Act autonomy requirements.
Next Steps.--CBP evaluated proposals for CTSE Delivery Order
No. 2, with plans to obligate $345 million. Towers will be
deployed to Del Rio, San Diego, El Paso, Big Bend, Tucson, Rio
Grande Valley, Yuma, and El Centro Sectors. Locations will be
finalized post-award.
The acquisition and deployment time lines for border surveillance
towers under various contracts:
SBIR Anduril Contract:
Anduril Delivery Order 21 includes 200 total tower
recapitalizations, with 45 projected for deployment in
fiscal year 2026.
The full deployment under this order is expected to be
completed within 14 months.
CONTROP Recap Deployments (S&K Security Group):
16 tower recapitalizations are projected for deployment in
fiscal year 2026.
In partnership with SRC CONTROP, S&K Security Group will
complete 49 tower recapitalizations in the Tucson Sector,
between Douglas and Ajo, by the end of the third quarter of
fiscal year 2027.
This upgrade is based on the sustainment needs of Integrated Fixed
Towers located in the Tucson sector between Douglas and Ajo, which are
experiencing power issues, replacement part failures, and security
vulnerabilities. Rather than making costly repairs, S&K Security Group,
our sustainment vendor, is recapitalizing these towers to address these
challenges and ensure continued operational reliability.
Question 4a. Commissioner Scott, Congress has consistently
recognized the risk that front-line CBP personnel face from secondary
exposure to fentanyl and other potentially lethal narcotics while on
duty, including through its passage of the Prevent Exposure to
Narcotics and Toxics (PREVENT) Act of 2021 during the 117th Congress.
Specifically, this bill (H.R. 5274) passed the House unanimously in
2022 and was later signed into law on December 23, 2022, as part of the
James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023
(Public Law 117-263, Sec. 7135), requiring the CBP Commissioner to
ensure the availability of personal protective equipment, including
containment devices, for ``all U.S. Customs and Border Protection
officers, agents, other personnel, and canines at risk of accidental
exposure to synthetic opioids.''
What is the status of CBP's efforts to satisfy this requirement?
Answer. CBP manages risks associated with suspected fentanyl and
other illicit narcotics through established occupational safety and
health procedures, including the use of Job Hazard Analyses and
nationally-recognized safety practices. CBP deployed protective
measures for personnel who may encounter suspected narcotics. These
measures include N95 respirators, enhanced 5-mil disposable gloves,
Tyvek sleeves and suits, and eye protection. Naloxone is also
available as a medical countermeasure in the event of suspected opioid
exposure. Containment devices such as glove boxes are used by front-
line personnel to contain suspected illicit narcotics during
presumptive field testing and when leakage is observed. In addition,
CBP locations are equipped with spill containment materials and
maintain established protocols to respond to hazardous material
incidents.
Question 4b. How many CBP personnel currently have access to
containment devices designed to prevent secondary exposure to fentanyl
and other synthetic opioids?
Answer. CBP officers and agents are provided personal protective
equipment and are trained in handling unknown and potentially harmful
substances, as well as in the use of naloxone.
CBP deployed N95 respirators, disposable gloves, Tyvek sleeves and
suits, and eye protection for handling suspected fentanyl and over
11,000 doses of naloxone as a medical countermeasure. CBP also employs
approximately 350 self-contained glove boxes with replaceable gloves to
contain suspected illicit narcotics when sampled for presumptive field
testing and when leakage is observed. Additionally, CBP locations are
equipped with spill containment devices and have response protocols for
various hazardous spills.
Laboratories and Scientific Services (LSS) functions as the
scientific, technical, and forensic division within CBP. LSS oversees 7
field laboratories and 22 forward-operating laboratories and joint
forensics centers, providing analysis by LSS forensic chemists and
reducing risk of exposure to CBP officers. LSS forensic chemists and
CBP officers each have access to protective equipment such as HEPA +
Activated Carbon fume hoods, which ventilate a working area to lessen
any chance of exposure.
Air and Marine Operations crew members transporting fentanyl or
fentanyl precursors are provided containment devices to limit to risk
to crew members.
All CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO) personnel have access to
the personal protective equipment outlined in this response to protect
against exposure to fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.
U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents are provided Naloxone and are
trained in the administration of Naloxone, in case of exposure.
Furthermore, all USBP emergency medical technicians carry doses of
Naloxone in their medical kits.
Question 4c. If additional steps are required to ensure the
availability of containment devices for all CBP personnel at risk of
accidental exposure to synthetic opioids, please provide a list of
those additional steps and estimated time lines for their completion.
Answer. At this time, no additional deployment of containment
devices is needed. CBP will continue to prioritize workforce protection
through provision of personal protective equipment and medical
countermeasures along with workforce training.
Questions From Honorable Tony Gonzales for Rodney S. Scott
Question 1a. Commissioner Scott, as you may be aware, in the
previous administration the General Services Administration in
cooperation with CBP, and the International Boundary Water Commission
announced its Record of Decision for the proposed modernization of the
Bridge of the Americas (BOTA) Land Point of Entry in El Paso, Texas,
which include the elimination of all commercial cargo operations. BOTA
is a critical gateway for cross-border trade and contributes to
demonstrable employment on both sides of the border, and West Texas
constituents have raised significant concerns with the potential
negative impacts to economic growth across the El Paso region.
What is the current status of the BOTA LPOE modernization project?
Answer. The Bridge of the Americas Land Port of Entry (LPOE)
Modernization Project is in the acquisition phase.
General Services Administration (GSA) will award as a Design/Build
contract, to include new non-commercial primary vehicle lanes, main
building, outbound inspection facility, kennel building, and narcotics
vault. The design will align to the 2023 CBP LPOE Design Standards.
The current total project cost estimate range is $474 million-$579
million. GSA approved the Project Labor Agreement exception on November
17, 2025, to allow GSA to solicit without this requirement. There will
be minor land acquisition (4.4 acres). The due diligence package, to
include title examination services, environmental site assessment, and
American Land Title Association/National Society of Professional
Surveyors, was awarded February 19, 2026. Site acquisition is scheduled
for completion in December 2026. Phase 2 of the design/build
acquisition process, wherein short-listed firms submit concept designs
with technical and price proposals (or best and final offers), will
begin in June 2026. Contract award slated to follow in January 2027.
Question 1b. Under your leadership, has CBP had the opportunity to
engage in the review and re-evaluation of this modernization project?
If not, can I get your commitment to review the merits of this project
to ensure that stakeholder input is considered and that a final
solution appropriately balances infrastructure modernization with
maintaining if not bolstering economic opportunity?
Answer. CBP is fully engaged in on-going reviews and refinement of
this modernization project to ensure it aligns with current operational
needs and the broader regional economic context, working closely with
GSA, partner agencies, local stakeholders, and the trade and travel
communities to validate assumptions and incorporate feedback.
This modernization will allow significant specialization and
enhanced national and border security. It will reduce the commercial
footprint, thereby creating more specialized administrative space,
while enabling higher Non-Intrusive Inspection scan rates for
commercial vehicles at designated Multi-Energy Portal-equipped ports
such as Ysleta, Santa Teresa, and Marcelino Serna/Tornillo.
Concurrently, the expansion of passenger vehicle lanes from 14 to up to
35, coupled with substantial Low Energy Portal coverage, strengthens
enforcement and national security for travelers. Economically, this
project is expected to produce a positive impact on local, regional,
and national economies, including job growth, by enhancing throughput
and reducing wait times. This in turn will encourage increased visitor
spending from Mexico, which currently contributes over $2 billion
annually to El Paso's economy. Commercial traffic will be effectively
redirected to other El Paso area LPOEs, including Ysleta, Tornillo
(Marcelino Serna), and Santa Teresa, all of which have the capacity to
absorb displaced volume.
CBP is cooperative partner with GSA throughout the National
Environmental Policy Act process, with stakeholder and community
engagement commencing in November 2022 and continuing through 2025 to
address concerns about traffic, environmental, and health impacts. CBP,
in collaboration with GSA, also responded to community input during the
development, review, and approval of the Environmental Impact
Statement. CBP remains committed to the continued review and assessment
of project merits, considering stakeholder input through formal
coordination and outreach, with the ultimate goal of delivering a final
solution that modernizes critical infrastructure, enhances security and
processing efficiency, and strengthens economic opportunity for the
region.
Question 2a. Commissioner Scott, the Working Families Tax Cuts Act
provided significant funding to secure our Nation's borders whether
it's building additional physical barriers or modernizing our border
infrastructure. It is critical we stay on track to ensure our Border
Patrol Agents have the tools available and necessary to keep borders
secure and communities safe.
Of the funds appropriated for autonomous surveillance, what
percentage remains unobligated, and what is the anticipated time line
for full deployment?
Answer. Of the $1.297 billion allocated for Integrated Surveillance
Towers in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, 61 percent remains
unobligated, with a current unobligated balance of $796.2 million. The
CBP Integrated Surveillance Towers program anticipates full deployment
of all 550 towers by the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2028.
Question 2b. What metrics are being used to track the ``time-to-
field'' for programs like the Consolidated Tower and Surveillance
Equipment systems?
Answer. The Consolidated Tower and Surveillance Equipment program
is tracked using contract milestone completion dates, delivery
schedules, and deployment readiness assessments. These metrics
collectively ensure timely progress from contract award to operational
deployment. The same metrics are used for all vendors.
Question From Honorable Brad Knott for Rodney S. Scott
Question. Customs fraud undermines American manufacturers and
creates a significant revenue loss for the United States. I have heard
from companies throughout North Carolina that have successfully
challenged unfair trading practices of Chinese companies, only to then
face a complex scheme of shell exporters and importers designed to
evade the proper AD and CVD duties.
Commissioner Scott, how successful has Customs been in collecting
the duties owed after successful EAPA petitions? In particular, can you
shed any light on the successes and challenges of cases involving cast
iron soil pipe and fittings?
Answer. Customs fraud, particularly through the evasion of
Antidumping (AD) and Countervailing Duties (CVD), poses a significant
threat to American manufacturers by undermining fair competition and
causing substantial revenue loss for the United States. The Enforce and
Protect Act (EAPA), enacted in February 2016, provides CBP with
enhanced tools to investigate and combat these evasion schemes.
Effectiveness of EAPA Investigations
AD/CVD collection is notoriously difficult due to the U.S.
Government's retrospective system where final duties are often
calculated years after importation, resulting in massive, unexpected
bills that insolvent or shell importers avoid paying. Evasion tactics
like transshipment, misclassification, and fraud, combined with
inadequate, low-value bonding, are some of the toughest problem sets
for CBP.
Despite these challenges, CBP's EAPA investigations is successful
at not only disrupting illegal transshipment schemes immediately but
also collecting duties owed to the U.S. Government. Since 2016, CBP
initiated over 520 investigations and identified more than $2.2 billion
in duties owed to the U.S. Government. CBP's investigative time line,
which includes the imposition of interim measures on current and future
entries subject to higher AD/CVD rates, enables the U.S. Government to
take immediate measures to combat illegal transshipment schemes.
CBP acknowledges the inherent difficulties in investigating
individual importers, especially when faced with sophisticated evasion
schemes involving shell companies. To combat this, EAPA investigates
consignees and related companies, not just the named importer of
record. Furthermore, personnel from CBP's Centers of Excellence and
Expertise, such as Import Specialists who specialize in classification,
valuation, compliance, and enforcement, play a crucial role by
leveraging CBP's enforcement authorities outside of EAPA to act against
additional importers identified during investigations that are involved
in evasion schemes.
Cases Involving Cast Iron Soil Pipe and Fittings
The U.S. cast iron soil pipe and pipe fittings industry has been a
particular target of unfair trade practices and subsequent evasion
schemes. In 2017 and 2018, the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute
successfully filed AD/CVD petitions against Chinese imports of cast
iron soil pipe fittings and cast iron soil pipe, respectively. CBP
actively investigated these evasion schemes through the EAPA and its
other authorities. CBP took enforcement actions in such cases,
requiring payment of AD/CVD duties and cash deposits, and evaluating
continuous bonds. CBP remains committed to using all available
enforcement tools to protect this vital U.S. industry from the harm
caused by these evasion schemes.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Rodney S. Scott
Question 1. Commissioner Scott, will you commit to not deploying
any CBP personnel inside or in the immediate vicinity of a polling
place during voting in a general or special election?
Answer. While there are currently no plans to place law enforcement
personnel at polling places during elections, CBP will continue to
conduct enforcement operations consistent with law and existing DHS and
CBP policies.
Question 2. Commissioner Scott, CBP, including U.S. Border Patrol,
has been involved in some of the most aggressive and even deadly
immigration enforcement actions in the interior of the United States.
In fact, a CBP officer and Border Patrol agent were involved in the
deadly shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
Following the killing of Mr. Pretti, what immediate changes, if
any, did you make to interior enforcement protocols for CBP agents and
officers?
Answer. USBP enforces Federal law and agents are trained to operate
within the CBP Use of Force Policy. CBP employees follow the policies
and procedures related to a critical incident such as how to respond
before, during, and after an officer-involved shooting. The number of
USBP personnel assigned to interior enforcement in that region was
eventually reduced, those decisions were not solely nor directly
related to the shooting of Alex Pretti.
Question 3a. Commissioner Scott, there have been reports of
hundreds of United States citizens being arrested or detained during
immigration enforcement efforts.
What procedures does CBP take when someone claims to be a United
States citizen?
Answer. This answer varies depending on the environment.
Minus articulable facts that lead to reasonable suspicion that an
individual is committing a crime by making a false claim to U.S.
Citizenship, supported claims of U.S. Citizenship are generally
accepted.
When arriving from outside of the United States, CBP officers
follow procedures outlined in 8 CFR 235.1(b). CBP reviews travel
documents provided at the time of the inspection, collects biometrics
and biographical information, and utilizes U.S. Government databases to
confirm a subject's identity and determine if an extraditable warrant
exists.
Question 3b. What training do officers get about how to ensure they
are not arresting or detaining citizens?
Answer. CBP officers and agents enforce Federal laws and receive
training on the 4th Amendment. Under these laws, officers and agent
retain the authority to arrest United States citizens for violation of
Federal law in certain situations. The development of reasonable
suspicion and probable cause is used to determine courses of action
throughout the targeting, encountering, and detention process for a
reasonable amount of time for investigative purposes.
CBP agents and officers are trained to arrest individuals that are
violating laws that CBP has the authority to enforce. This applies
regardless of citizenship. OFO has the authority to inspect all
individuals seeking entry into the United States, including U.S.
citizens. Routine questioning and examination at a port of entry are
part of the inspection process and do not, by themselves, constitute a
detention or arrest.
Question 3c. Where does CBP maintain data about citizen arrests and
detentions? How many U.S. citizens has CBP arrested or detained?
Answer. CBP maintains all arrest data within official systems of
record. CBP publicly posts arrest data to include the arrest of U.S.
citizens on CBP.gov monthly.
Question 3d. Does CBP maintain data on investigative stops of U.S.
citizens? If so, where is that data being maintained? How many U.S.
citizens have been stopped?
Answer. CBP does not maintain a separate, stand-alone database
specifically dedicated to ``investigative stops of U.S. citizens.''
Question 4a. Commissioner Scott, according to media reports, DHS is
using a new mobile facial recognition technology called Mobile Fortify
to identify individuals encountered at the border or during enforcement
operations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, see Public Broadcasting Service, Department of
Homeland Security Intensifies Surveillance in Immigration Raids,
Sweeping Citizens (Jan. 30, 2026), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/
politics/department-of-homeland-security-intensifies-surveillance-in-
immigration-raids-sweeping-in-citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To what extent is CBP using the facial recognition app known as
Mobile Fortify outside of ports of entries? Please describe those
scenarios.
Answer. Mobile Fortify is used exclusively outside of ports of
entry (POE). It is not used when someone presents at a POE.
The Mobile Fortify Application is used by CBP for interior
enforcement on individuals present in the United States who are: (1)
subject to an investigatory detention based on reasonable suspicion of
being unlawfully present in the United States, (2) have been arrested
based on probable cause of an immigration violation, or (3) who provide
consent to perform facial recognition.
Question 4b. If CBP is using Mobile Fortify outside of ports of
entries to conduct biometric searches, are there Constitutional
restraints in place on such searches of U.S. citizens and those
exercising their first amendment rights?
Answer. DHS does not profile, target, or discriminate against any
individual for exercising his or her First Amendment rights. Under the
Privacy Act of 1974, all DHS personnel are prohibited from maintaining
records that describe how a U.S. citizen or alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence exercises his or her First Amendment rights, unless
expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the
record is maintained; or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an
authorized criminal, civil, or administrative law enforcement activity.
i. What is the approval process CBP personnel must follow required
before conducting a biometric search using the Mobile Fortify
application outside of a port of entry?
Answer. CBP personnel do not need approval to utilize this
application in the lawful performance of their official duties and
immigration inspections. Before gaining access to Mobile Fortify, CBP
users are required to complete a facial recognition training named
Facial Analysis and Comparison Essentials. The training covers current
DHS and CBP policies governing the use of facial recognition
technologies and reiterates privacy and civil rights and civil
liberties concerns about using facial recognition technologies. DHS and
CBP do not use facial recognition technologies to profile, target, or
discriminate against any individual solely for exercising their
Constitutional rights or to enable systemic, indiscriminate, or wide-
scale monitoring, surveillance, or tracking.
ii. What is the process CBP personnel must follow to review and
verify potential matches after completing a biometric search
using the Mobile Fortify application?
Answer. After completing a biometric search using the Mobile
Fortify application, CBP personnel treat any potential match as an
investigative lead and follow a multi-step verification process:
Review of the potential match.--The officer/agent reviews
the Mobile Fortify hit, including the photograph and associated
biographic information, and conducts a side-by-side visual
comparison with the individual.
Interview and document check.--The officer/agent interviews
the individual to confirm identity and citizenship and requests
any available identification. The officer/agent compares the
individual's responses and any documents to the information
contained in the record associated with the potential match.
Use of facial recognition as supporting evidence.--If no
identification is available but the individual closely
resembles the target and the Mobile Fortify facial recognition
result indicates a strong match, that result is treated as
additional support for probable cause that the individual is
the identified target.
Fingerprinting for confirmation.--The individual is
fingerprinted to definitively confirm or rule out the match.
Release if not the target/U.S. citizen.--At any point, if
available biometric and biographic information indicates that
the individual is not the target and/or is a U.S. citizen, the
individual is released.
iii. If the Mobile Fortify application returns a match that
conflicts with a person's government-issued identification or
documentation, what procedures must CBP follow to determine the
person's identity?
Answer. When the Mobile Fortify application returns a potential
match that conflicts with a person's Government-issued identification
or documentation, officers treat the result as an investigative lead
and follow a structured verification process:
Initial review of discrepancy.--The officer compares the
Mobile Fortify return (photo, biographic data, and any
associated records) against the person's presented
identification and stated biographical information to identify
what specifically conflicts (e.g., name, date of birth,
photograph).
Interview and document examination.--The officer conducts a
focused interview to clarify the discrepancy and examines all
available documents for authenticity and consistency (e.g.,
physical security features, issuance date, expiration, and any
indications of alteration).
Database checks.--The officer runs additional queries in
appropriate CBP and other Government systems of record to
corroborate the identity associated with the presented
identification and to verify whether the Mobile Fortify match
corresponds to a different known individual.
Use of biometrics as confirmation:
If questions remain after interview and document checks,
the officer uses biometric verification--primarily
fingerprint collection and matching--to definitively
confirm or rule out the Mobile Fortify match.
Supervisory review and final determination.--The officer
consults with a supervisor as needed and uses the combined
results of document examination, system checks, and biometric
verification to determine the person's true identity. If the
evidence indicates that the individual is not the person
associated with the Mobile Fortify hit and is a U.S. citizen or
otherwise lawfully identified, the individual is released.
Question 4c. Has CBP provided access to Mobile Fortify to any
agencies in addition to ICE at the local, State, or Federal level?
Answer. No.
Question 5a. In a memo dated May 12, 2025, Mr. Lyons instructed ICE
officers that they may enter residences without a judicial warrant to
conduct civil immigration arrests. The Fourth Amendment has long been
understood to require law enforcement to obtain a judicial warrant to
enter a home, absent an emergency or consent.
Are CBP personnel similarly being permitted to enter residences
without a judicial warrant to conduct civil immigration arrests?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS does not comment on
pending litigation.
Question 5b. If so, what criteria, if any, must be met before CBP
personnel may enter a home without a judicial warrant or permission to
enter?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS does not comment on
pending litigation.
Question 5c. May force be used to enter homes without judicial
warrants? If so, what are the limits on the type and amount of force
that can be used? What are the consequences for CBP personnel who
violate those limits?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS does not comment on
pending litigation.
Question 6a. Commissioner Scott, journalists report that U.S.
citizens who criticize immigration raids have been receiving letters
notifying them that their Global Entry and Transportation Security
Administration travel privileges have been revoked.
How many individuals who criticized immigration enforcement
activities or participated in protests had their trusted traveler
program status revoked?
Answer. CBP does not deny or revoke Global Entry, or any other
Trusted Traveler Program membership simply because an individual
exercises their First Amendment rights.
CBP is reviewing alleged cases of U.S. citizens and lawful
permanent residents whose Global Entry or Trusted Traveler Program
benefits were revoked due to participation in First Amendment
activities. Each case is being reviewed by the CBP Ombudsman to
determine if the individual circumstances of each case warrant a
sustained revocation or membership reinstatement, in accordance with
program eligibility requirements detailed in 8 CFR 235.12(b).
Question 6b. What is CBP's policy on this?
Answer. CBP's policy regarding Global Entry program eligibility and
revocations remains unchanged. Pursuant to 8 CFR 235.12(b)(2), Global
Entry membership can be denied or revoked for reasons such as pending
criminal charges and outstanding warrants; violation of customs,
immigration, or agriculture regulations; or inability to satisfy CBP of
low-risk status.
If individuals feel their Global Entry membership was denied or
revoked in error or based on inaccurate information, they may seek
reconsideration through the CBP Ombudsman via their Trusted Traveler
Program account.
Question 7a. Commissioner Scott, it is my understanding that the
``commander-at-large'' role was created specifically for Gregory Bovino
and does not appear in CBP's formal organizational structure.
Who authorized the creation of this role?
Answer. Operations may commonly require various employees to
perform duties that correspond with cascading leadership roles that are
required to meet emerging operational requirements, such as those which
arose during a nationally-scoped Operation like At Large.
Question 7b. While Gregory Bovino fulfilled this role, who did he
report to?
Answer. He reported to his chain of command, which includes the
Department of Homeland Security and the subordinate component and sub-
component chains of command.
Question 7c. Gregory Bovino still operates an X account with the
commander-at-large title. Does he still possess that title? What role
does he currently fulfill within CBP?
Answer. Gregory Bovino was the Chief Patrol Agent of the El Centro
Sector until his retirement in March 2026.
Question 8a. Commissioner Scott, the unnecessary separation of
children from parents or legal guardians results in long-term trauma to
children and renders them more vulnerable to trafficking and
exploitation. Today, separations are being carried out by agents all
around the country, leaving children at home without caretakers, or
placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) or
State foster care systems.
What procedures are in place to document any instances of family
separation and the basis for those separations, including separations
that occur in the interior of the United States?
Answer. For separations that occur at the border, CBP complies with
the Ms. L v. ICE settlement agreement. In the limited circumstances in
which a family separation is warranted, the separation is documented in
CBP systems of records. Unless a document contains national security
information or other sensitive information prohibited from disclosure
by law, all documents supporting the separation will also be included
in the A-Files of both the parent or legal guardian and child.
Question 8b. How can a parent challenge a separation if they
believe it was unlawful?
Answer. Parents and legal guardians are made aware of their child's
location and the general reason for the separation. They are also
provided information about the process for submitting additional
information to the Government regarding their case. The intent is to
eventually re-unify the family unit once the reason for the separation
has ended.
Question 8c. Since January 2025, how many children has CBP
transferred to ORR custody?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unaccompanied
Alien Children
Component January 20,
2025-February
10, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFO..................................................... 355
USBP.................................................... 4,734
---------------
Total............................................. 5,089
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 8d. Please describe the procedures in place to document
any instances of family separations resulting from enforcement actions
conducted in the interior of the United States.
Answer. CBP follows the procedures outlined above.
Question 8e. Please describe practices and procedures, including
sharing and relevant written guidance, for parents in CBP custody to
coordinate care for their children.
Answer. CBP policy provides that, if a parent or legal guardian is
separated from their child, they are advised orally of the separation.
Additionally, they are provided with information about the reason for
the separation, information about how to contact their child(ren)
following the separation, and information about the separation process
is explained to them in a language they understand.
CBP policy provides that, when referring a child to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement
(ORR), CBP shares the following information with ORR, to the extent
legally permissible: the fact that the child was separated from their
parent or legal guardian; the parent's or legal guardian's location and
contact information, if known; the reason for the separation, including
facts specific to the individual parent or legal guardian at a level of
detail that does not disclose national security or other sensitive
information; any known or reported information regarding special needs
of the child; and any information regarding the parent or legal
guardian that might assist with reunification.
CBP policy provides that, if a parent or legal guardian is
transferred to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, CBP shares the
fact that the child was separated from their parent or legal guardian;
the reason for the separation; and location of the separated child's
ORR placement (if known).
CBP policy provides that, if a parent or legal guardian is
transferred to the custody of a State or local agency, CBP informs the
State or local entity that the parent or legal guardian was separated
from their child and, if the child has been referred to ORR and the
information is known at the time of referral, information on how the
parent or legal guardian may contact their child.
Questions From Honorable Delia C. Ramirez for Rodney S. Scott
Question 1a. CBP is proposing to require social media information,
in addition to other information, on ESTA applications. OIRA rejected a
similar, though in certain ways less sweeping, DHS proposal a few years
ago. It said that, ``[s]hould the agency desire to submit a similar
proposal in the future, it must demonstrate the practical utility of
collecting it and demonstrate that such utility outweighs the costs--
both monetary and social--of doing so.''
What new evidence, if any, has CBP submitted to demonstrate the
practical utility of collecting social media information on ESTA
applications?
Answer. This proposal is being made to comply with an Executive
Order (14161) that requires that any alien seeking a visa or other
immigration benefit be held to a uniform standard for screening and
vetting. The U.S. Department of State has required most visa applicants
to provide social media information since May 2019; this change would
bring Visa Waiver Program applicants up to the standards of screening
and vetting that are already required of visa applicants.
Question 1b. Given the significant monetary and social costs--
including but not limited to the collection's dramatic chilling effect
on on-line speech and association, and its significant deterrent effect
on travel to the United States--how will CBP demonstrate that the
practical utility of this collection outweighs those costs?
Answer. The purpose of the Electronic System for Travel
Authorization is to add an additional layer of security allowing DHS to
determine, in advance of travel, whether an individual is eligible to
travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, and whether
such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk. To accomplish
this purpose, Congress authorized DHS ``to collect such biographical
and other information as the Secretary of Homeland Security determines
necessary.'' 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(A) (emphasis added). Social media
helps differentiate individuals of concern from legitimate travelers
and can provide positive, confirmatory information to verify an
applicant's identity and intentions. It can also be used to identify
potential deception, fraud, or previously unidentified national
security or law enforcement concerns.
Question 2. A $2 million contract between the U.S. branch of the
Israeli spyware vendor Paragon Solutions and the cyber division of U.S.
Homeland Security Investigations was quietly reenabled in September
2025 after having been put on a stop work order pending review. Spyware
like Paragon's Graphite poses a profound threat to free speech and
privacy. It has already been used against journalists, human rights
advocates, and political dissidents around the world. Publicly-
available information indicates that the Paragon contract at issue is
with ICE.
Are there any other agreements, formal or informal, between Paragon
and the CBP, or between the CBP and any other purveyors of commercial
spyware?
Answer. CBP is not leveraging any commercial spyware and CBP does
not have an agreement, neither formally nor informally, to use Paragon
software.
Question 3. Please describe in detail the training that ICE and CBP
officers receive on how to respond to protesters.
Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 2026, all CBP Officer Basic
Training graduates receive 24 hours of Mobile Field Force Level II
training under the CBP Mobile Field Force Training Program. This
training includes topics specific to crowd management such as legal
authorities, tactics/techniques for managing crowds, and equipment such
as shields and gas masks.
The Border Patrol Academy Basic Course curriculum includes a lesson
on Crowd Control. The terminal performance objective is as follows:
``Given an operational environment and limited resources, PERFORM crowd
control duties, in accordance with the CBP Use of Force Policy Handbook
and within the Constitutional limitations of government, specifically
the First Amendment regarding freedom of assembly.'' In addition,
``Applied Authority'' (Office of Chief Counsel (OCC)) curriculum
includes First Amendment, Prison Rape Elimination Act, and Crimes.
Question 4. Please describe in detail the training ICE and CBP
officers receive on the rights of members of the press who are
reporting on ICE/CBP activities.
Answer. All CBP Officer Basic Training graduates receive in-depth
training on the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution from OCC. To
renew awareness/knowledge of 1st and 4th Amendments, Border Patrol
Agents undergo mandatory annual refresher courses conducted by the OCC.
Question 5. Please describe in detail the training ICE and CBP
officers receive on the rights of observers, and people recording their
activities.
Answer. Please see previous answer.
Question 6. Do you agree that the right to record law enforcement
activity is a Constitutionally-protected first amendment right?
Answer. CBP recognizes people in public places have the right to
record public officials performing official duties in a public setting.
Questions From Honorable Pablo Jose Hernandez for Rodney S. Scott
Question 1. I share my colleagues' frustration and outrage that
this is the first time we have had ICE and CBP in front of this
committee. The Trump administration said they were going after
criminals, but that is not the reality on the ground. We have seen ICE
and CBP target U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, and
individuals with lawful immigration status. They operate with complete
disregard for people's legal status and their safety.
We also see ICE and CBP's constant illegal actions and abuses
towards individuals with a severe lack of accountability for their
harmful actions. Accountability is the foundation of justice.
Without accountability, crime worsens and trust in the system
breaks down, and the trust in ICE and CBP is at all-time lows. People
do not trust these agencies to keep them safe or do the right thing.
In my district, I've had constituents taken off the streets by CBP
officers, forced onto planes, and carried thousands of miles away to
detention facilities. CBP agents have violated their own policies by
refusing to let my constituents in detention communicate with their
lawyers.
Commissioner Scott, on May 29, 2025, my constituent, a domestic
violence survivor with an approved self-petition under the Violence
Against Women Act was abducted off the street and taken to an ICE
detention facility in Texas.\3\ She had a pending application for
adjustment of status. In order to find her location, I sent a letter,
along with 17 other Members of Congress, to Mr. Lyons and Ms. Anda-
Ybarra, requesting information about her whereabouts.\4\ Her lawyer
didn't know, so she clearly hadn't been given the opportunity to
contact her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.metro.pr/noticias/2025/06/30/fue-como-una-
pesadilla-aracelys-terrero-regresa-a-puerto-rico-tras-30-dias-detenida-
en-estados-unidos/.
\4\ https://hernandez.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/
hernandez.house.gov/.les/evo-media-document/250611-letter-to-ice-re-
aracelis-terrero-mota.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did your agents target someone with an approved Violence
Against Women Act petition and a pending adjustment of status?
Answer. USBP does not have sufficient information needed in this
question, pertaining to this specific allegation, to provide a
response.
Question 2. What is your policy about allowing individuals to
contact lawyers or family in detention?
Answer. CBP follows Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR)
Section 292.5(b), which states: ``Right to representation. Whenever an
examination is provided for in this chapter, the person involved shall
have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative who
shall be permitted to examine or cross-examine such person and
witnesses, to introduce evidence, to make objections which shall be
stated succinctly and entered on the record, and to submit briefs.
Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to provide
any applicant for admission in either primary or secondary inspection
the right to representation, unless the applicant for admission has
been referred for become the focus of a criminal investigation, asylum
screening, and/or judicial review/proceeding and has been taken into
custody.''
Additionally, all juveniles are provided with the Form I-770, which
advises juveniles of the right to make a phone call. Additionally, all
aliens who are issued a Notice to Appear in immigration court are
provided with a list of free legal service providers. All individuals
may also contact the consulate of their home country if they desire.
Additional phone access may be granted depending on operational
feasibility.
Questions From Honorable Nellie Pou for Rodney S. Scott
Question 1a. Director Lyons and Commissioner Scott: Will ICE and
CBP commit to pausing immigration enforcement operations at and around
the World Cup and other FIFA-related fan events?
Question 1b. If no, please provide all guidance and information
pertaining to ICE's intended immigration enforcement actions, including
but not limited information regarding:
i. The number of ICE and CBP agents are expected to be present at
the World Cup and other FIFA-related fan events;
ii. The length of time ICE and CBP agents will be present at World
Cup matches and FIFA-related fan events;
iii. The locations ICE and CBP agents intend to patrol and conduct
enforcement activities (including answers on whether agents
will be performing enforcement on public transit such as New
Jersey Transit and the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Line);
iv. What training DHS is providing to ICE and CBP to conduct its
enforcement activities;
v. What guidance DHS has provided to ICE and CBP in how to conduct
its enforcement actions;
vi. Any and all coordination plans ICE and CBP are providing to
State and local law enforcement as it relates to immigration
enforcement activities; and
vii. Any and all guidance between ICE, CBP, and State and local law
enforcement when fans or players may be detained by ICE,
including processes to allow detained players or fans to inform
their legal counsel, team, or family members of their
detention.
Answer. While detailed security plans that may compromise our
operations to keep people safe cannot be disclosed, both U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and CBP may have a presence
at large-scale events and celebrations that are unrelated to
immigration enforcement. During Special Event Assessment Rating events,
such as the Super Bowl and/or FIFA World Cup, Federal law enforcement
is typically involved to support overall security operations. These
types of activities typically include:
CBP.--Provides assets including aviation security, video
surveillance capabilities, and non-intrusive inspection of vehicles and
cargo support. CBP officers will scan vehicles and cargo entering the
stadium for contraband such as narcotics, weapons, and explosives. CBP
plays a critical role in the fight against human trafficking and the
disruption of counterfeit merchandise smuggling operations.
ICE.--Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) deploys task forces to
identify and combat human trafficking, as well as intellectual property
enforcement teams. CBP and HSI conduct operations targeting counterfeit
vendors and merchants of game-related sportswear as part of a crackdown
on intellectual property rights violations. These operations help
ensure fans are receiving official, safe memorabilia.
International visitors who legally come to the United States for
the FIFA World Cup have nothing to worry about. What makes someone a
target for immigration enforcement is whether they are illegally in the
United States.
Question 2. Director Lyons and Commissioner Scott, which law
enforcement entities would have jurisdiction over individuals arrested
or detained at World Cup and other FIFA-related fan events?
Answer. Jurisdiction over individuals arrested or detained at FIFA
World Cup and other FIFA-related fan events depends on the nature of
the offense and the location of the incident. Federal, State, and local
law enforcement agencies may all have jurisdiction, either
independently or jointly, depending on the circumstances:
Federal Law Enforcement.--If the offense involves Federal
statutes (such as terrorism or crimes crossing State lines),
Federal agencies such as DHS, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, or other relevant entities may assume
jurisdiction.
State Law Enforcement.--State police or other State-level
agencies would have jurisdiction over violations of State laws
occurring within their respective States.
Local Law Enforcement.--Local police departments and
sheriffs' offices have primary jurisdiction over offenses
committed within their municipalities or counties.
Additionally, coordination among these agencies is common during
large-scale international events like the FIFA World Cup to ensure
public safety and effective law enforcement response.
Questions From Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino for Joseph B. Edlow
Question 1a. As you know, various U.S. industries utilize the H-1B
visa program to hire for specialty occupations, which helps to bolster
domestic competitiveness and innovation in cutting-edge fields such as
health care. This past year, a new $100,000 fee was implemented for H-
1B visa applications.
What prompted the decision to implement this fee?
Answer. On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed Presidential
Proclamation 10973, Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant
Workers (90 FR 46027 Sep. 24, 2025), requiring new H-1B petitions filed
at or after 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 21, 2025, to
be accompanied by an additional $100,000 payment as a condition of
eligibility.
Question 1b. Nearly 25 percent of practicing U.S. physicians are
international medical graduates (IMGs).\5\ Health care employers
especially rely on IMGs in medically underserved rural and urban areas,
where 64 percent of these graduates provide care.\6\ Has USCIS studied
the workforce impacts this fee change may have on these areas, and are
you confident that patients will not see decreased access to care?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Physician Workforce Data Dashboard, Ass'n Am. Med.
Colleges, https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/report/us-physician-
workforce-data-dashboard (last visited Feb. 12, 2026).
\6\ Malayala, S. et al., Medically underserved areas and
International Medical Graduates (IMGs) in the United States: challenges
during the COVID-19 era, J. Cmty. Hosp. Internal Med. Persp. 11(4) 457-
463, doi: 10.1080/20009666.2021.1915548 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
implemented the program requirements in accordance with Presidential
Proclamation 10973. USCIS continues to monitor relevant data and will
assess impacts as more information becomes available; however, one-
quarter of economic data is insufficient to draw conclusions on
workforce impacts.
Question 1c. According to the Association of American Medical
Colleges, the United States is currently facing a shortage of
approximately 86,000 physicians within the next decade.\7\ Since this
fee was implemented, various organizations in the health care field
have sought exemptions to help address workforce shortages and resource
strain across the country. Are there any plans to grant fee exemptions
for applicants working in the health care sector to help address
current workforce concerns? If not, why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Press release, Ass'n Am. Med. Colleges, New AAMC Report Shows
Continuing Projected Physician Shortage (March 21, 2024), https://
www.aamc.org/news/press-releases/new-aamc-report-shows-continuing-
projected-physician-shortage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Section 1(c) of Proclamation 10973, Restriction on Entry of
Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, grants the Secretary of Homeland Security
the discretion to allow exceptions to the $100,000 payment in
extraordinarily rare circumstances. Petitioning employers may seek an
exception by sending their request and supporting evidence to
[email protected]. The evidence must demonstrate that the alien
worker's presence in the United States as an H-1B worker is in the
national interest, that no American worker is available to fill the
role, that the worker does not pose a threat to the security or welfare
of the United States, and that requiring the petitioning employer to
make the payment on the alien's behalf would significantly undermine
the interests of the United States. Exceptions are reviewed on a case-
by-case basis.
Questions From Honorable Tony Gonzales For Joseph B. Edlow
Question 1a. Director Edlow, the enforcement aspect of immigration
law is critical but we cannot ignore or sideline the conversation
around legal immigration and ensuring that processes to enter into the
country legally are in place for the individuals that are doing it the
right way.
Can you provide a brief breakdown of the processing times for the
H-2A and H-2B visas, as well as other employment-based visas?
Answer. H-2A petitions are prioritized in their processing and
adjudication. In fiscal year 2026 (through March 2), H-2A petitions for
unnamed beneficiaries (generally requiring consular processing by
workers outside the United States) had an average processing time of
0.3 months (effectively 9 days). This is without making any sort of
exception for such petitions that can now be filed earlier under the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) recent H-2A concurrent
processing rule, according to which the petition may be filed but
cannot be approved before the U.S. Department of Labor's approval of
the underlying temporary labor certification. H-2A petitions for named
beneficiaries (generally workers in the United States requesting an
extension of stay or change of nonimmigrant status) have an average
processing time of 1.2 months.
H-2B petitions have an average processing time of 3.5 months.
However, this calculation excludes those petitions requesting USCIS'
premium processing service, which is widely utilized by H-2B
petitioners at a rate of approximately 95 percent. For these H-2B
petitioners requesting premium processing, USCIS generally takes
adjudicative action within 15 business days of the petition being
filed. USCIS has provided a breakdown of the fiscal year 2026
processing times for all employment-based classifications requested on
the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, in Attachment A.
Question 1b. In your view, do you have the resources necessary to
securely and efficiently process visa applications across all
categories? What does your agency need to reduce backlogs and shorten
wait times?
Answer. USCIS makes every effort to maintain staffing levels, where
appropriate, including with our I-129 workforce. Our agency also
continuously looks for ways to efficiently process the respective
categories, such as recent centralization of intake and technical
enhancements, including electronic processing and on-line filing.
Questions From Honorable Gabe Evans for Joseph B. Edlow
Question 1a. Director Edlow, I represent a district that is roughly
40 percent Hispanic and is home to strong, successful immigrants, and I
am proud of the work my office does with USCIS to process casework for
constituents going through various visa processes. Thank you for your
agency's work to support legal immigration.
To ensure clear communication and open collaboration with USCIS on
constituent cases moving forward, I have a few clarifying questions
that I would be happy to meet with the appropriate staff to discuss:
There have been a few casework inquiries from my office that result
in USCIS closing the case or contacting the constituent
directly to solve the case without any notification to our
office first, or at all.
i. What policies does USCIS have in place to ensure Congressional
offices receive prompt updates on cases for which they have
inquired?
Answer. USCIS Congressional Liaisons are instructed to provide a
meaningful response to Congressional inquiries within 30 days of
receipt. In many cases, applicants and petitioners seek information and
assistance through multiple routes, such as Congressional inquiries,
Freedom of Information Act requests, and the USCIS Contact Center.
While USCIS Congressional Liaisons do not contact applicants and
petitioners directly, the Freedom of Information Act branch and Contact
Center do, which may explain why your staff does not always receive
notification from the USCIS Office of Legislative Affairs.
ii. Can we work together to improve this line of communication so
we can better serve our constituents?
Answer. The USCIS Office of Legislative Affairs conducts briefings
for Congressional staff to introduce them to the Congressional inquiry
process and the USCIS Congressional Web Portal. These briefings are
usually offered virtually and include opportunities for questions and
answers. Your staff can also contact a Congressional Lead in the local
USCIS office to set up office visits or virtual meetings to establish
or improve communication.
Question 1b. As you are well aware, processing times for certain
visas can change a lot based on demand and capacity. Many constituents
take note of the projected response time when they submit an
application or form and only reach out to us for help with their case
after the projected response time has passed. Unfortunately, by that
point those time frames have typically grown even more.
i. Does USCIS consider the processing time frame for an application
to be the time frame given at the submission of the
application, or is it always in flux?
Answer. USCIS processing times shown on the website reflect the
time it took to complete adjudication of 80 percent of a specific form
type in a specific location over the past 6 months. These times are
based on recent data and may change as cases are processed, so they are
not fixed at the time of submission. Processing time is measured from
the date USCIS receives an application to the date it is completed
(approved or denied). For more details on processing times, visit:
https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/more-info.
ii. When time lines are significantly extended, does USCIS notify
applicants?
Answer. Applicants can visit the Case Processing Times webpage and
use the on-line tool to determine if they are eligible to inquire about
their case, especially if it has been pending longer than the typical
processing time.
iii. How can we ensure that the processing times for certain
applications, like Form I-131, are updated in a timely
manner on the USCIS website for public knowledge?
Answer. The processing times website is generally updated on a
monthly basis.
Question 1c. Worker visas, through programs like H2A and H2B, are
absolutely critical to the agricultural economy of Colorado's 8th
District, which is home to one of the top agricultural production
counties in the United States. As I often say, food security is
national security, and we must ensure that our farmers have the utmost
support to feed our communities. Folks from various sectors within this
industry have expressed concerns with me over processing delays and
unnecessary duplicate work between various Federal agencies, including
USCIS.
Will you commit to working with farmers to more expeditiously
process forms like the I-129 that are necessary for critical industries
to complete their workforce needs?
Answer. USCIS makes every effort to expeditiously process H-2A
petitions given the time-sensitive nature of agricultural work. As
previously mentioned, USCIS will continue to explore avenues for
efficiency to better address concerns with processing times, especially
those impacted in the agricultural industries. USCIS has created an H-
2A mailbox for cases that have no receipt in 5 business days or cases
that have been pending for 15 days or more. The mailbox address is
[email protected]. Employers seeking H-2B non-agricultural
workers may request expedited processing by submitting a premium
processing request to USCIS.
Question From Honorable Ryan Mackenzie for Joseph B. Edlow
Question. E-Verify is widely supported as a common-sense, conflict-
free way to strengthen enforcement at the workplace rather than at the
point of arrest.
What is USCIS doing right now to elevate E-Verify as a priority,
expand participation, and ensure the system is accurate and workable
for employers and workers alike?
Answer. USCIS is committed to making E-Verify a top priority,
ensuring it is accurate and effective. Recent initiatives reflect on-
going investment in technology, policy, and user support to strengthen
employment verification and compliance.
Elevating E-Verify as a Priority:
USCIS launched E-Verify+ in April 2024, integrating Form I-9
completion with E-Verify case creation in a fully electronic,
streamlined process. This innovation reduces administrative
burden, improves data accuracy, and empowers employees to enter
their own information, minimizing errors and enhancing privacy.
Early adopters report high satisfaction, with over 80 percent
of those surveyed indicating intent to continue using E-
Verify+.
USCIS is analyzing existing employment eligibility
verification rules and processes to determine if improvements
can be made to reduce fraud and increase confidence in the
process.
Expanding Participation:
E-Verify enrollment continues to rise, averaging 122,000 new
employers annually, with 136,000 new employers enrolling and 44
million cases created in fiscal year 2025. E-Verify+
participation has grown rapidly, with more than 350,000 cases
created to date. User numbers have expanded to nearly 139,000.
USCIS is reaching out to employer agents and web service users,
who account for the majority of E-Verify cases, broadening
reach and usability.
Ensuring Accuracy and Workability:
E-Verify uses data integration with issuing source systems
to verify documents such as SSNs, driver's licenses, and
passports. This helps protect response integrity and reduce
fraud.
USCIS is enhancing fraud prevention through features like
increased SSN locking, which allows both individuals and USCIS
to ``lock'' and prevent the use of certain SSNs in E-Verify,
reducing fraud. With E-Verify+, USCIS anticipates additional
document and identity verification capabilities.
E-Verify+ employers report experiencing fewer data entry
errors and faster case resolution compared to E-Verify. As
additional employer users are added, they will gain these
benefits as they transition from E-Verify to E-Verify+.
USCIS supports users with tailored guidance, expanded on-
line resources, and on-going monitoring to address issues
efficiently.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Joseph B. Edlow
Question 1. Mr. Edlow, will you commit to not deploying any USCIS
personnel inside or in the immediate vicinity of a polling place during
voting in a general or special election?
Answer. USCIS does not administer elections and the agency's
primary mission is the administration and safeguarding of the Nation's
lawful immigration system. USCIS staff conduct their duties in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Any operational
activities undertaken by USCIS would be based on authorized mission
requirements and applicable legal authorities.
Question 2a. Mr. Edlow, under your leadership, USCIS has taken a
series of actions to strip people of status that has already been
granted to them. For example, you have instructed USCIS field offices
to refer 100-200 denaturalization cases to DOJ each month.
How did you arrive at the 100-200 target?
Answer. USCIS, in coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ), reviews cases where there is credible evidence that citizenship
was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. We will pursue
denaturalization proceedings for any individuals who lied or
misrepresented themselves during the naturalization process. We look
forward to continuing to work with the DOJ to restore integrity to
America's immigration system.
Question 2b. Are you reviewing all naturalization applications? Are
there specific factors you are looking for?
Answer. As cases come to our attention, USCIS conducts a legal
analysis de novo to. For pending naturalization cases, USCIS conducts a
thorough review of the case to determine if all eligibility criteria
are met.
Question 2c. Mr. Edlow, in Minnesota and Maine, Federal authorities
detained refugees--people already vetted, admitted, and living lawfully
in the United States--transported them to Texas, re-interviewed them,
and then released them when they were again found eligible.
How many refugees were arrested in Minnesota? How many refugees
were arrested in Maine?
Question 2d. How many were ultimately found to be ineligible?
Question 2e. How much did these operations cost taxpayers?
Question 2f. Do you know how much the released refugees had to pay
out of their own pockets to fly home from Texas?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS will not comment on
pending litigation.
Questions From Honorable Delia C. Ramirez for Joseph B. Edlow
Question 1. Pursuant to the December and January memos outline a
pause on pending benefit applications for countries listed in
Presidential Proclamation (PP) 10949 and Presidential Proclamation (PP)
10998 respectively. Can you provide a list of what specific benefit
categories are paused as a result of these memos?
Answer. USCIS has determined it is operationally necessary to
ensure that individuals from high-risk countries do not pose a threat
to national security or public safety. Under DHS Delegation of
Authority 0150.1, USCIS exercises its full authority to investigate
immigration benefit requests from individuals who may present such
risks.
The Policy Memoranda, ``Hold and Review of all Pending Asylum
Applications and all USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from
High-Risk Countries'' (December 2, 2025), and ``Hold and Review of
USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from Additional High-Risk
Countries'' (January 1, 2026), require holds on all pending Form I-589,
Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, and other
benefit applications for individuals from countries identified in
Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998, pending comprehensive
review, regardless of entry date. In addition, USCIS is conducting a
comprehensive re-review of approved benefit requests affected by
Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998 that were approved on or
after January 20, 2021, including approved Forms N-400, Application for
Naturalization, pending an oath ceremony or withdrawn from an oath
ceremony when the holds were put in place.
Exceptions to these adjudication holds are outlined in PM-602-0194
and include, with certain limitations:
1. Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card;
2. Form N-565, Application for Replacement Naturalization/
Citizenship Document;
3. Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship;
4. Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization filed under
(c)(8), limited (c)(11), and limited (c)(14) categories;
5. Form I-910, Application for Civil Surgeon Designation (only for
U.S. citizen or national physicians);
6. Benefit requests filed by athletes, athletic team members,
coaches, necessary support personnel, and their immediate
relatives for participation in major sporting events (World
Cup, Olympics, etc.) as determined by the Secretary of State;
7. Benefit requests prioritized for law enforcement where ICE has
requested USCIS action to uphold public safety or national
security;
8. Benefit requests filed by aliens whose entry serves a U.S.
national interest;
9. Benefit requests and associated underlying benefits for programs
terminated or discontinued by Executive Order, Proclamation,
Federal Register notice, or Directive issued by the President,
Secretary of Homeland Security, or USCIS Director; and
10. Automatic termination decisions for ancillary or related
benefit requests when an alien is granted Lawful Permanent
Resident status or becomes a naturalized citizen.
For specific details and limitations on each exception, please
refer to Attachment A.
In addition, USCIS established an internal process for lifting
holds on individual or group cases, requiring comprehensive review by
multiple offices. Exceptions are determined exclusively by USCIS either
during the standard review of the benefit request or in response to
litigation. Exceptions are granted only in limited circumstances. The
10 exceptions listed in PM-602-0194 are automatically applied by USCIS
officers during adjudication of a case. As stated in the March 30,
2026, update, holds have been lifted for aliens vetted through
Operation PARRIS, certain petitions filed by U.S. citizens,
intercountry adoption forms, certain rescheduled oath ceremonies,
statutory and regulatory decision issuance, refugee registrations for
South African citizens/nationals, certain special immigrant visa
petitions, certain employment authorization documents, asylum
applications from non-high-risk countries, and applications associated
with medical physicians. We continue to review all application types
and lift holds for both individual and group cases as appropriate and
will communicate any changes or updates to the process through official
channels.
Question 2a. Reports indicate that at least 36 Salvadoran nationals
were sent to the CECOT between March and April 2025. To date, only
Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been returned to the United States; the rest
are presumed to be in prison in El Salvador, if still alive. In several
cases, family members were able to identify their loved ones through
photos and flight logs and report they had no criminal history or
outstanding arrest warrant in the United States or in El Salvador. In
October and November 2024, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission
issued precautionary measures for 4 individuals whom ICE reported as
having been deported from the United States to El Salvador, but who
could not be located in El Salvador. Media outlets in El Salvador later
reported that the government of El Salvador told the Inter-American
Human Rights Commission that they are in prison in El Salvador as a
result of their initial detention by the United States Government.
Can ICE and USCIS confirm that all Salvadoran nationals sent
to the CECOT had final deportation orders to El Salvador and no
pending appeals or hearings before being put on the planes?
Answer. Throughout immigration proceedings, aliens maintain the
right to pursue forms of relief as permitted by law. U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) follows all legal requirements for aliens
in their custody to ensure they are afforded appropriate process. USCIS
completes screening interviews in accordance with statutory and
regulatory requirements and applicable guidance upon receipt of a
referral from ICE.
DHS takes its responsibility to protect the homeland against
violent transnational criminal organizations such as MS-13 seriously.
DHS will not allow gang members, cartel affiliates, or other dangerous
aliens to exploit U.S. immigration laws or threaten our national
security and communities.
Question 2b. Do any people remain incarcerated in El
Salvador under the terms of any agreement made between the U.S.
Government and the government of El Salvador?
Question 2c. If so, who and what is the legal basis for
their detention in El Salvador?
Answer. DHS defers to the U.S. Department of State regarding
agreements between the United States and El Salvador. When an alien
with a final order of removal from the United States is removed, the
alien is no longer in DHS custody.
Attachment A
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question From Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino for Todd M. Lyons
Question. Please provide the standard operating procedure for your
agency for an investigation when deadly force is used.
Answer. It is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy
to respond promptly to a use of deadly force incident. Pursuant to ICE
Directive No. 1044.2, Response to and Evaluation of Critical Incidents
Involving ICE Employees, Non-Employee Status Individuals, and Officers
Acting Pursuant to ICE Authority (Mar. 3, 2023), ICE employees and
other individuals required to immediately report any uses of deadly
force to their supervisor when it is safe and possible to do so. ICE
generally conducts its thorough fact-finding review of all such
incidents following the completion of the Primary Outside Investigative
Agency's criminal investigation and adjudication. The policy defines
the ``Primary Outside Investigative Agency'' as the Federal, State,
local, or Tribal authority outside of ICE principally charged with
first response and/or investigative responsibility involving the
event(s) related to a critical incident. ICE policy further dictates
that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) will have the
right of first refusal in determining whether to conduct the fact-
finding review. The ICE director, ICE deputy director, or the OPR
associate director may direct an OPR-fact-finding review of any
incident at their discretion. Further, the ICE Firearms and Use of
Force Incident Review Committee will review all reported use of force
incidents and enforcement-related officer safety issues, when needed,
to determine if tactics, training, and policy were sufficient to
address the incidents. See ICE Directive No. 19009.3, Firearms and Use
of Force (May 26, 2023).
Questions From Honorable Tony Gonzales for Todd M. Lyons
Question 1a. Director Lyons, during the Biden administration I led
a letter to DHS for information regarding ERO's docket and immigration
detainers--in response to this letter, we learned some astounding
numbers, including that there were more than 660,000 illegal aliens
with criminal histories, and more than 430,000 convicted illegal
criminals still on the docket. We also learned that during most of the
Biden administration, sanctuary jurisdictions declining to honor
immigration detainers accounted for approximately 95 percent of the
detainers ICE lifted.*
How many immigration detainers have been declined since Jan. 2025?
Answer. Since January 20, 2025, and as of March 1, 2026, 19,715
detainers have been lifted with the reasons Detainer Declined by Law
Enforcement Agency, Early Release, and Insufficient Notice to ICE.
However, it is important to note that these numbers do not fully
capture the scope of these jurisdictions being uncooperative. When
uncooperative jurisdictions decline to honor an ICE detainer, they do
not always inform ICE of their decision. Instead, in many cases the
alien is simply released once other legal processes have concluded,
with no notification to ICE. ICE often will not know a detainer has
been declined until an alien is subsequently re-arrested, and/or the
case undergoes substantial manual review to attempt to determine an
alien's whereabouts. As a result, while ICE can provide the number of
detainers in its system lifted by an officer in the field for reasons
suggesting a detainer may have been declined, this is likely an
undercount. Also, numbers alone do not tell the full story, as often
release of a criminal alien into American communities has
unquantifiable risk to public safety or national security.
Question 1b. What is the level of cooperation we are currently
seeing from State and local jurisdictions with regard to ICE detainers?
What are the implications for ICE operations with a lack of cooperation
in honoring these detainers?
Answer. ICE recognizes the importance of its relationships with law
enforcement partners to carry out its mission. However, due to many
factors, some jurisdictions have decided to reduce their cooperation
with ICE. Some jurisdictions have ceased to honor ICE detainer
requests, even for aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes and
who pose an on-going threat to public safety. This has had many
negative impacts including requiring ICE officers to make arrests in
less secure environments and increasing risks to the officer, as well
as public safety or national security. This lack of cooperation also
impacts ICE's limited resources, as the agency must increase its
presence in the communities to apprehend aliens with serious criminal
records who were released from local or State detention, instead of
conducting a safe transfer of custody within the confines of a jail or
correctional setting. This situation compromises the safety and welfare
of the community, the alien, ICE officers, and State or local law
enforcement personnel.
Questions From Honorable Gabe Evans for Todd M. Lyons
Question 1a. Director Lyons, I look forward to meeting soon to
discuss the particular details about how ICE is planning and
implementing warrantless searches of private residences to execute
detainers. Along with my personal experience in local law enforcement,
there are a few findings from previous Supreme Court cases that have
led to me being unsatisfied with the internal ICE memo from May 12,
2025, that Federal personnel, civil or otherwise, can cross the
threshold of a house without consent or a judicial search warrant to
take enforcement action.
With only an administrative warrant, or Form I-205, to arrest and/
or remove an illegal alien and in non-exigent situations:
Can ICE agents enter the residence of a suspected illegal
alien without consent to search for that individual?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) will not comment on pending litigation.
Can ICE agents enter the home of a U.S. citizen or a legal
resident without consent to search for a third-party illegal
alien?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS will not comment on
pending litigation.
Question 1b. Does ICE track when administrative warrants alone are
used to enter private residences without consent?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS will not comment on
pending litigation.
Question 1c. How many times have Federal law enforcement officers
used administrative warrants alone to extract an illegally present
individual from a private residence without consent to enter in non-
emergency situations?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS will not comment on
pending litigation.
Question 2a. Director Lyons, in my testimony, I also referred to
the dangers of sanctuary policies in the city of Denver and throughout
the State of Colorado.
How many illegal immigrants in Colorado has ICE had to go into the
community to re-arrest that were in State or local detection and could
have been transferred to ICE, but were released pursuant to some form
of Colorado's sanctuary laws?
Answer. ICE cannot provide the number of at-large re-arrests
because of sanctuary policies. However, ICE can provide the number of
at-large arrests. Between January 20, 2025 and June 4 2026, ICE
arrested 4,670 aliens at-large in the State of Colorado.
Question 2b. Of the people in ICE detention, what percentage have a
criminal history in another country that ICE can see, but that would
likely escape a traditional media inquiry that can only access U.S.
criminal history?
Answer. ICE can only provide the number of aliens in its custody
with criminal history within the United States. Leveraging resources
such as INTERPOL and the ICE Attache corps, ICE Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) develops investigative leads and locates foreign
nationals wanted for crimes committed abroad who are now at-large in
the United States. While ICE has some access to foreign criminal
history information that would not be available through databases
limited to U.S. criminal history, foreign criminal history information
is accessed on a case-by-case basis, and the percentage of individuals
in ICE detention with such foreign criminal histories is not readily
available in aggregate form. DHS continues to enhance its information-
sharing capabilities to improve the completeness and accuracy of
criminal history data for those in ICE custody.
Question 3a. As a former police lieutenant, I know how important it
is to have internal processes to ensure accountability and strengthen
personal responsibility. I also know how dangerous it can be to work in
law enforcement, especially when sensational media coverage inspires
violent rhetoric.
Director Lyons, if someone in the public feels it necessary to file
a complaint against a specific ICE agent for misconduct during
enforcement actions, what comprehensive processes does ICE have for
such claims and to address any misconduct?
Answer. As a law enforcement agency, ICE expects all employees to
adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct and to
demonstrate integrity and professionalism in all aspects of their work.
ICE takes allegations regarding misconduct seriously, and ICE Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigates incidents and takes
appropriate action in circumstances where it is warranted.
Allegations of misconduct by ICE employees can be reported to the
OPR. OPR promotes public trust and confidence by ensuring
organizational integrity is maintained through a multi-layered approach
using security, inspections, and investigations. Allegations of
misconduct can be directed to OPR at 833-442-3677,
[email protected], or on-line at https://www.ice.gov/webform/
opr-contact-form. Additionally, allegations of misconduct may also be
reported to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) at 800-323-8603
or by completing their on-line form at https//www.oig.dhs.gov/about/
contact.
Question 3b. How can people identify the officer for a report in a
way that doesn't put the personal details of officers at risk for
doxxing--which we know is being perpetrated by ill-intentioned
individuals, including cartel criminals?
Answer. When reporting misconduct to OPR or OIG, the reporting
party should avoid including unnecessary Personally Identifiable
Information about the employee. OPR recommends providing the employee's
name and badge number and/or information about the incident, such as
date, time, exact address or intersection, city, State, name of those
involved (if known), etc.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Todd M. Lyons
Question 1. Mr. Lyons, will you commit to not deploying any ICE
personnel inside or in the immediate vicinity of a polling place during
voting in a general or special election?
Answer. Generally, there is no reason for ICE officers and agents
to be deployed to polling places. Please note however, ICE does
investigate aliens who violate U.S. law, including where unlawful
voting activity intersects with immigration, identity, or document
fraud.
Question 2. Mr. Lyons, after the killing of Renee Good in
Minneapolis by an ICE officer, what immediate changes did you make to
interior enforcement protocols or guidance?
Answer. ICE takes every use of force by an agent or officer
seriously and supports an independent criminal investigation of any
deadly use of force. Separate from that investigation, by agency
policy, OPR routinely conducts its own administrative review of the
incident upon conclusion of the criminal investigation. This includes a
Critical Incident Review, which documents the facts and circumstances
of the shooting and examines any possible training or policy
violations. If deficiencies in training or policy are identified, ICE
will make appropriate changes.
Question 3a. Mr. Lyons, there have been reports that ICE agents are
taking videos of bystanders, observers, and protesters, and potentially
conducting real-time facial recognition on them. For instance, Jonathan
Ross was recording Renee Good on his phone shortly before her death,
and citizen videos have been released that show agents recording them
and indicating that they will be identified and their names added to a
database.
Why are agents taking videos of bystanders and protesters?
Answer. Within ICE, investigations and law enforcement actions are
conducted based on violations, or the investigation into alleged or
suspected violations, of specific statutes within ICE's investigative
and enforcement authorities. ICE officers may document aspects of
encounters to identify individuals reasonably believed to be involved
in, or directly supporting potential violations of Federal law and to
aid in potential investigations and prosecutions. If a bystander or
protestor is not prosecuted after investigation, ICE follows
established laws, regulations, and policies regarding the retention and
destruction of records.
Question 3b. What does ICE do with those videos, where are the
videos being maintained, and under what circumstances are they shared
with the FBI, JTTFs, or HSTFs?
Answer. Videos recorded by ICE officers during law enforcement
operations or around ICE facilities, including those involving
protestors or bystanders, are maintained in accordance with Federal law
enforcement records retention policies and ICE's internal guidelines.
Videos may be reviewed for investigative, situational awareness, or
officer safety purposes. Sharing such videos with other Federal
agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Joint
Terrorism Task Forces, or Homeland Security Task Forces, occurs only
when there is a valid law enforcement purpose, such as supporting on-
going investigations, addressing threats to public safety, or complying
with interagency protocols. All sharing is governed by applicable
statutes, memoranda of understanding, and DHS/ICE privacy and
information-sharing policies. ICE does not share or use videos for
purposes outside its law enforcement, security, and investigative
mission, and all actions are consistent with Federal law and DHS
policy.
Question 3c. What technological tools are used to analyze those
videos or the identities of the people in them? If facial recognition
tools are being run, what is the legal justification, and what
databases and galleries of photos are they being run against?
Answer. Facial recognition tools are not utilized in the review of
body-worn camera footage.
Question 3d. Are the technological tools being used to analyze the
videos and identities commercially developed, and if so, by whom?
Answer. The use of technology platforms to analyze video and other
media in support of lawful investigative activities--including
identifying individuals and developing evidence of potential violations
within ICE's jurisdiction--is consistent with ICE's investigative
mission and is conducted in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, and policies.
Any technology used by ICE, including the Mobile Fortify
application which includes a facial recognition component, must comply
with the DHS and ICE policy and privacy requirements and oversight
framework. For Mobile Fortify Use Case Summary, please visit the
public-facing DHS.gov website page, United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement--AI Use Cases/Homeland Security. Like other law
enforcement agencies, ICE employs various forms of technology to
investigate criminal activity and support law enforcement efforts while
respecting civil liberties and privacy interests.
Question 4a. Mr. Lyons, a Federal court found that ICE officers
shot exploding pellets of pepper spray at the Rev. David Black from the
roof of an ICE facility, while he was wearing his clerical collar and
extending his arms toward the officers with palms outstretched ``in a
traditional Christian posture of prayer and blessing.'' Later, after he
calmly spoke into a megaphone while standing on the street, officers
pepper-sprayed him at close range, aiming at his head, and left him
completely saturated with pepper spray.
Does the conduct of these officers comport with ICE training?
Answer. ICE declines to comment on these on-going investigations,
but notes that agents and officers are trained to use force only when
reasonable and necessary in light of the totality of facts and
circumstances confronting an Authorized Officer at the time the force
is applied. Any circumstance where force is used, which is not both
necessary and reasonable, including the pneumatic firing of oleoresin
capsicum (OC) projectiles or pepper spray, would not comport with ICE
training or policy. OC is taught as a controlled tool that may only be
used when there is a lawful, clearly articulable reason related to
safety or a legitimate enforcement need.
Question 4b. Were the officers subject to any discipline or
consequence as a result of this conduct?
Answer. If an investigation finds that an ICE employee engaged in
misconduct, the completed investigative file is referred to ICE Office
of Human Capital Employee Relations Unit for appropriate disciplinary
action(s) in accordance with agency policy.
Question 4c. How will you ensure that, going forward, ICE officers
do not assault people engaged in peaceful prayer in accordance with
their First Amendment rights?
Answer. ICE is fully committed to upholding the Constitution and
respecting the First Amendment rights of all individuals, including the
right to peacefully assemble and express views through protest.
Protecting these fundamental Constitutional rights is foundational to
our Nation's democracy and rule of law. ICE policies and practices are
designed to respect lawful protests and Constitutionally-protected
activities.
Question 5a. Mr. Lyons, U.S. citizens across the Nation have been
caught up in Trump's immigration dragnet, have been forcibly arrested,
detained for sometimes days, and even refused a phone call.
What is your office doing to track these incidents?
Answer. Please provide specific allegations of such actions and ICE
will look into the matter. General, sensationalized questions such as
the above do not assist in ICE adjudicating potential concerns. Between
January 20, 2025, and April 6, 2026, ICE booked in a total of 2 U.S.
citizens into ICE custody.
Question 5b. What is the number of U.S. citizens who have been
detained, including through investigative stops?
Answer. As a matter of law, ICE may not detain or arrest U.S.
citizens for civil immigration violations. However, ICE may arrest
anyone--U.S. citizen or not--for violations of criminal law pursuant to
ICE's authorities under Titles 8, 18, 19, and 31 of the United States
Code. ICE law enforcement officers may also arrest anyone who willfully
impedes, resists arrest, assaults, or even attempts to kill ICE
officers or agents, or damages Government property during the course of
lawful ICE enforcement operations. Between January 20, 2025, and April
6, 2026, ICE arrested 2,856 U.S. citizens. During this same time frame,
ICE booked 2 U.S. citizens into custody.\8\ ICE arrests and book-ins
differ. ICE defines an arrest as arresting a subject for civil
immigration or criminal violations of U.S law. Conversely, a book-in
represents the first time an alien enters ICE custody in a detention
facility. Initial book-ins do not include book-ins due to transfers
between facilities or book-ins after being booked out of custody for
less than 72 hours (e.g., if an alien is booked out on Monday afternoon
and booked in again on Wednesday morning, that book-in does not count
as an initial book-in).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ICE does not intentionally or knowingly arrest, book into
custody, and/or remove U.S. citizens on administrative charges. While
performing their civil immigration enforcement duties, ICE officers,
agents, and attorneys may encounter individuals subject to immigration
enforcement who are not certain of their citizenship status, who may
have derived citizenship, who claim to be U.S. citizens, who may
intentionally conceal citizenship to avoid criminal prosecution in the
United States, and/or for whom there are indicia warranting further
examination to determine if they are U.S. citizens. However,
information may come to light after the arrest and subsequent book-in
through which ICE discovers the individual may, in fact, be a U.S.
citizen. U.S. citizens encountered during civil immigration enforcement
actions may be captured in our system of records to solely document the
status of a denaturalization process and other related criminal
prosecution. There are instances where ICE conducts in depth criminal
investigations of violations of U.S. criminal law, which may result in
the issuance of a court ordered criminal arrest warrant and the
subsequent criminal arrest of any person in the United States, to
include U.S. citizens (e.g., 18 U.S.C. 111, 18 U.S.C. 1001, 8
U.S.C. 1324, 18 U.S.C. 1546, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5c. Do your officers and agents document all interactions
with U.S. citizens, to include investigative stops? If not, what
information is documented about these interactions?
Answer. ICE officers and agents document all arrests and detentions
including those involving U.S. citizens for criminal law violations as
part of routine law enforcement operations. This information is
maintained in ICE's law enforcement databases. These systems are law
enforcement sensitive and access is restricted to authorized personnel.
ICE offers the number of arrests, book-ins, and removals of U.S.
citizens on its public facing website, which may be accessed here:
https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management.
Question 5d. What is the number of U.S. citizens who have been
arrested?
Answer. As a matter of law, ICE may not detain or arrest U.S.
citizens for civil immigration violations. However, ICE may arrest
anyone--U.S. citizen or not--for violations of criminal law pursuant to
ICE's authorities under Titles 8, 18, 19, and 31 of the United States
Code. ICE law enforcement officers may also arrest anyone who willfully
impedes, resists arrest, assaults, or even attempts to kill ICE
officers or agents, or damages government property during the course of
lawful ICE enforcement operations. Between January 20, 2025, and April
6, 2025, ICE arrested 2,856 U.S. citizens.
Question 5e. Why are U.S. citizens remaining detained for hours or
days without any charges?
Answer. Please provide specific allegations of such actions and ICE
will look into the matter. General, sensationalized questions such as
the above do not assist in ICE adjudicating potential concerns.
Question 5f. What procedures does ICE follow when someone claims to
be a U.S. citizen?
Answer. ICE has significant protections in place to ensure U.S.
citizens are not arrested, detained, or removed mistakenly. ICE
Directive No. 16001.2, Investigating the Potential U.S. Citizenship of
Individuals Encountered by ICE (Nov. 10, 2015), establishes ICE policy
and procedures for ensuring that the potential U.S. citizenship of
individuals encountered by ICE officers, agents, and attorneys is
immediately and carefully investigated and analyzed. A copy of the
Directive is enclosed for reference.
Question 5g. After a GAO investigation in 2021 (GAO-21-487), ICE
said it would update its training materials to address detention of
citizens. How has the training changed since 2021? What training do law
enforcement personnel get now about how to ensure they are not
arresting or detaining citizens?
Answer. Since 2021, ICE ERO training on U.S. citizenship has been
expanded to allocate more total classroom hours to the same core
material, giving instructors and students more time for in-depth
review. In the current (March 2025) lesson used in the ERO Basic
Immigration Enforcement Training Program, the updated training devotes
an entire 14-hour block to citizenship law and presents extensive
scenarios (including complex historical and derivative citizenship
cases) so officers can work through real-world fact patterns. Officers
are trained to gather and corroborate facts through questioning,
documents, and database checks, and they are formally assessed.
Question 5h. ICE also said it would maintain data about those
arrests and detentions of U.S. citizens. What steps is ICE taking to do
this? Where is that information being maintained?
Answer. As noted above, ICE officers and agents document all
arrests and detentions including those involving U.S. citizens for
criminal law violations as part of routine law enforcement operations.
This information is maintained in ICE's law enforcement databases.
These systems are law enforcement sensitive and access is restricted to
authorized personnel. ICE offers the number of arrests, book-ins, and
removals of U.S. citizens on its public facing website, which may be
accessed here: https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management. ICE
releases public statistics pursuant to fiscal year 2020 DHS
appropriations bill. Once ICE is funded, these reports will be updated.
Question 6a. Mr. Lyons, U.S. citizens wrongfully arrested in
immigration enforcement have reported being DNA swabbed.
Under what statutory authority does DHS justify these collections?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is required
to collect DNA samples from both United States citizens as well as
certain alien detainees in its custody pursuant to 34 U.S.C. 40702,
and its implementing regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 28. DHS is taking
all appropriate actions to fulfill its statutory obligations, which
also supports the Executive Order 14165, Securing Our Borders, issued
by the President on January 20, 2025.
Specifically, 34 U.S.C. 40702 (a)(1)(A) requires the collection
of ``DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or
convicted or from non-United States persons who are detained under the
authority of the United States.'' Similarly, the implementing
regulation at 28 C.F.R. 28.12 (b) states in relevant part, ``[a]ny
agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or
supervises individuals facing charges shall collect DNA samples from
individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from
non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the
United States,'' and defines ``non-United States persons'' to ``mean[ ]
persons who are not United States citizens and who are not lawfully
admitted for permanent residence . . . ''.
In compliance with 34 U.S.C. 40702, ICE and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) agents and officers are authorized to collect
DNA from any individual for submission into FBI Combined DNA Index
System (CODIS) DNA database who meets the above criteria, unless they
fall into an exemption. ICE and CBP collect DNA samples for submission
to FBI CODIS from persons in their custody who are arrested on Federal
criminal charges, including United States citizens and legal permanent
residents, and from non-U.S. persons detained under DHS authority who
are subject to fingerprinting and not otherwise exempt from the
collection requirement.
Question 6b. What are the DNA swabs used for?
Question 6c. What are the parameters for retaining this
information?
Answer. Neither ICE nor CBP uses DNA samples collected pursuant to
34 U.S.C. 40702 for any purpose other than submission to the FBI
CODIS laboratory as per 34 U.S.C. 40702(b). Nor does either DHS
component retain the samples. All completed and printed FD-936, Request
for National DNA Database Entry Forms, and used buccal swabs are mailed
directly to the Federal DNA Database Unit/FBI Laboratory. These records
are not used, stored, or maintained by ICE or CBP, and there are no
new, significant, or substantial changes to existing ICE or CBP records
management requirements.
Question 6d. Is the information destroyed after citizens are
released? If not, why not? And how long is the information stored for?
Question 6e. If the information is not destroyed, what system is
this information stored in? Who has access to this information?
Answer. DHS defers to the FBI CODIS laboratory for answers to
questions (d) and (e) since ICE and CBP send all DNA samples collected
pursuant to 34 U.S.C. 40702 to FBI CODIS as required by that statute.
Question 7a. In a memo dated May 12, 2025, you instructed ICE
officers that they may enter residences without a judicial warrant to
conduct civil immigration arrests. The Fourth Amendment has long been
understood to require law enforcement to obtain a judicial warrant to
enter a home, absent an emergency or consent.
How is this policy consistent with the Fourth Amendment?
Question 7b. What was the basis for the change in policy?
Question 7c. Under your new policy, may ICE officers and agents
enter a mixed-status home that includes U.S. citizens with only an
administrative warrant?
Question 7d. Under your new policy, may ICE officers and agents
detain and arrest other individuals present inside the home who were
not the subject of the administrative warrant?
Question 7e. The policy authorizes ICE personnel to use force to
enter homes. What are the limits on the type and amount of force that
can be used? What are the consequences for ICE personnel who violate
those limits?
Question 7f. What is the process of obtaining an administrative
warrant to enter a home?
Question 7g. What is the legal standard for obtaining an
administrative warrant to enter a home? Is it probable cause,
reasonable suspicion, or something else?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS does not comment on
matters currently under litigation.
Question 8a. Mr. Lyons, according to media reports, ICE is using a
new mobile facial recognition technology called Mobile Fortify to
identify individuals encountered at the border or during enforcement
operations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For example, see Public Broadcasting Service, Department of
Homeland Security Intensifies Surveillance in Immigration Raids,
Sweeping Citizens (Jan. 30, 2026), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/
politics/department-of-homeland-security-intensifies-surveillance-in-
immigration-raids-sweeping-in-citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the legal basis relied on by ICE for using mobile phone
applications, including Mobile Fortify, to conduct biometric searches
outside ports of entry? Are there Constitutional restraints in place on
such searches of U.S. citizens and those exercising their first
amendment rights?
Question 8b. What is the approval process ICE personnel must follow
required before conducting a biometric search using the Mobile Fortify
application?
Question 8c. What is the process ICE personnel must follow to
review and verify potential matches after completing a biometric search
using the Mobile Fortify application?
Question 8d. If the Mobile Fortify application returns a match that
conflicts with a person's government-issued identification or
documentation, what procedures must ICE follow to determine the
person's identity?
Question 8e. Has ICE provided access to Mobile Fortify to any
agencies at the local, State, or Federal level?
Answer. In line with long-standing policy, DHS does not comment on
matters currently under litigation.
Question 9a. Mr. Lyons, there has been extensive reporting
regarding multiple technological tools and capabilities that ICE is
using to locate and arrest immigrants and to track and identify lawful
observers and protesters, including facial recognition, license plate
readers, cell phone location tracking, and more. However, there has not
yet been a comprehensive accounting of the technology that ICE is
deploying.
What technological tools is ICE using to locate and arrest
immigrants?
Answer. To locate aliens, ERO utilizes databases and intelligence
throughout DHS and other Government agencies.
Additionally, ERO uses information obtained from State and local
governments and other law enforcement agencies' information systems and
intelligence through partnerships and information-sharing agreements,
as well as public and commercial sources, and anonymous tips consistent
with laws, regulations, policies, and user agreements. ERO also
contracts with industry partners to set up continuous monitoring and
alert system notifications for specified new information, arrests, and
activities, as well as for using internet research and data analysis
and access to person-centric commercial information to assist in the
location of aliens.
The Enhanced Leads Identification & Targeting for Enforcement
system delivers improved capabilities for identifying and prioritizing
high-value targets through advanced analytics.
Question 9b. Please provide the legal justification for using these
technological tools and capabilities to track and arrest individuals as
part of your immigration enforcement actions.
Answer. As part of its mission to protect the homeland through the
arrest and removal of aliens who undermine the safety of our
communities and the integrity of U.S. immigration laws, ICE must first
identify aliens considered to be removable from the United States.
Under its Title 8 authority, ICE officers are authorized to arrest
individuals suspected of immigration violations and to remove aliens
from the United States who are subject to final orders of removal
issued by an immigration judge or other lawful orders. There is no
legal prohibition against the use of technological tools that ICE uses
in its law enforcement mission.
As for information sharing with State/local governments and other
law enforcement agencies' information systems, and intelligence through
partnerships and information-sharing agreements, Congress enacted
statutes to ensure that information sharing takes place for the
effective implementation of the Nation's immigration laws.
Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1373 to ensure that ``no person or
agency may prohibit or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local
government entity'' from sharing information regarding the immigration
status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, with Federal immigration
law enforcement agency.
Question 10. Mr. Lyons, media reports have suggested that DHS and
other Federal agencies have been hitting businesses who are critical of
DHS activities with I-9 audits or subpoenas.
Is it ICE's policy to audit or subpoena businesses in retaliation
for first amendment activities?
Answer. ICE takes its responsibility to enforce Federal immigration
and employment laws in a fair and impartial manner seriously. ICE
enforcement actions, including I-9 inspections and subpoenas related to
worksite enforcement investigations, are initiated based on established
procedures and objective criteria such as compliance concerns, tipline
leads, tips received from the public or companies, information from
audits, or referrals from other agencies.
ICE is committed to protecting the rights of all individuals and
businesses, including the right to free speech. If there are concerns
about the fairness or motivation behind an enforcement action, ICE
encourages businesses to use established channels to raise those
concerns, and the agency will review any allegations thoroughly. ICE
values open communication and strives to maintain public trust in its
enforcement activities.
Question 11a. Mr. Lyons, throughout the Trump administration, armed
ICE agents have conducted so-called ``wellness checks'' of
unaccompanied children that have terrified impacted children and
families. ICE has even attempted to conduct a number of these wellness
checks at elementary schools, sowing fear and panic among
schoolchildren and their parents.
Acting Director Lyons, how can you assure us that immigration
enforcement will not harm children attending our schools?
Answer. ICE manages several initiatives and operations aimed at
enhancing public safety and protecting vulnerable populations,
including unaccompanied alien children (UACs).
ICE locates children released from the custody of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who have not had contact
with DHS since their release to a sponsor. ICE focuses on the safety
and wellness of the children, ensuring that they have not been subject
to any form of harm or exploitation, and emphasizing the
administration's commitment to restoring trust in the immigration
system and enhancing public safety.
In August 2025, ICE began locating former UACs who are now adults
and possess criminal history, gang affiliations, or final orders of
removal. This initiative aligns with President Trump's Executive Orders
that prioritize immigration enforcement, public safety, and the removal
of individuals who pose threats to American communities. This program
closes loopholes in the immigration system that allowed individuals to
exploit protections afforded to minors, which allowed these individuals
to evade accountability.
In November 2025, ICE, along with State and local law enforcement
agencies, including 287(g) enforcement agencies, began the UAC Safety
Verification Initiative to search for a subset of UACs. This initiative
underscores ICE's commitment to protecting vulnerable minors from
abuse, trafficking, and exploitation through a whole-of-Government
approach and partnerships.
Question 11b. Will you pledge to halt ICE immigration enforcement
activities of children at schools throughout the United States?
Answer. ICE strives to avoid immigration enforcement activities
involving children at schools; however, there may be exigent
circumstances such as when a child is in danger or the subject of a
criminal charge or investigations, for example, where it may be
necessary and safest for the minor to be encountered in a custodial-
like setting, such as at school.
Question 12a. Mr. Lyons, the unnecessary separation of children
from parents or legal guardians results in long-term trauma to children
and renders them more vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation.
Today, separations are being carried out by immigration agents all
around the country, leaving children at home without caretakers, or
placed in the custody of ORR or State foster care systems.
What procedures are in place to document any instances of family
separation and the basis for those separations, including separations
that occur in the interior of the United States?
Answer. Generally, ERO does not separate families. When
operationally feasible, ERO accommodates parents' efforts to make
alternative care arrangements for their minor child(ren) prior to
detention. If a child is transferred to the HHS Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR), ERO makes proper notifications and also follows
specific procedures for certain populations that are outlined in the
Ms. L. Settlement Agreement.
Question 12b. How can a parent challenge a separation if they
believe it was unlawful?
Answer. ICE does not conduct ``unlawful'' separations. For affected
populations the Ms. L. Settlement Agreement contains a formal process
for individuals or their legal representatives to send information to
ICE related to why they believe the separation was improper under terms
of the settlement.
Question 12c. Since January 2025, how many children has ICE
transferred to ORR custody?
Answer. From January 2025 to September 30, 2025, ICE transferred
422 UACs to ORR custody. From October 1, 2025, to March 3, 2026, ICE
transferred 317 UACs to ORR custody.
Question 12d. Please describe the procedures in place to document
any instances of family separations resulting from enforcement actions
conducted in the interior of the United States.
Answer. ICE generally does not separate families as ICE has a
family residential center. However, if a separation happens due to
unforeseen events such as the hospitalization of parent, discovery of
derogatory information (national security and/or public safety) about a
family member, or a parent creating unsafe environment for children by
being assaultive, the separation will be documented in ERO's system of
record on both parent's and children's case. If a child was transferred
to ORR due to a separation, ORR is notified of the separation.
Transfers of aliens from the criminal justice system--such as
individuals who enter ICE custody as single adults from local county
jails or State prisons--or the arrest of individuals during interior
enforcement actions are not considered family separations.
Question 12e. Please describe practices and procedures, including
sharing and relevant written guidance, for parents in ICE custody to
coordinate care for their children.
Answer. ICE follows Directive No. 11064.4, Detention and Removal of
Alien Parents and Legal Guardians of Minor Children (July 2, 2025).
This policy intends to protect parents or legal guardians who are
arrested or detained for a civil immigration proceeding. Under this
policy, the alien may coordinate care and maintain visitation with his
or her child for whom they serve as guardian and participate in any
related court or child welfare proceedings.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson on Behalf of Honorable
Veronica Escobar for Todd M. Lyons
Question 1a. Director Lyons, Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas is
currently the largest ICE detention facility in the country. The
Department of Homeland Security awarded Acquisition Logistics, LLC
$1.24 billion dollars for its construction and operation last year.
During a briefing on December 16, you committed to producing the
contract for Camp East Montana at the request of Congresswoman Veronica
Escobar, who represents El Paso.
Have you produced the contract as Congresswoman Escobar requested?
Answer. The Camp East Montana (formerly known as Fort Bliss)
contract was initially established as a Department of War (DOW) project
and supported through DOW funding as part of an interagency effort to
address immigration detention capacity requirements.
Question 1b. Why have you not yet produced the contract?
Question 1c. Will you commit to producing the contract before the
end of the week? If not, why not?
Answer. Effective October 1, 2025, ICE assumed responsibility for
the contract. Prior to releasing the contract, ICE must first comply
with 6 C.F.R. section 5.7 and issue a submitter notice to Acquisition
Logistics, LLC, providing the company 10 business days' notice of
requested disclosure and the opportunity to object. ICE has located the
contract and is currently in the process of issuing a submitter notice
to Acquisition Logistics, LLC, in order to comply with the disclosure
requirements for confidential financial information under 6 C.F.R.
section 5.7. Once this process is complete, ICE will provide the
redacted copy of the contract to Representative Escobar.
Question 2a. Director Lyons, in that same December 16 briefing,
Rep. Escobar asked you about a series of oversight letters about
concerns with conditions and operations at Camp East Montana that had
been sent to the Department between September and December 2025.
Has your office responded to these letters?
Question 2b. What is preventing your office from responding to Rep.
Escobar's letters?
Question 2c. Will you commit to having your office respond to Rep.
Escobar's letters by Friday March 6? If not, why not?
Answer. DHS has responded to previous letters sent by Rep. Escobar,
and is working diligently to provide a response to any letters from the
Congresswoman still outstanding.
Question 3a. Director Lyons, are you aware of the inhumane
conditions that your agency and its civilian contractor partners are
allowing to persist at Camp East Montana?
Answer. ICE is committed to ensuring its facilities operate in
accordance with their contractual requirements. ICE also employs a
robust, multi-layered oversight and compliance program consisting of
field office personnel, such as contracting officer representatives and
headquarters-assigned compliance staff, who assess conditions of
confinement and adherence to ICE standards and policies. Also, a
variety of oversight bodies conduct inspections of ICE detention
facilities and ICE is committed to resolving any identified performance
concerns or other deficiencies quickly to ensure the safety and
security of each facility housing ICE detainees.
Question 3b. Are you aware of detainees being unable to access
necessary medication--such as insulin--that is vital to their health?
Answer. ICE is committed to providing the safe delivery of
appropriate health care to aliens in agency custody. ICE's National
Detention Standards (NDS) and other ICE policies require detention
facilities to provide comprehensive medical and mental health care to
aliens in ICE custody. Aliens have access to a continuum of health care
services, including screening, prevention, health education, diagnosis,
and treatment while in ICE custody. Generally, detention standards
require facilities to conduct an initial medical intake screening
(including medical, dental, and mental health) within 12 hours of
arrival at a facility and a comprehensive health assessment within 14
days of arrival. Each facility is staffed by medical care professionals
24 hours a day, 7 days a week; or facilities have a plan in place to
provide 24-hour emergency medical and mental health care when no
medical personnel are on duty, for direct patient access.
Without specific alien names or incident details, ICE Health
Service Corps is unable to verify if instances related to medication
inaccessibility are present.
Question 3c. Are you aware of the inadequate food being served to
detainees?
Answer. In accordance with ICE NDS 2025, detainees at this facility
are provided with 3 nutritious meals a day, specialized diet meals,
including religious diets and more than a dozen types of therapeutic
diets. Menus are reviewed and approved by a registered dietitian to
ensure the nutritional program meets or exceeds minimum U.S.
recommended daily allowances.
Question 3d. Are you aware of the 3-day lockdown that occurred at
Camp East Montana as a result of detainees protesting over having their
rations cut in half?
Answer. There was no lockdown at Camp East Montana related to
detainees protesting over perceived food/snack ration reductions.
Detainees expressed concerns regarding a change in the food/snack menu
and snack distribution, which were immediately addressed and resolved.
Detainees' required daily caloric intake per NDS 2025 was not cut in
half.
Question 3e. We are aware that ICE contracts out laundry services
for detained individuals at Camp East Montana, paid for by the American
taxpayer. Are you aware, however, that laundry services are being
provided so irregularly, that detainees often wash their clothing in
bathroom sinks, and that recently-arrived detainees have not been made
aware of available laundry services at all?
Answer. Per NDS 2025, Section 4.4, Personal Hygiene, Section II
Standards and Procedures, Subsection A, Clothing, Bedding, Linen,
Blanket and Towel Supply, ``The facility shall have a policy and
procedure for the regular issuance and exchange of clothing, bedding,
linens, and towels. The facility shall keep a supply of these items
that exceeds the minimum amount required for the number of detainees to
prevent delay in replacing the items.'' In accordance with NDS 2025,
detainees receive clean clothing, linens, and towels on a regular basis
to support personal hygiene. Socks and undergarments are exchanged
daily and outer garments and sheets twice per week. The laundry
services contractor maintains a log for tracking and accountability. In
addition, laundry services are covered in the facility handbook
provided to each detainee at intake, to include an electric copy
(accessible via the Talton Tablets) that detainees must acknowledge
receipt after receiving. Laundry schedules are also clearly posted in
the pods.
Question 3f. What have you, as head of ICE, done to ensure these
issues are resolved?
Answer. As part of its critical mission, ERO ensures each of its
detention facilities adhere to the national detention standards that
govern facility operations and protect the health, safety, and well-
being of all aliens in its custody. Regardless of whether detention
facilities are owned and operated by ICE, a State or local entity, or a
contractor, each detention facility operates under one of several sets
of ICE national detention standards.
Question 4. What can you share about the on-going investigation
into the death of Geraldo Lunas Campos, whose death was ruled a
homicide by ``asphyxia due to neck and torso compression'' while in ICE
custody at Camp East Montana?
Answer. While ICE declines to comment on this on-going
investigation, any allegation of inappropriate behavior is
appropriately investigated.
Question 5. What internal oversight mechanisms are currently in
place to empower agents, civilian staff, and health care professionals
on-site to report and correct hazardous conditions?
Answer. As part of its critical mission, ERO ensures each of its
detention facilities adhere to the national detention standards that
govern facility operations and protect the health, safety, and well-
being of all aliens in its custody. Regardless of whether detention
facilities are owned and operated by ICE, a State or local entity, or a
contractor, each detention facility operates under one of several sets
of ICE national detention standards.
To ensure compliance with each contract's terms and conditions and
the applicable detention standards, DHS, ICE, and ERO employ a robust
and multilevel oversight and compliance program. These multiple
channels of oversight allow ICE to provide an appropriate standard of
care for the detained population.
At the ERO level, ERO Detention Service Managers and Detention
Standards Compliance Officers monitor detention conditions through
daily on-site compliance reviews to identify deficiencies, areas of
concern, contract and facility issues, and to facilitate corrective
actions. These reviews allow ICE another layer of oversight by
providing senior leadership a unique tool to quickly identify and
address issues that occur between or are not identified during annual
inspections.
At the ICE level, OPR's Office of Detention Oversight (ODO)
conducts independent biannual inspections of ICE detention facilities
with an average daily population (ADP) of 10 or more detained aliens
for over 72 hours. Additionally, ODO conducts special reviews of under
72-hour ICE detention facilities with an ADP of 1 or more detained
aliens and over 72-hour facilities with an ADP of 1 to 9. As part of
their inspections, ODO partners with subject-matter experts in health
care, food service, environmental health and safety, and security to
comprehensively assess the performance of each detention facility.
At the DHS level, the OIG, and the DHS Office for Civil Right and
Civil Liberties, and the DHS Office of the Immigration Ombudsman
provide additional levels of oversight, allowing for a layered, multi-
level approach to compliance.
Question 6a. Director Lyons, in recent weeks, Members of Congress
have become aware of the Department's plans to establish warehouse-like
``mega centers'' for the purposes of detaining immigrants.
Please elaborate on the Department's intention for these
facilities.
Question 6b. Who does the administration intend to detain in these
facilities?
Answer. ICE is reimagining its detention structure and acquisition
strategy to address the rising operational tempo and increasing
arrests. These efforts aim to meet the growing demand for bed space and
streamline the detention and removal process in pursuit of mass
deportations. Part of this strategy includes non-traditional facilities
built specifically to support ICE's needs. Please note ICE is committed
to safe, secure, and humane environments for all those in its custody,
no matter what type of facility in which they are housed.
As part of this new acquisition strategy, ICE is advancing an
initiative with a goal of implementing a new detention model comprised
of a mix of ICE-owned and privately-owned detention facilities. The new
model is designed to strategically increase bed capacity, ensuring
coverage across key field offices nationwide in support of ICE's
immigration enforcement mission.
ICE continues to evaluate bed space requirements and availability
and is committed to strategically using existing detention beds in a
fiscally-responsible manner as well as ensuring the safety and security
of detainees in its custody.
Questions From Honorable J. Luis Correa for Todd M. Lyons
detention and arrest of u.s. citizens
Question 1. Mr. Lyons, during your testimony you said you were
unaware of ICE detaining and arresting American citizens. The U.S.
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation issued a report in
December 2025 citing 22 examples U.S. citizens being detained by ICE
and CBP.\10\ ProPublica also recently reported more than 170 U.S.
citizens have been detained by Federal immigration authorities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Unchecked Authority: Examining the Trump Administration's
Extrajudicial Immigration Detentions of U.S. Citizens,'' U.S. Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (December 9, 2025), https://
www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025.12.8_ICE-Report-revised-
FINAL.pdf.
\11\ Nicole Foy, ``We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have
Been Held by Immigration Agents. They've Been Kicked, Dragged and
Detained for Days,'' ProPublica (October 16, 2025), https://
www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-
detained-against-will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many U.S. citizens have been detained, which includes
investigative stops, by ICE since January 20, 2025?
Answer. As a matter of law, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) may not arrest or detain U.S. citizens for civil
immigration violations. However, ICE may arrest anyone for violations
of criminal law pursuant to ICE's authorities under Titles 8, 18, 19,
and 31 of the United States Code. ICE law enforcement officers may also
arrest anyone who willfully impedes, resists arrest, assaults, or
attempts to kill ICE officers or agents, or damages government property
during ICE enforcement operations. However, ICE's system of record only
tracks book-ins to custody, not ``investigative stops'' that do not
result in an arrest.
Question 2. How many U.S. citizens have been arrested by ICE since
January 20, 2025?
Answer. Between January 20, 2025, and May 3, 2026, ICE arrested
2,638 U.S. citizens for violations of U.S. criminal law, specifically
in the context of assaulting, obstructing, or impeding Federal law
enforcement, resisting arrest, and similar actions.
Question 3. What documentation does ICE consider sufficient to
verify citizenship status?
Answer. ICE has significant protections in place to ensure U.S.
citizens are not arrested or detained for civil immigration offenses or
mistakenly removed. ICE Directive No. 16001.2, Investigating the
Potential U.S. Citizenship of Individuals Encountered by ICE (Nov. 10,
2015), establishes ICE policy and procedures for ensuring the potential
U.S. citizenship or nationality of individuals encountered by ICE
officers, agents, and attorneys is immediately and carefully
investigated and analyzed.
surveillance of u.s. citizens
Question 4a. Mr. Lyons, during your testimony you said your agency
was not surveilling U.S. citizens and you do not have a database of
Americans. Last month, Tom Homan spoke about his push to create a
database of individuals who ``impede'' ICE.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Homan pushes to create `database' to make those who impede
ICE `famous,' '' Fox News (January 15, 2026), https://www.foxnews.com/
video/6387789141112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does ICE maintain any separate database(s) of biographic and
biometric information of U.S. persons? If so:
Question 4b. Does ICE share this data with other agencies?
Question 4c. Does ICE retain data on individuals not suspected of
being domestic terrorists?
Answer. No. ICE does not have an independent database of biographic
or biometric information on U.S. persons who ``impede'' ICE. ICE does
not identify or designate individuals as ``domestic terrorists.''
Question 5a. Does ICE track information about people accused of
interfering, impeding, or assaulting ICE officers or agents? If so:
What database is this information kept in?
Question 5b. Is this data shared with other agencies?
Question 5c. Is this data shared with individuals' employers?
Answer. ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has the
authority to investigate and document allegations of interference and
impeding with law enforcement. HSI has primary jurisdiction to
investigate assaults on ICE employees. HSI uses the Investigative Case
Management (ICM) system for documenting investigations and any evidence
collected in support of all investigative work. The ICM system is
governed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ICE External
Investigations System of Records Notice, which can be reviewed on-line.
This system is considered a Law Enforcement Sensitive system, which
restricts who has access and excludes sharing of information to the
public, including employers.
HSI may share certain information about individuals accused of
interfering with, impeding, or assaulting ICE law enforcement officers
with other law enforcement agencies, as permitted by law and in
accordance with established information-sharing agreements, policies,
and regulations. Specifically, information about individuals charged or
convicted of assaulting Federal law enforcement officers is entered
into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which is accessible
to authorized law enforcement agencies nationwide. The NCIC is a
centralized criminal justice information system operated by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that facilitates information sharing
among Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
Information maintained in the ICM system and shared via NCIC is
considered Law Enforcement-Sensitive and is restricted to authorized
personnel. It is not shared with the public, private parties, or
individuals' employers. HSI does not share investigative information
for non-law enforcement purposes.
Question 6a. Recent reports have indicated that the Department of
Homeland Security is requesting data from tech companies identifying
individuals who track or criticize ICE operations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Sheera Frenkel and Mike Isaac, ``Homeland Security Wants
Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts'' The New York Times
(February 13, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/technology/dhs-
anti-ice-social-media.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has your agency sent administrative subpoenas to tech companies
over the past 12 months? If so:
Question 6b. Which companies have been issued these subpoenas?
Question 6c. How many administrative subpoenas have been sent to
each of those companies?
Question 6d. How many people has ICE requested information on via
these administrative subpoenas?
Question 6e. What information is being requested?
Question 6f. Are these requests for information on U.S. citizens?
Answer. HSI does not investigate individuals based on disagreements
with ICE priorities and operations. HSI issues administrative subpoenas
to lawfully obtain relevant information pursuant to its criminal and
administrative investigative authority. This authority includes
investigating violations of hundreds of Federal crimes that use ``tech
companies'' in the commission of crime, such as child sexual
exploitation. It is the policy of ICE HSI to not discuss open
investigations, but if the request is narrowed, HSI may be able to
provide additional information.
designation of domestic terrorist
Question 7a. Has there been a change in the U.S. Government's
nomination process for known and or suspected domestic terrorists to
the terrorist watch list? Is ICE nominating individuals or entities as
domestic terrorists for inclusion in the FBI's Terrorist Screening
Dataset? If so:
Question 7b. How many individuals have been added to the domestic
terrorist watch list at your agency's request?
Question 7c. What are your criteria for concluding an individual or
entity is a domestic terrorist?
Question 7d. Does your criteria include impeding immigration
enforcement activities?
Answer. The FBI administers the Threat Screening Center (TSC),
which is a multi-agency body that maintains the Terrorist Screening
Dataset (TSDS). Nominations to the TSDS are submitted through the
National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the TSC. ICE respectfully
defers to the FBI for additional details on the TSC, TSDS, and other
terrorism tracking or criteria-related questions.
Question 8a. Over the past year, how many times have ICE agents and
officers used the justification of suspected domestic terrorist to take
law enforcement actions?
Is ICE using the justification of alleged domestic terrorist
activity to deploy surveillance tools and monitor U.S. citizens to
include lawful protestors?
Question 8b. Was Renee Good or Alex Pretti known to law enforcement
or in any database maintained by DHS prior to their killings?
Answer. ICE investigations and law enforcement actions are
conducted based on allegations of suspected violations of specific
statutes within ICE's investigative and enforcement authority.
ICE does not comment on the specifics of an on-going investigation,
including operational planning, decision making, personnel involvement,
or other related matters. Once the investigation is concluded,
information may be made available in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations.
agent and officer operations
Question 9. How many ICE agents and officers are currently equipped
with body-worn cameras?
Answer. The fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024 funding allowed
ICE to procure and support approximately 6,200 body-worn cameras (BWCs)
for Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs). Please see the table below for a
breakout of current funding (assuming a full-year continuing
resolution) versus the additional funding needed to deploy BWCs
nationwide.
BODY WORN CAMERA PROGRAM
($ in K)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Additional
Base One Big
Full Year Budget for Beautiful
CR Budget Full BWC Bill Act
Deployment LEOs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEO's supported/BWC units............ 6,200 6,390 11,000
Equipment Non-Pay Costs:
BWC Unit cost.................... $500 $4,700 $8,100
Licensing & Storage.............. $2,700 $2,600 $4,100
Ancillary Equipment.............. $100 $1,100 $1,800
IT Security & Maintenance........ $400 $1,200 $1,200
Administrative Operations $1,800 $1,200 $1,200
(Travel, Training)..............
----------------------------------
Subtotal Non Pay............... $5,500 $10,800 $16,400
----------------------------------
Program Management Costs:
Positions:
22 Positions..................... $3,684 .......... ..........
Additional Two Base Positions.... ......... $700 ..........
Additional Two Positions to ......... .......... $700
support OBBB expansion..........
----------------------------------
Subtotal PMO................... $3,684 $700 $700
----------------------------------
Total.......................... $9,184 $11,500 $17,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 10. How many additional body-worn cameras does ICE own
that are not yet deployed to the field?
Answer. ICE currently has approximately 250 unissued BWC devices.
These devices are used to replace any broken or malfunctioning devices
and to replenish inventory at BWC deployed offices.
Question 11. What plans does ICE have to acquire additional body-
worn cameras?
Answer. ICE has a BWC strategic deployment plan that can only be
executed if the program is fully resourced. Please see the above chart
that provides a breakout of current funding (assuming a full-year
continuing resolution) versus the additional funding needed to deploy
BWCs nationwide.
Question 12. Do ICE personnel have the authority to delete
information, including videos, from members of the public's cell
phones? If so, please cite the legal authority.
Answer. No.
use of administrative warrants
Question 13. A memo you sent dated May 12, 2025 says that ``the DHS
Office of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S.
Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration
regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants'' alone
for arresting individuals subject to final orders of removal in their
homes. Can you provide the specific citations justifying this
determination?
Answer. The General Counsel published an op ed on administrative
arrest warrants in the Wall Street Journal from earlier this year.
Jimmy Percival, Opinion, How the Deep State Thwarted ICE Administrative
Warrants, WALL ST. J. (Jan. 22, 2026), https://www.wsj.com/opinion/how-
the-deep-state-thwarted-ice-administrative-warrants-
1a847297?msockid=1c7a20af356066672520365a34eb6795. The op ed references
a variety of authorities, which include Abel v. United States, 362 U.S.
217, 233 (1960), and United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 778 (8th
Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Questions From Honorable Delia C. Ramirez for Todd M. Lyons
Question 1. Please describe in detail the training that ICE and CBP
officers receive on how to respond to protesters.
Answer. With respect to ICE, students at the ICE Enforcement and
Removal Operations' (ERO) Basic Immigration Enforcement Training
Program (BIETP) receive comprehensive instruction on responding to
protesters in a manner that fully respects Constitutional protections.
Students are taught that the Constitution imposes clear limitations on
their authority, specifically prohibiting law enforcement activity
conducted solely to monitor the exercise of an individual's right to
peaceably assemble, including public demonstrations. When Government
actions may impact this fundamental right, officers must ensure any
intervention is based on a valid law enforcement purpose.
The curriculum emphasizes that officers are prohibited from
initiating investigations solely because of a group's social or
political agenda, from sabotaging or neutralizing such agendas, and
from leading groups into criminal activity that would not otherwise
occur. Students are taught free speech is a fundamental right and are
instructed that officers are not to diminish an individual's ability to
exercise this right. Any law enforcement interference must be related
to an authorized purpose, carried out using the least intrusive method,
and conducted so as not to infringe upon the speaker's ability to
deliver their message. This instruction ensures ERO officers operate
within legal boundaries and uphold the fundamental rights of all
individuals during encounters.
Question 2. Please describe in detail the training ICE and CBP
officers receive on the rights of members of the press who are
reporting on ICE/CBP activities.
Answer. With respect to ICE, students at BIETP are instructed that
the Constitution establishes clear boundaries on an officer's
authority, and that ERO activities must not be conducted solely for the
purpose of monitoring individuals exercising their right to free press.
Students are instructed that newsgathering is protected under the First
Amendment and warrants appropriate Constitutional safeguards.
Accordingly, reporters should not be prevented from reporting,
photographing, or video recording from locations where they have lawful
access. The curriculum reinforces the importance of upholding
Constitutional rights while maintaining operational integrity and
compliance with legal standards.
Question 3. Please describe in detail the training ICE and CBP
officers receive on the rights of observers, and people recording their
activities.
Answer. Please refer to the above response regarding BIETP training
in responding to protesters.
Additionally, students at BIETP participate in Field Operations/
Tactics scenarios that incorporate recognition and practical
application of First Amendment rights, particularly regarding observers
and their right to record. Throughout these exercises, students receive
real-time assessments and evaluations from ERO and ICE Office of the
Principal Legal Advisor instructors to ensure proper understanding and
implementation of Constitutional protections.
Question 4. Do you agree that the right to record law enforcement
activity is a Constitutionally-protected first amendment right?
Answer. Please refer to the above response regarding BIETP training
regarding newsgathering.
Question 5. How is ICE relying on authority from NSPM-7 or
information/databases compiled pursuant to NSPM-7 in its operations?
Answer. ICE does not rely on any authorities granted by the
National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), nor is it
compiling or utilizing any information or databases pursuant to NSPM-7
in its operations.
Question 6a. Reports indicate that at least 36 Salvadoran nationals
were sent to the CECOT between March and April 2025. To date, only
Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been returned to the United States; the rest
are presumed to be in prison in El Salvador, if still alive. In several
cases, family members were able to identify their loved ones through
photos and flight logs and report they had no criminal history or
outstanding arrest warrant in the United States or in El Salvador. In
October and November 2024, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission
issued precautionary measures for 4 individuals whom ICE reported as
having been deported from the United States to El Salvador, but who
could not be located in El Salvador. Media outlets in El Salvador later
reported that the government of El Salvador told the Inter-American
Human Rights Commission that they are in prison in El Salvador as a
result of their initial detention by the United States Government.
Can ICE and USCIS confirm that all Salvadoran nationals sent to the
CECOT had final deportation orders to El Salvador and no pending
appeals or hearings before being put on the planes?
Answer. ICE follows all legal requirements under U.S. immigration
law for aliens in their custody and who are removed from the United
States. Throughout immigration proceedings, aliens maintain the right
to pursue forms of relief as permitted by law and are afforded
appropriate process. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
completes screening interviews in accordance with statutory and
regulatory requirements and applicable guidance upon receipt of a
referral from ICE.
DHS takes its responsibility to protect the homeland against
violent transnational criminal organizations such as MS-13 seriously.
DHS will not allow gang members, cartel affiliates, or other dangerous
aliens to exploit U.S. immigration laws or threaten our national
security and communities.
Question 6b. Do any people remain incarcerated in El Salvador under
the terms of any agreement made between the U.S. Government and the
government of El Salvador?
Answer. DHS defers to the U.S. Department of State (DOS) regarding
any and all agreements between the United States and El Salvador. When
ICE removes an alien with a final order of removal from the United
States, he or she is no longer in ICE custody.
Question 6c. If so, who and what is the legal basis for their
detention in El Salvador?
Answer. DHS defers to the DOS regarding any and all agreements
between the United States and El Salvador.
Questions From Honorable Pablo Jose Hernandez for Todd M. Lyons
Question 1. I share my colleagues' frustration and outrage that
this is the first time we have had ICE and CBP in front of this
committee. The Trump administration said they were going after
criminals, but that is not the reality on the ground. We have seen ICE
and CBP target U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, and
individuals with lawful immigration status. They operate with complete
disregard for people's legal status and their safety.
We also see ICE and CBP's constant illegal actions and abuses
towards individuals with a severe lack of accountability for their
harmful actions. Accountability is the foundation of justice.
Without accountability, crime worsens and trust in the system
breaks down, and the trust in ICE and CBP is at all-time lows. People
do not trust these agencies to keep them safe or do the right thing.
In my district, I've had constituents taken off the streets by CBP
officers, forced onto planes, and carried thousands of miles away to
detention facilities. CBP agents have violated their own policies by
refusing to let my constituents in detention communicate with their
lawyers.
On June 4, 2025, it became publicly known that Puerto Rico's
Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTOP) disclosed personal
information to HSI regarding allegedly undocumented individuals.\14\ On
June 6, 2025, the Governor of Puerto Rico stated that DTOP had complied
with a subpoena and was obligated under Federal law to share this
information to avoid jeopardizing Federal funding.\15\ However, on June
10, 2025, the head of ICE in Puerto Rico publicly contradicted that
claim, stating that no subpoena had been issued and that no such threat
to withhold funding had been made.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/gobierno/notas/ice-y-dtop-
confirman-intercambio-de-informacion-sobre-conductores-inmigrantes-en-
puerto-rico/.
\15\ https://radioisla.tv/gobernadora-reconoce-entregaron-
informacion-sobre-inmigrantes-a-hsi-en-enero/.
\16\ https://www.telemundopr.com/video/primera-pregunta/primera-
pregunta-jefa-de-hsi-dice-que-dominicana-detenida-no-cuenta-con-
estatus-migratorio/2724024/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did ICE, HSI, or any other office under your leadership issue a
subpoena to Puerto Rico's Department of Transportation and Public
Works, yes or no?
Answer. On January 26, 2025, a DHS Immigration Enforcement
Administrative Subpoena was served on the Directoria de Servicios al
Conductor (DISCO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. DISCO is a division within
the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTOP)
responsible for managing driver services, including issuing driver's
licenses and motor vehicle registrations.
HSI routinely issues subpoenas as part of its standard
investigative procedures to obtain records relevant to on-going
investigations. The issuance of subpoenas is a lawful process conducted
in accordance with Federal statutes and agency protocols. HSI has the
statutory authority to issue administrative subpoenas under 8 U.S.C.
1225(d)(4) that allows immigration officers to require the production
of records and evidence relevant to immigration enforcement.
When HSI investigates individuals suspected of being unlawfully
present in the United States, subpoenas may be issued to State and
territorial agencies for data related to driver's license application
or issuance. In these instances, records are sought to verify identity,
residency, and eligibility. Information obtained may be utilized to
support investigative efforts regarding potential violations of Federal
immigration laws. Recipients of subpoenas are required to comply unless
otherwise directed by a court.
Question 2. Was any Federal funding directly, or indirectly,
mentioned, implied, or suggested in communications with Puerto Rico
officials in connection with this data transfer?
Answer. No.
Question 3. If no subpoena existed, under what statutory authority
did ICE obtain personally identifiable information from DTOP?
Answer. As noted above, a DHS Immigration Enforcement subpoena did
exist. The HSI Special Agent in Charge for HSI San Juan stated in
multiple media inquiries (links provided below) that a subpoena had
been issued to DTOP.
El ICE pone bajo la lupa a Puerto Rico: piden listado de
extranjeros con licencia de conducir y otros datos--LA NACION
Redadas y denuncias por venganza: Dentro de la operacion de
deportacion del ICE en Puerto Rico: NPR (Adrian Florido)
Federales obtienen informacion sobre inmigrantes/Federal/
elvocero.com
Primera Pregunta: Jefa de HSI dice que dominicana detenida
no cuenta con estatus migratorio
Seguiran deportando inmigrantes en Puerto Rico! Entrevista a
directora HSI San Juan--YouTube (Sonia Valentin)
Directora del HSI asegura que no haran redadas en escuelas,
iglesias y hospitales--TeleOnce TV/Vivelo.
Question 4a. Has DMV or driver's license data from Puerto Rico been
used in the last 2 years to identify, locate, or target individuals for
enforcement action?
Answer. Yes. HSI has the statutory authority to issue
administrative subpoenas under 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(4) that allows
immigration officers to require the production of records and evidence
relevant to immigration enforcement including Department of Motor
Vehicles driver's license and identification data.
Question 4b. If so, how was that data accessed?
Answer. Driver's license data may be obtained through a DHS
Immigration Enforcement Subpoena issued under the Immigration and
Nationality Act or another appropriate legal mechanism such as a
judicial or grand jury subpoena.
Questions From Honorable Nellie Pou for Todd M. Lyons
Question 1a. Director Lyons: There have been reports that
individuals who have standard immigration check-in meetings at field
offices, including the Newark ICE Field Office, have become detained at
these meetings and have also been subjected to being transferred to
detention facilities outside of the State.
Does DHS or ICE inform individuals prior to these scheduled
appointments regarding its plan to detain and transfer the individual
at this appointment to a detention facility in or out of the State?
Answer. For the safety of the community and staff, to ensure an
alien's presence at their scheduled appointments, and due to the
availability of detention space, an alien is not informed in advance of
their scheduled check-in that they may be detained.
Question 1b. Has ICE provided guidance to field office employees on
detaining and transferring any and all individuals who arrive at field
offices for regularly scheduled immigration appointments?
Question 1c. If yes, please provide all materials related to the
guidance and directives.
Answer. No.
Question 2. During the hearing, Director Lyons committed to
providing me with a list of the names and locations of all individuals
who were detained by ICE in New Jersey and who were sent to other
States and/or countries.
Director Lyons: Please provide a list with the following
information:
i. The full legal name of each individual;
ii. The date each individual was initially detained;
iii. The location where each individual was originally detained;
iv. The date that each individual was transferred to another
facility;
v. The location of the facility each individual was initially
transferred to; and
vi. The current location of the individual (including any location
where the individual was last deported).
Answer. Please see Attachment A.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Due to length and the Law-Enforcement Sensitivity of some
responses, the document has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. Director Lyons: Please provide all information related
to the reported Department of Homeland Security purchase of a warehouse
Roxbury, New Jersey. This includes but is not limited to:
a. The location of the facility;
b. The intended detainee capacity of the facility;
c. Information regarding who will operate the facility (e.g.,
privately-run, Government-run);
d. Expected time line the DHS intends to open the facility to house
detainees;
e. The number of employees that will work at the facility during
any given day;
f. The number and type of medical staff DHS intends to have on
sight at the facility;
g. What, if any, medical capacity and care, the facility will
provide to detainees;
h. A list of, if any, partnerships or agreements between facility
and local hospitals to provide care to detainees that the
facility is unable to provide;
i. The number of designated areas at the facility for in-person
meetings with detained individuals and their lawyers or other
legal service providers;
j. The number of locations and technology at the facility made
available for detainees to conduct confidential legal phone
calls or virtual attorney visits.
Answer. The facility in Roxbury, New Jersey, is the subject of on-
going litigation and ICE is unable to comment about operational
specifics at this time.
Question 4a. Director Lyons and Commissioner Scott: Will ICE and
CBP commit to pausing immigration enforcement operations at and around
the World Cup and other FIFA-related fan events?
Answer. No.
Question 4b. If no, please provide all guidance and information
pertaining to ICE's intended immigration enforcement actions, including
but not limited information regarding:
i. The number of ICE and CBP agents are expected to be present at
the World Cup and other FIFA-related fan events;
ii. The length of time ICE and CBP agents will be present at World
Cup matches and FIFA-related fan events;
iii. The locations ICE and CBP agents intend to patrol and conduct
enforcement activities (including answers on whether agents
will be performing enforcement on public transit such as New
Jersey Transit and the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Line);
Answer. Releasing the specific details ahead of ICE's presence at
any event would place officer and agent's safety at risk. Incidents of
interference with DHS immigration enforcement operations have increased
dramatically. ICE law enforcement and their families continue to be
targeted and doxed, and assaults on our law enforcement staff have
significantly increased. In fiscal year 2025, death threats against ICE
personnel increased more than 8,000 percent, while threats of assault
rose 7,900 percent. Actual assaults on ICE personnel increased more
than 1,305 percent between January 21 and December 1, 2025, compared to
the corresponding period in 2024. Total threats increased roughly 1,000
percent year-over-year.
iv. What training DHS is providing to ICE and CBP to conduct its
enforcement activities;
v. What guidance DHS has provided to ICE and CBP in how to conduct
its enforcement actions;
Answer. ICE officers attend the Basic Immigration Enforcement
Training Program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The
curriculum is designed to expedite training while maintaining the
rigorous standards expected of officers.
Through classroom instruction and scenario-based exercises,
officers are trained to consider a host of factors when conducting an
enforcement action while ensuring that any stop, questioning, or arrest
is supported by appropriate legal standards. ERO Officers are provided
with 14 days of pre-academy training to prepare them for BIETP after
completing 42 days of the BIETP training: For newly-hired officers with
prior Federal, State, or local law enforcement experience who
previously exercised arrest authority, ICE has developed the Virtual
Deportation Officer Training Program (V-DOTP). V-DOTP is an agency-
specific training program delivered via a FLETC on-line training
platform.
V-DOTP provides law enforcement instructional material that focuses
on Title 8 enforcement, specialized training in immigration enforcement
and removal operations, and various other training necessary to ensure
that officers can perform their duties effectively and efficiently.
Finally, all new Special Agents must meet the same training
standards and requirements that have always been required. Special
Agent Trainees are required to complete the Criminal Investigator
Training Program (CITP), which is 62 training days and HSI Special
Agent Training (HSISAT) which is 40 training days; both still have the
same qualifications, competencies, and performance benchmarks. Starting
in October 2025, the HSISAT course was reduced from 65 to 40 days to
remove duplicative and redundant content already covered in CITP or
repeated within HSISAT itself.
Training does not end when recruits graduate from the academy. ICE
officers go through rigorous on-the-job training and mentorship. This
additional training is tracked on-line and monitored closely. The
baseline courses at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provide
a solid foundation for the situations our agents and officers will
encounter in the field. As with most other fields, our workforce never
stops learning. Each office is staffed with senior officials who
mentor, coach, and train agents and officers every step of the way,
preserving ICE's reputation as one of the most elite Federal law
enforcement agencies in the United States.
vi. Any and all coordination plans ICE and CBP are providing to
State and local law enforcement as it relates to immigration
enforcement activities; and
vii. Any and all guidance between ICE, CBP, and State and local law
enforcement when fans or players may be detained by ICE,
including processes to allow detained players or fans to inform
their legal counsel, team, or family members of their
detention.
Answer. ICE will respond to law enforcement agencies (LEAs) working
at World Cup events. ERO Dallas will designate officials who can be
reached as points of contact for immigration-related questions or
concerns. Similarly, ERO Newark will utilize a command center to
coordinate operations and provide real-time support.
Question 5a. Director Lyons: Does DHS have a standard deadline by
which it must provide Congressional offices to receive information from
ICE after submitting constituent privacy forms?
Question 5b. If yes:
i. What is the time frame and is it standardized across all ICE
field offices?
ii. What policies, internal performance standards, or
accountability measures does DHS have in place to work to meet
this time frame?
Question 5c. If no: Will DHS commit to adopting a minimum time line
to provide responses to Congressional offices?
Answer. No. As each case differs in volume and complexity, there is
no standard time line by which ICE responds to Congressional inquiries
after receiving constituent privacy forms. ICE is processing an
unprecedented volume of Congressional inquiries and thanks you for your
patience. Support staff being furloughed or operating without pay for
roughly 100 days in fiscal year 2026 only further contributed to an
already historic backlog of inquiries, and the agency continues to work
tirelessly to mitigate the consequences of Congressional Democrats'
refusal to fully and timely fund ICE. While there is no realistic way
to adopt the requested ``minimum time line,'' ICE works diligently to
provide comprehensive, accurate responses to all Congressional
inquiries while also processing briefing requests, facility visit
requests, and other requests for information, as quickly as possible.
Question 6a. Director Lyons: Does ICE's protocols and procedures
for notifying family or legal counsel when a detainee has become
hospitalized while under its care and supervision, including but not
limited to, sharing information about the date and time of the medical
incident, the current condition of the detainee, and where the detainee
has been transferred to for medical care?
Question 6b. If yes, please provide a copy of the procedures and
guidance.
Question 6c. If no, will DHS commit to swiftly adopting
notification procedures that include immediate notification to family
and/or legal counsel when a detainee has been injured or experiences a
medical emergency?
Answer. ICE's detention standards govern ICE's responsibility of
notifying family and/or legal counsel in the case of hospitalization.
ICE's detention standards are available on its public-facing website
and may be accessed here: https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-
management.
Question 7. Director Lyons: Does DHS have an incentive bonus
(formally or informally provided) for ICE agents to make arrests and
detentions?
Answer. No.
Question 8. Director Lyons: With respect to detainee transfers
conducted by ICE, what procedures are in place to provide advance
notice to a detainee's family members and legal counsel prior to
transfer to another facility?
Answer. Per ICE national detention standards and the ICE directive
on detainee transfers, immediately prior to transfer, the sending
facility will ensure the detainee is informed, in a language or manner
he or she can understand that he or she is being transferred to another
facility and is not being removed. For safety and security, ICE does
not notify a detainee or their family before the transfer takes place.
Detainees are afforded the opportunity to notify family members of
their transfer upon admission to a new facility. To do so, detainees
retain access to telephone and visitation while housed in ICE detention
facilities. ICE notifies the legal representative-of-record of the
transfer as soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours after the
detainee is transferred.
Question 9. Director Lyons and Commissioner Scott: Which law
enforcement entities would have jurisdiction over individuals arrested
or detained at World Cup and other FIFA-related fan events?
Answer. ICE conducts enforcement and removal operations within the
interior of the United States. As a result, ICE agents and officers may
arrest aliens who are in the United States unlawfully and are otherwise
removable from the United States.
[all]