Federal Immigration Agents Face New Rules: Mandatory Body Cameras, Tear Gas Ban, and Duty to Intervene

The Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act of 2025 is aiming to overhaul how federal immigration enforcement personnel operate, focusing heavily on accountability, transparency, and limiting the use of force. Essentially, this bill is setting new boundaries for agents, requiring them to use force only when absolutely necessary and proportional to the resistance they face. It’s a major shift, mandating that agents consider factors like a subject’s age or disability before acting, and it requires them to make all reasonable efforts to de-escalate tensions first.

The Camera Doesn't Lie: New Rules for Transparency

For anyone concerned about what happens during an enforcement action, the biggest change here is the camera mandate. Within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security must roll out a department-wide directive requiring body-worn cameras for all enforcement personnel and dashboard cameras for all vehicles used in operations. This footage must be set to record by default. Think of it like a dashcam for every encounter, designed to capture the truth on the ground.

Footage will be retained for one year, but that period jumps to three years if the video captures any use of force or if someone files a complaint. Crucially, the bill grants the right to inspect this footage to the subject of the video (or their legal counsel, spouse, or next of kin). This is a big deal for due process, giving individuals and their lawyers direct access to evidence that could be exculpatory in a legal proceeding. It’s a move toward leveling the playing field when disputes arise over enforcement conduct.

Hands-Off: Equipment and Identification Restrictions

This bill restricts some of the gear agents can carry. Specifically, it prohibits the use of crowd-control items like noise flash diversionary devices, rubber bullets, pepper balls, and tear gas. These tools can only be used in two narrow scenarios: during operations targeting illegal entry or when the target poses a public safety or national security threat. Even then, a supervisor must approve a detailed tactical action plan justifying the need for the equipment. This means agents can’t just show up to a protest or an operation with tear gas unless they’ve gone through a rigorous approval process.

Furthermore, agents must wear uniforms or identification that clearly shows their agency status and cannot use the title “Police.” They are also generally prohibited from wearing masks or face coverings, unless they have written supervisor approval because the target is a national security threat or they need to maintain anonymity for future covert operations. This is designed to prevent the public from mistaking federal immigration personnel for local police, and to ensure accountability by making agents identifiable.

The Duty to Intervene and the Reporting Blitz

One of the most significant internal changes is the affirmative duty to intervene. This means that if an agent witnesses another agent using excessive force or force that violates the Constitution, they are legally required to step in and stop it. They must also report the misconduct to their chain of command or the Inspector General. This shifts the burden from passive observation to active responsibility within the ranks.

To keep tabs on all of this, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will have to submit detailed reports to Congress every six months. These reports must track every instance of non-deadly force used, including why it was administered and any accountability measures taken. The bill also requires DHS to create a searchable database of all use of force, significant incident, and civil rights reports. Unredacted versions of this database must be made accessible to relevant Members of Congress, creating a direct line of oversight that bypasses the agency’s internal reporting filters. For the public, a redacted version of this database will also be made available, offering unprecedented transparency into enforcement actions. Ultimately, this bill is trying to ensure that enforcement actions are not only effective but also compliant with constitutional protections and the public's expectation of responsible law enforcement.