U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is resisting a federal recommendation that would automatically activate agents’ body cameras when they draw their weapons, setting up a dispute over accountability, officer safety, and the recording of sensitive encounters during immigration enforcement operations.

The Department of Homeland Security has rejected the proposed requirement, arguing that automatic recording technology could create serious operational problems, including accidental activation and the unintended recording of confidential interactions.

The disagreement follows a Government Accountability Office investigation that identified shortcomings in body-camera policies, training, and oversight at ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Investigators warned that unclear requirements could result in important enforcement encounters taking place without video documentation.

According to a report published Wednesday by Axios, DHS agreed with six of the GAO’s seven recommendations but declined to adopt the proposal calling for automatic camera activation and additional measures to ensure officers record arrests, searches, and detentions when required.

In explaining its objections, the department said the technology “presents significant operational risks, including inadvertent or false activations during routine movement.”

DHS officials also expressed concern that cameras triggered automatically could record conversations with confidential informants, crime victims, and other individuals whose identities or interactions require protection.

The department further warned that unintended recordings might capture people engaged in constitutionally protected activities, raising privacy and First Amendment concerns.

The dispute highlights a significant difference between the two federal law enforcement agencies. Customs and Border Protection already employs systems capable of activating body cameras automatically when officers draw firearms or turn on emergency lights. ICE, however, has not implemented comparable technology.

The GAO’s examination found that confusion over existing recording rules was widespread enough to raise questions about whether officers consistently understood when they were required to activate their cameras.

At six of the ten locations reviewed by investigators, personnel expressed uncertainty about the circumstances in which recording was mandatory.

Some employees characterized the rules as “not mandated,” “up to interpretation,” or containing “gray areas.”

The uncertainty extended to several common enforcement situations, including searches of vehicles, transportation of detainees, undercover assignments, and interviews with individuals already in custody.

These findings raised concerns that officers might fail to record significant encounters even when agency policy called for cameras to be operating.

The federal watchdog also examined how the agencies handled violations of their body-camera requirements and found remarkably little documented disciplinary action.

From the beginning of ICE’s body-camera program through September 2025, the agency had not issued a single written reprimand for violations of its recording policies.

Customs and Border Protection had issued just one such reprimand during the period examined.

The findings come as federal immigration authorities face growing public scrutiny over enforcement tactics, including several fatal shootings involving ICE personnel.

Body cameras have become a particularly contentious issue as the Trump administration expands immigration enforcement and critics demand greater transparency surrounding arrests and confrontations between federal agents and members of the public.

Earlier this year, White House border czar Tom Homan publicly supported expanding ICE’s body-camera program, emphasizing that the administration wanted Americans to have confidence in the professionalism of federal immigration officers.

Homan said in February that he had discussed the initiative with then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who approved the expansion.

“We have nothing to hide,” Homan said, adding that Americans “seek and deserve professional and trustworthy law enforcement.”

He explained that approximately $20 million included in federal spending legislation would help finance the expansion of body-camera use among immigration agents.

Homan also stressed that the administration would not excuse improper conduct by federal personnel.

“Any misconduct will not be tolerated and will be swiftly addressed,” he said.

At the same time, Homan defended ICE’s enforcement methods, rejecting suggestions that agents were conducting indiscriminate immigration sweeps.

He said officers generally begin operations with specific targets in mind, particularly individuals with criminal records who have been identified for arrest.

“When we leave this building, we know who we’re looking for,” Homan said.

The GAO’s investigation focused on whether ICE and CBP had established sufficient procedures to ensure body cameras were deployed appropriately, officers understood recording requirements, and violations were addressed consistently.

Investigators found that weaknesses in those areas made it difficult for the agencies to assess whether their camera programs were accomplishing their intended purposes.

The watchdog called for clearer operational standards, improved training, stronger oversight, and updated deployment plans that would allow agency leadership to measure the effectiveness of body-camera use.

Although DHS accepted most of the recommendations, its refusal to adopt automatic activation technology leaves unresolved one of the report’s central concerns: how to ensure that critical encounters are recorded when officers are focused on fast-moving or potentially dangerous situations.

The GAO concluded that without more consistent requirements and reliable measures of compliance, federal immigration agencies cannot adequately determine whether their body-camera programs are improving accountability, protecting officers, or strengthening public confidence in law enforcement.