THANK God for the brave people who have the courage and integrity to expose the wrongdoing, lies, misinformation, deception and coverups in government and in the private sector. On 26 FEB Mr Schwank shreds the Orwellian lies and deception spewed by National Border Patrol Council President paul perez. perez's statements in this segment of the PBS NewsHour are drumpf / trump-vance administration propaganda, he is complicit in the domestic terrorism, the violations of civil liberties, the violations of human rights and the domestic extrajudicial murders committed by dhs' ice, hsi and cbp gestapo. It is sad paul perez is not as dedicated to representing and protecting the customs and border patrol agents as he is in being an arschlecken drumpf / trump-vance sycophant. These union members deserve better than paul perez. From PBS NewsHour...
'Out of her depth': Kristi Noem gets crushing report card from DHS predecessor 2FEB26
UPDATE VIDEO: HOW BATTLEFIELD TECH WAS USED IN MINNEAPOLIS & ICE’s Theater of War with VIDEO of ice's professionalism 28&29JAN26
Border Patrol union chief defends immigration crackdown and agents' tactics
Feb 25, 2026 6:35 PM EST
Read the Full Transcript
Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.
Amna Nawaz:
President Donald Trump's defense of his immigration agenda during last night's State of the Union address came as public support is falling.
In an NBC News poll released earlier this month, 49 percent of people said they strongly disapprove of how Trump has handled border security and immigration. That's a 15-point jump since last April.
Joining me now is the National Border Patrol Council president. That's Paul Perez. He's representing nearly 18,000 Border Patrol agents. And he attended the address last night as a guest of Texas Senator John Cornyn.
Paul, welcome to the "News Hour." Thanks for being here.
Paul Perez, President, National Border Patrol Council:
Thank you for having me.
Amna Nawaz:
So the president also mentioned last night we're in the midst of this ongoing partial government shutdown, Democrats blocking DHS funding as they push for changes in enforcement tactics.
Has your agency been impacted by that shutdown at all?
Paul Perez:
Yes, our agency is the only one that's impacted. This is a -- they call it a partial government shutdown, but in fact it's only DHS that's not receiving the funding that we need.
That impacts everything from border security to FEMA operations. And so it is going to impact the United States in one way or another.
Amna Nawaz:
So, specifically how? Do you have to make changes in terms of how you're deploying people or what you're able to do right now?
Paul Perez:
Well, so the good thing about the One Big Beautiful Bill is, it allows us to have certain funding for specific matters, but our civilian personnel, most of those people aren't going to get paid during the shutdown. The money that we have for FEMA operations, hopefully, there's no major disasters because that's where there will be severe impacts.
But people like TSA, anybody that's traveling, there's going to be impacts there.
Amna Nawaz:
So we know the Democrats are asking for some changes in enforcement tactics. Asking federal agents to stop wearing masks is one of them. Do your agents wear masks in the field and has that change something you would support?
Paul Perez:
They absolutely do wear masks, and there's a reason for that.
They have targeted our law enforcement officers. The Democrats have targeted our law enforcement officers by asking them to take off their mask. But the reason that they're wearing masks is because our agents and officers are getting doxxed. They're being identified. Their pictures are being put on the Internet. They're looking for their homes. They're looking for their families. They go after them.
So it's about protecting ourselves, protecting our agents, protecting our families, more importantly. But, yes, there's a reason. They have politicized this by coming after our agents. They have demonized and vilified our agents, calling us everything from Nazis, jackbooted thugs, without failing to realize that the Border Patrol is more than 50 percent Hispanic.
Amna Nawaz:
Among the many things Democrats are asking for are also a higher bar for warrants, judicial warrants, instead of administrative warrants, when you're searching private properties. I hear you saying you don't want to give on the masks. Are there concessions you think that could be made here to change enforcement tactics on the ground?
Paul Perez:
That would be very difficult.
That would essentially shut down operations. That would not allow us to target the people that we're going after.
Amna Nawaz:
How would it shut down operations?
Paul Perez:
We'd have to go to a federal judge. We'd have to request a judicial warrant when we have already got an administrative warrant for this person's arrest. This is somebody that's already been through the system, they have already had to due process and they have been ordered deported, either in absentia or they have been going to their hearings and have been ordered to be deported and have not left.
So if we were to have to get judicial warrants, that would mean we have to go to the federal judge and have the federal judge sign on to that for every single person that we have got, which is almost a million people that we have got warrants for. We would have to essentially stop and go do that for every single person.
There's absolutely no way we could continue. And I think that Democrats know that. It would stop it. It would bring it to a grinding halt, because, number one, it's going to be up to the judges to decide whether they give that judicial warrant. And once it's in their pipeline, it stays there until they make a decision.
So if you look at how many people we have got and how many times we'd have to go seek a judicial warrant, we wouldn't be able to apprehend or arrest anybody that we're doing targeted enforcement operations for.
Amna Nawaz:
Paul, big picture here, the Democrats say they want accountability. And they're asking for this after, as you well know, we have had American citizens who've been shot and killed by federal agents, including a Border Patrol agent in one case.
And you're also talking at a time that the majority of Americans feel like the immigration enforcement actions have gone too far. This was related to ICE, but some six in 10 Americans say it's gone too far. Why do you think that is? Why did the American public see it that way right now?
Paul Perez:
Well, I think a lot of it is, the media's misleading the public into how things are going.
If you look at all these incidents, if you look at these operations, these are targeted enforcement operations that these arrest teams are going and executing. It's American citizens it's people from the public that are going out there, they're interfering, they're impeding, and they're getting in the way of our law enforcement officers without local law enforcement help.
And so what that...
Amna Nawaz:
Paul, if I may, American citizens were shot and killed...
Paul Perez:
That...
Amna Nawaz:
... exercising their First Amendment rights. That's not the media misleading people. That happened.
Paul Perez:
But what you don't see, you don't see the full picture. You don't see the actual interference, the impeding.
And what's happening with these American citizens that have been killed in both instances that we're referring to, one by an ICE officer and one by a Border Patrol agent, they interfered. The woman in the car, she refused to follow orders. The gentleman in the...
Amna Nawaz:
You mean Renee Good.
Paul Perez:
Yes, Renee Good and Mr. Pretti.
Amna Nawaz:
Yes. Her partner disputes that, I should say, that she refused to follow. But please.
Paul Perez:
I mean, but there's video to that.
And, again, the investigations are ongoing. These agents and officers have utilized their training. In the specific instance with Pretti, that was a target in enforcement in which the subject they were going after got away because of the interference and the impeding.
And so, yes, I get it. People have lost their lives. But the way the media spins everything, the way they attack our law enforcement officers, they make it seem as if we're out there doing things that are illegal, we're kidnapping American citizens, we're taking people off the streets. That's not what's happening.
And because of that, it leads to the rhetoric. It leads to the interfering. It leads to these people coming out there thinking and believing that we're doing these bad things and causing them to interfere and interject themselves into lawful law enforcement actions. And that's dangerous for everybody.
We have asked -- Tom Homan specifically asked for a couple of things, which was to allow us to go into the jails, into the prisons, and take these people under custody there, so that there doesn't need to be a protection -- a group of agents protecting the arrest teams.
If we could do that, if those things were happening from the get-go, if local law enforcement officers were allowed to work with us and not actually become federal immigration agents, but protect our arrest teams, these things wouldn't have happened.
Amna Nawaz:
Do you think the incidents in which federal agents have fired pepper spray into cars, or broken windows and dragged people from their cars, or shot and injured, if not shot and killed other people, has that contributed to this sentiment that people feel the tactics have gone too far?
Paul Perez:
I think people look at that. They see it.
It's a one-sided story. There's also the story.
Amna Nawaz:
How is that one-sided, sir?
(Crosstalk)
Paul Perez:
Well, because again, we're only seeing the videos of the aftermath. We're only seeing the video of where they're removing somebody forcibly from the vehicle.
What we're not seeing as what led to that action. So if somebody's interfering, if they're impeding, and they don't follow orders to remove themselves from the situation, if they have made a decision that they're going to arrest somebody, then they're going to arrest that person. And then they have to comply.
If they fail to comply, then our agents and officers are trained to remove people from vehicles, people that are noncompliant. What you don't see is that they have actually restrained -- they have used a lot of restraint. We're not using Tasers. We're not using our ASP Batons. We're trying to use the minimum amount of force necessary to effect that arrest.
And, oftentimes, these people, they fight back, they physically assault our agents and officers. And so they do have to use force. That's what everybody's seeing. They're not seeing the lead-up to that.
Amna Nawaz:
I would assume, in the interest of more transparency, you would support body camera usage then across the agents?
Paul Perez:
Our agents have had body cameras for a couple of years now.
Amna Nawaz:
Across the board? That was something I believe Secretary Noem just said recently would be employed.
(Crosstalk)
Paul Perez:
We have got a few people that we -- that do not have body-worn cameras, but a good majority of our agents have had body cameras for a couple of years.
We haven't outfitted every single agent because it went by sector. They were looking at where they needed them, where there was a lot more apprehensions. And so that's how we were able to allocate those body cameras. But not everybody has them.
Amna Nawaz:
You would support everyone having them?
Paul Perez:
But everybody that's been on these deployments has used body-worn cameras.
Amna Nawaz:
Well, I do want to ask you about those deployments, because I should also say I have spent a lot of time with your agents on the U.S. southern border. I have watched them handle large groups of people coming across the border, taking care of children when they're coming unaccompanied or when their parents are not there to take care of them.
They are now being deployed to interior cities, which is a very different environment, to Chicago and Minneapolis, and having to deal with urban environments and protesters who are exercising their First Amendment rights. Are they being put in a situation that's unfamiliar to them without the right training and tools? Do you worry about that?
Paul Perez:
I believe the training tools have always been there. We have that type of training.
There have been instances where people have tried to ram through the ports of entry, and our agents have been out there to support our CBPOs, CBP officers, and they have got that training. They have got riot control training.
Now, is it something that they do every day? Absolutely not. I don't think any law enforcement agency does that every day unless you're in large cities like Los Angeles, D.C., or New York City. But, yes, our agents and officers have that training.
As far as what they're doing on the interior, that's over. They're back to the border. We have got almost all of our agents back to the border. We have got the most secure border that we have ever had in the history of this country. And so I think that's where they're going to stay.
Amna Nawaz:
And we should point out those encounters at the southern border with migrants are down at 50-year lows. So there is a big change there at the border.
Bottom line here, people say they believe some of these tactics are making Americans less safe. What can you do, what can you say to earn back the trust of the American public?
Paul Perez:
Well, people have to look at the facts. They have to understand who we're actually going after, who we're actually taking off the streets, who we're removing, putting on these deportation flights, or we're locking them up in the United States because they're that bad.
There are some people that we have apprehended that have spent time in state or federal prison that we're not going to just deport to another country because they're going to do time here in the United States. And so that's what they have got to look at, the facts of who we're actually removing from the streets, making America safe again.
Amna Nawaz:
If I may, to that point, the data shows some 74 percent of people who are currently detained have no criminal record. So how does that jibe with the message of making America safer?
Paul Perez:
So, again, our targeted enforcement, we're going after the worst or the worst.
Now, what people...
Amna Nawaz:
Seventy-four percent of people, though, have no criminal record.
(Crosstalk)
Paul Perez:
What people don't see is that a lot of the people that we're apprehending in conjunction with those arrests are people that are there.
So we're not going to turn a blind eye to anybody that's illegal. So if you're illegal while we're doing a targeted enforcement, whether it's a vehicle stop, whether it's a house where we go and take somebody into custody, if everybody there is illegal, they're going to be taken into custody. And that's where a lot of those people that you refer to that are not -- that don't have criminal histories, that's where they're getting arrested as well.
Amna Nawaz:
You would agree that that's different than the worst of the worst you're targeting, though? Seventy-four percent of people would not be considered the worst of the worst in your mind?
(Crosstalk)
Paul Perez:
These -- the worst of the worst are the people that we're targeting. These are the criminals. These are the rapists, the murderers, those people that have warrants of arrest, not only in our country but other countries. Those are the people that we're targeting.
And, again, other people that happen to be taken into custody, those count towards the arrest numbers, but the worst of the worst are the ones we're going after with targeted enforcement.
Amna Nawaz:
That's the National Border Patrol Council president, Paul Perez, joining us here today.
Paul, thank you for your time.
Paul Perez:
Thank you.
Amna Nawaz:
We really appreciate you being here.
Paul Perez:
Yes, I appreciate it.
Whistleblower warns ICE has slashed training for recruits
Feb 26, 2026 6:30 PM EST
Read the Full Transcript
Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.
Geoff Bennett:
A former ICE lawyer and training instructor who resigned this month is warning that the agency has scaled back training hours for new recruits and is instructing them to violate the Constitution.
Ryan Schwank told Democrats in Congress this past week that the academy where he trained cadets is -- quote -- "deficient, defective, and broken." He says it's part of an effort to turn out new officers and increase arrests as part of the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration.
Ryan Schwank is here and joins us now with his attorney, David Kligerman.
David Kligerman, Attorney for Ryan Schwank: Pleasure to be here.
Ryan Schwank, Former ICE Academy Instructor:
Thank you for having us.
Geoff Bennett:
Ryan, you have testified that ICE dramatically shortened its training program for new recruits from 72 days to 42 days. Exactly how much training was removed and what type of classes were eliminated?
Ryan Schwank:
So, out of a 584-hour program, they cut about 240 hours. And the classes they cut included classes on the fundamentals of the Constitution and the officers' duties within the structure of our legal system.
They cut out classes on -- multiple classes on use of force, multiple classes on how to use their firearms safely. They took out testing requirements that were set to allow us to measure whether or not the cadets that were coming out of the academy could actually exercise their authority in a safe and lawful fashion.
They took out classes that tied back to our understanding of due process within the legal system really.
Geoff Bennett:
DHS, in response to your testimony, issued a statement that reads in part: "No training hours have been cut. Our officers receive extensive firearm training, are taught de-escalation tactics, and receive Fourth and Fifth Amendment comprehensive instruction," to which you would say what?
Ryan Schwank:
Well, I would start by breaking that into a couple pieces.
They said Fourth and Fifth Amendment instruction. And that's true, there is some of that in the curriculum. But notice that they don't say anything about the removal of the First Amendment protections. They don't say anything about the due process, right? They won't deny that part in the statement they issued.
And, frankly, in that statement, they said no hours have been cut. That's simply untrue. You can look at the curriculum, which, by the testimony of Todd Lyons was 42 days out of a 72-day program, 42 days in the public statement they issued in January. And now, all of a sudden, in the same statement you're citing to, they say it's 56 days.
They suddenly added two weeks of training magically the day after I testified.
Geoff Bennett:
How well prepared do you believe new recruits are to distinguish between lawful enforcement activity and actions that could potentially violate constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment?
Ryan Schwank:
Well, I will tell you that the cadets themselves brought their concerns with this to me. I had cadets who told me they were not sure of what their role was or what their duties were.
And to answer your question, no one can tell you right now that these cadets are fully prepared to understand the difference between a lawful and an unlawful order because no test, no measurement exists for the new cadets of how they would apply it in practice, because they specifically removed all of the testing that would have told us that.
Geoff Bennett:
At what point did you believe that it was necessary for you to speak out?
Ryan Schwank:
I realized the day I arrived at the academy and I was shown an unlawful memo that authorized officers and told me to teach officers to go into homes without a judicial warrant to make arrests that there was a serious problem.
And from that day, my goal was to make sure that I could document and track and see what was happening with that memo and then to see what was happening with the academy itself, because it was kind of like an avalanche. It started with this and then thing after step after step after step.
I just saw this massive degradation and destruction of our training requirements and the things that we owe to these cadets. We -- there's a lot of conversation and immigration law about the rights of the immigrant, and that's a very important conversation. But these law enforcement officers themselves are being done a terrible disservice, because we are sending them out into the world without the training they need to do the job they signed up to do.
Geoff Bennett:
Generally speaking, who are these new recruits? And I asked the question because one of the Democrats during your testimony this past week said that ICE and its recruitment is appealing to white supremacists.
Ryan Schwank:
When I was at the academy, certainly, there were probably people at the academy who would fit that description. But the vast majority of the cadets I worked with were first- or second-generation immigrants. They were average people from across the United States.
I had many cadets for whom English isn't even necessarily their first language. In fact, I remember one particular training scenario, I had six cadets and not one of them had English as a primary language. And it's very hard to argue that cadets coming into the academy who come from such a diverse background set are white supremacists, when most of them are in fact not white.
Geoff Bennett:
David, what legal protections does your client have as a whistle-blower? And are you prepared for potential retaliation?
David Kligerman:
Yes, unfortunately.
And we see this a lot at WhistleblowerAid.org. We have clients who come forward. And in this environment, the game has changed. It used to be that you could come forward to an inspector general or an Office of Special Counsel. But those mechanisms have been swept away by the Trump administration. In fact, they have been weaponized against our whistle-blowers.
So clients like Ryan ordinarily could just go through the ordinary process. They could remain anonymous. There'd be an independent person within the system who was checking and balancing these.
With that gone, the only option is really to go to Congress. And that's suboptimal for a lot of reasons. First of all, it's a separate branch of government, so it becomes adversarial. And, secondly, not all the information can be revealed. There are certain things that ultimately clients have that may be privileged or there are other things that need to be protected. So they're only getting a snapshot.
And Ryan's revealed a lot, but it would be really ideal to go through the agency directly.
Geoff Bennett:
Were you ever reprimanded, pressured, or warned about speaking up internally before you resigned?
Ryan Schwank:
When I was shown the memo, it was given to me by a supervisor who made it clear that the consequence for disagreeing with it was going to be the loss of my job, loss of my position.
And you could see it in the way the academy operated. There was a culture of fear with all the officers I talked to. I could have conversations with officers about the program, about our concerns, but we wouldn't do it where other people could hear us.
You could literally see officers who wanted to talk about the way they thought training was going turn their heads, look over their shoulders, and make sure there weren't other people around to hear them. And it would be -- literally, I would have one officer do this, and then maybe the next day I'm talking to the officer, another officer, who was the officer he was worried about, right?
One looks over his shoulder and sees the guy behind him, and the next day I talk to the guy behind him, and he's looking over his shoulder at the guy I talked to the day before, right? No one trusts anyone in that academy.
No one's willing to put faith in each other to recognize the problems they have there, because I think if they did, I think a lot of the faculty would say, hey, maybe I don't know what the legal department is doing or the firearms department is doing, but I know in my unit, in practical training, we're not measuring things correctly. Or I know in my unit, where we teach the use of our computer systems, we're rushing through it too fast.
And I think if they all sat down and talked about it, they would recognize that, step by step by step, the academy's graduate and cadets who -- don't have the raw hours, the raw practice they need to do the job correctly.
Geoff Bennett:
Do you see a link between the training quality and the fatal shootings of Nicole Good and Alex Pretti?
Ryan Schwank:
I do, but it's an indirect link, and here's why I say that.
The officers involved in those shootings are not recent graduates. They're experienced officers. The officer in the Renee Good shooting is a member of the SRT team, the -- essentially the special response team that they have at ICE. That's a difficult position to get. You have to have a good deal of experience to get that.
The officers who are coming out of this academy have half the training. And yet they're being sent to some of the most contentious and difficult operations ICE has ever undertaken. Never in the history of the agency have they done what they're doing in Minneapolis.
And when you put officers who don't know the law and don't know use of force policies and don't have all the training they need on their firearms into that situation, it is a recipe for someone else to die, potentially for multiple people to die. And it's going to be done by officers who deserved better from this government.
Geoff Bennett:
Ryan Schwank, David Kligerman, thank you both for being here.
David Kligerman:
Thank you for having us.
Ryan Schwank:
Thank you. I appreciate it.
