Trump administration defended immigration agents’ use of banned chokeholds, ProPublica finds

Federal immigration agents used banned chokeholds in dozens of cases, investigation finds

WASHINGTON — Federal immigration agents used chokeholds and other asphyxiation techniques in more than 40 incidents over the past year, according to a ProPublica investigation.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy prohibits these tactics except in cases where lethal force is authorized. The reported incidents occurred during President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign and involved victims ranging from immigrants and protesters to U.S. citizens.

The investigation highlighted a case in Houston where agents placed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen in a chokehold. In another incident in Los Angeles, a masked agent was recorded kneeling on the neck of a woman who was already handcuffed.

Former police and immigration officials who reviewed video of the encounters described the agents' behavior as "out of control."

Trump administration officials defended the agents, stating they "acted professionally" and "followed training protocols."

The report found no evidence that any of the agents involved in the incidents have faced disciplinary action.

A recent analysis by the Saigon Sentinel, drawing on investigative findings from ProPublica, highlights a systemic disconnect between official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy and operational reality on the ground. Despite a formal 2023 ban on the use of neck restraints, the continued and unpunished application of these tactics suggests that the mandate has been effectively nullified by a persistent internal culture of non-compliance.

The public defense of these tactics by high-ranking DHS and White House officials serves as a potent form of political signaling. By shielding agents from the consequences of policy violations, the administration is effectively telegraphing that institutional support remains unconditional. This posture risks fostering a climate of perceived impunity, fundamentally eroding the mechanisms of public accountability intended to govern federal law enforcement.

This shift in enforcement behavior must be viewed through the lens of the Trump administration’s broader mass deportation mandate. The escalating use of force appears less as a series of isolated incidents and more as a systemic byproduct of intense political pressure to meet aggressive removal targets. For immigrant communities, this transforms administrative encounters into high-risk physical confrontations. Furthermore, the increasing prevalence of agents obscuring their identities with masks creates a culture of tactical anonymity, further complicating legal oversight and intensifying the climate of fear surrounding immigration enforcement.

This report has a direct and troubling impact on Vietnamese-American communities, from the hubs of Little Saigon to enclaves across the country. It heightens the fear inherent in any interaction with law enforcement, particularly ICE. For mixed-status families—those navigating the complexities of F2B, H-1B, TPS, or EB-5 categories—the risk of violent confrontations during arrests has become a terrifying reality. This serves as a warning that immigration enforcement is no longer just a matter of processing paperwork; it has become physically dangerous. Small business owners, especially those in the nail salon industry or local phở restaurants, may find their places of business turned into scenes of violent enforcement, endangering the safety of both their employees and their customers.