Policy Shift Allows ICE at Schools in Rare Cases, DHS Clarifies

(CALIFORNIA) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can conduct enforcement actions at schools after a January policy rollback, but the Department of Homeland Security says agents are not “raiding” campuses or targeting children. In a statement issued on September 9, 2025, DHS said any ICE activity at schools is rare, limited to exceptional cases such as apprehending dangerous felons, and requires secondary supervisor approval. The clarification follows months of alarm in immigrant communities after the Trump administration lifted long-standing protections for “sensitive locations,” a category that had covered schools, churches, and hospitals since 2011.

District leaders in California and across the country report the fear is real. In January and February, local immigration operations surged, especially in California’s Central Valley and major metro areas. School systems documented a 22% spike in daily student absences as families kept children home, worried that ICE might appear near pickup lines or at campus entrances.

Although DHS says the legal standard now allows school-based enforcement, it insists such actions remain unusual and focused on serious public-safety threats—not routine immigration checks. That tension—between a public statement of restraint and a policy that permits access—has shaped the ongoing debate.

What changed and when

The change began on January 20, 2025, when the Trump administration rescinded the 2011 DHS guidance that had restricted ICE activity at sensitive locations. The rollback restored broad discretion to federal officers, allowing enforcement at schools when deemed necessary.

• DHS argues the shift helps ensure criminals cannot use campuses as shields.
• Educators, unions, and legal advocates counter that the change unsettled families and disrupted learning, with attendance drops hitting younger grades hardest.
• Analysis by VisaVerge.com found districts made rapid adjustments, from legal training for staff to no-unwarranted-entry policies and rapid-response communication plans for principals.

By mid-year, enforcement trends amplified community anxiety. By June 2025, non-criminal arrests had jumped more than 800% since April, with less than 10% of those detained holding violent criminal convictions. Advocates say those numbers undercut DHS assurances; federal officials reply that individual campus actions remain sparse and tightly reviewed.

Policy clarification from DHS (September 9, 2025)

DHS’s statement emphasized three central points:

1. ICE does not conduct “raids” at schools—a term the agency called misleading and inconsistent with internal practice.
2. Children are not targeted for arrest on school grounds.
3. Any enforcement at a school must be “exceptional” (for example, pursuing someone with a violent felony record or a child sex offender) and must receive supervisor sign-off before proceeding.

DHS says the current approach is “discretion-forward,” meaning agents should weigh safety and educational impact before acting on campus. But the legal framework no longer forbids ICE from entering schools.

Impact on schools and families

Educators report tangible classroom fallout:

• Teachers hear students ask whether it’s safe to come to school.
• Counselors note increases in anxiety and sleep problems, particularly among children with undocumented parents.
• Principals in large districts (including Los Angeles and major systems across the Midwest and Southeast) have adopted stricter front-office protocols.

Key district steps include:

• Warrant protocols: Staff trained to ask for a judicial warrant and to deny entry without one.
• Legal triage: Contact school attorneys or designated legal liaisons before interacting.
• Central notification: Superintendents and security teams alerted immediately to any federal presence.
• Student protection: Staff instructed not to share student information—especially immigration status—unless legally required.

Unions, such as the National Education Association, promote Safe Zone measures and encourage distributing family rights information. Community groups hand out “Red Cards” that instruct people to:

• Remain silent beyond identifying information,
• Ask to see a warrant signed by a judge,
• Avoid opening doors unless legally required.

Attendance and funding consequences

Attendance declines have financial and academic consequences:

• A 22% absence increase over weeks can translate into reduced funding in districts that tie budgets to average daily attendance.
• Fewer staff and services may follow, and younger students often struggle to regain learning momentum, widening achievement gaps.

Parents face hard daily choices: send a child to class and risk a frightening encounter, or keep them home and risk academic setbacks. Even visible ICE activity near school entrances, bus stops, or drop-off lines can create panic.

Local protocols — what schools should do if agents appear

Legal experts recommend a clear script for K–12 campuses. If ICE agents arrive:

1. Request a judicial warrant signed by a judge. (Administrative or ICE-issued forms are not sufficient for nonpublic areas.)
2. Deny entry without a valid warrant.
3. Call legal counsel immediately and notify district leadership.
4. Follow written protocols and document all interactions.

For families, practical preparation reduces stress:

• Create an emergency plan naming a caregiver to pick up children if a parent is detained.
• Collect key documents (medical records, school contacts) in one folder.
• Attend “Know Your Rights” workshops run by community groups.
• Carry “Red Cards” and rehearse what to say if approached by officers.

Districts are narrowing data collection to reduce risk, limiting staff questions about immigration status and reminding employees that student-privacy laws restrict record sharing. Front-desk staff receive training to handle federal inquiries calmly and to route all requests through legal channels to avoid on-the-spot liability.

The ongoing policy debate and responses

Positions and actions vary:

• The administration and DHS say the rollback restores discretion and prevents offenders from exploiting sensitive locations.
• Educators argue the cost to learning and family stability is too high and that schools (like hospitals and churches) should remain off-limits absent immediate threats.
• Community groups note that increased ICE presence in neighborhoods has indirect but profound effects on campuses: attendance drops, thinner drop-off lines, and persistent fear.

Local and state responses include:

• Drafting resolutions or laws that reinforce warrant requirements and formalize Safe Zone standards.
• Boosting funding for legal hotlines.
• Litigation seeking to restore pre-2025 sensitive-locations protections, which is likely to continue.

Communication, supports, and staying informed

Districts are trying to keep families informed and supported:

• Multilingual FAQs, robocalls about school policy, and open forums with lawyers and counselors.
• Counselors recommend maintaining good attendance and staying connected with principals for discreet support.
• Teachers stress classroom routines—warm greetings and predictable schedules—to help students feel safe.

For official information, DHS posts policy updates and public statements on its website. The department’s clarification—that ICE does not conduct school “raids,” while still allowing limited enforcement at schools with supervisor approval—is the current government position. Official guidance and contacts can be found at https://www.dhs.gov.

Advocates urge families not to rely on rumors and to use known resources:

• Check district websites for local protocols.
• Attend community legal clinics.
• Speak with school counselors about attendance concerns.
• Ask principals what procedures exist, who handles law-enforcement requests, and how schools will communicate during incidents.

Bottom line

The debate over ICE, sensitive locations, and schools sits at the intersection of safety, law, and child well-being. DHS maintains that school arrests are not a tactic and that children are not targets. Educators warn that fear alone can push kids out of class.

Families are responding practically—planning ahead, keeping documents ready, and asking for clear answers. The stakes are measurable: morning attendance counts, lunchroom chatter, and whether a child feels safe enough to raise a hand.

As the year progresses, superintendents plan to keep training staff, tighten front-office protocols, and work with community partners. Some press lawmakers to codify protections mirroring the old sensitive-locations policy; others prefer local procedures for flexibility. Both approaches aim to keep classrooms open, calm, and focused on learning—even as immigration-enforcement debates continue outside school gates.