When Immigration Enforcement Becomes Paramilitary Force

When Rep. John Mannion called ICE "a personal paramilitary unit of the president," he wasn't just using political rhetoric. He was touching on a fundamental question that's quietly reshaping American law enforcement: At what point does a police force become something else entirely?

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations have intensified, the term "paramilitary" has surfaced repeatedly in political discourse. Journalist Radley Balko argues that President Trump deploys ICE "the way an authoritarian uses a paramilitary force," while New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie has characterized the agency as a "virtual secret police."

These aren't casual comparisons. They reflect a growing concern among scholars and observers that America's immigration enforcement has evolved beyond traditional policing into something more militarized—and potentially more dangerous to democratic norms.

The Two Faces of Paramilitary Forces

To understand whether ICE qualifies as a paramilitary force, we need to examine what paramilitaries actually are. According to government professor Erica De Bruin, who studies state security forces, the term carries two distinct meanings.

The first refers to highly militarized police forces that are official parts of a nation's security apparatus. Think France's Gendarmerie or Russia's Internal Troops—forces with military-grade equipment, hierarchical command structures, and the authority to deploy in large units for domestic operations.

The second definition is more troubling: informal armed groups that operate outside regular security sectors, often with government support but less oversight. These "pro-government militias" may receive minimal training and equipment, but they serve a specific political function—preserving the power of current rulers through repression.

Haiti's Tonton Macouts under François "Papa Doc" Duvalier exemplify this second type. Created after a 1970 coup attempt, they became the regime's primary instrument of political repression, surveilling, harassing, and killing ordinary citizens with impunity.

ICE's Militarized Evolution

There's little debate that ICE fits the first definition of a paramilitary police force. Created following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the agency has adopted military weaponry, organizational patterns, and cultural markers that distinguish it from traditional civilian law enforcement.

What makes this significant is how rare such developments are in established democracies. De Bruin's research reveals that the United States is "nearly alone among established democracies in creating a new paramilitary police force in recent decades." Since 1960, only four democratic countries have established new paramilitary police forces: the United States, Honduras, Brazil, and Nigeria.

The numbers are stark. ICE has added approximately 12,000 new recruits in less than a year—more than doubling its size while substantially cutting training requirements. This rapid expansion echoes patterns seen in other countries where paramilitary forces expanded quickly at the expense of professional standards.

Beyond Traditional Law Enforcement

More concerning is how ICE increasingly resembles the second type of paramilitary force—one that operates as a political instrument rather than neutral law enforcement.

The agency faces fewer constitutional restrictions than other law enforcement bodies. Within 100 miles of the border—an area encompassing roughly two-thirds of the American population—CBP can search and seize property without warrants or probable cause requirements that bind other agencies.

Professional standards have eroded significantly. In 2014, CBP's head of internal affairs described post-9/11 expansion as leading to the recruitment of thousands of officers "potentially unfit to carry a badge and gun." The Trump administration's rapid expansion has only exacerbated these problems.

Perhaps most troubling is the agency's increasingly partisan character. In 2016, the ICE officers' union endorsed Trump's campaign with support from more than 95% of voting members. Current recruitment efforts rely heavily on far-right messaging to appeal to political supporters.

Political Deployment Patterns

ICE and CBP have been deployed beyond their immigration mandate in ways that mirror how paramilitaries operate in other countries. Both agencies participated in responses to Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, D.C. and Portland, Oregon during 2020—operations that had nothing to do with immigration enforcement.

According to political scientist Elizabeth F. Cohen, these agencies have gathered data to "surveil citizens' political beliefs and activities—including protest actions they have taken on issues as far afield as gun control—in addition to immigrants' rights."

This surveillance extends beyond their official mandate, resembling the political intelligence-gathering that characterizes paramilitary forces in less democratic contexts.

The Democracy Question

Research consistently shows that militarized policing correlates with higher rates of violence and rights violations without improving public safety or officer security. More troubling, militarized forces prove significantly harder to reform than traditional law enforcement agencies.

The comparison to international paramilitaries isn't academic. When official state forces begin operating with reduced oversight, lower professional standards, and increasingly partisan identities, they can become instruments of political control rather than public safety.

Current tensions between ICE and other agencies, including conflicts with local police in cities like Minneapolis, suggest these dynamics are already creating friction within America's broader law enforcement ecosystem.