Local Police Figured Out Body Cameras Years Ago. Why Hasn’t ICE?

In the past week, federal immigration agents shot and killed two men—one in Houston, Texas, and one in Biddeford, Maine. Neither shooting was captured on a body camera because the agents involved were not wearing them. In Maine, grainy security camera footage is the closest thing investigators have to an objective record of what happened. When a reporter asked border czar Tom Homan why the agents did not have cameras, his response was “Good question,” suggesting he believes they should have been.

It is a good question.

Body cameras are now standard-issue equipment for most American police. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, by 2020 every local police department serving 1 million or more residents used body cameras, as did more than 90 percent of departments serving at least half a million residents. Nearly four in five U.S. police officers wear them regularly, yet the federal rollout has been delayed repeatedly.

Setting aside the broader immigration debate, this is not a question of enforcement policy or tactics—it is a question of whether armed federal agents should follow the same rules as the average county sheriff’s deputy or beat cop.

Millions in Funding, but Still No Cameras

Upon taking office in 2025, President Trump quickly revoked a Biden-era executive order that had mandated body cameras for all federal law enforcement officers. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was one of the first agencies to drop them.

The killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis prompted the administration to reverse course, with then-Secretary Kristi Noem pledging a nationwide rollout “as funding becomes available.” In April, Congress appropriated $20 million to procure, deploy, and operate at least 5,000 body cameras. Just two months later, a $70 billion package gave ICE and the U.S. Border Patrol enough flexible funding to outfit every federal agent many times over.

Despite the millions in funding, none of the agents involved in the Houston and Biddeford shootings were wearing cameras. According to the Department of Homeland Security, just over half of ICE field offices have body cameras so far, with the rest scheduled to follow “in the next 60 days.” Even then, the department’s stated goal falls short by promising only one camera per team rather than one per agent.

As body cameras spread to the retail sector and beyond, continued delays at the federal level are beginning to sound less like logistical challenges and more like excuses. It is worth noting that acquiring hardware is only half the battle. For the technology to serve its intended purpose, it must be paired with detailed policies governing who wears a camera, when it must be activated, how long footage is retained, when footage is released to the public, and what happens to an officer who fails to record.

State and Local Agencies Offer a Proven Model

Many states settled these questions years ago.

For example, Nebraska established statewide body-camera standards in 2016, requiring even its smallest police departments to adopt written rules governing their use. Yet the federal government—with its vastly greater resources—still cannot ensure that immigration officers consistently wear cameras (much less follow a uniform policy).

The slow rollout reflects the Trump administration’s general skepticism of body cameras, putting it at odds with the consensus among law enforcement professionals, who increasingly view body cameras as indispensable public safety tools. Video evidence shields officers from false allegations at least as often as it exposes misconduct, with departments that use body cameras generating fewer complaints against officers. Any agency that believes its personnel are acting lawfully should want every officer to have one.

Furthermore, when an officer uses deadly force on behalf of the government, the public deserves to know whether it was justified.

None of this requires radical new policymaking—it only requires Washington to take a page from the local law enforcement agencies that have been operating body cameras successfully for years. The federal government does not lack the money, the technology, or the institutional experience to equip its agents with body cameras. What it lacks is the commitment to finish the job.