ICE Mandates Dress Code After Killings and Botched Arrest 58%

By Karl Loftus27%

7/21/2026, 2:05:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 35.8% saturation with 290 hits. Analysis detected 1,390 faulty-reasoning hits from 811 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.8% and a BS Rank of 58% (8,772 of 20,495 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.20% of the article peer group.

Following a pair of deadly shootings by U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, the division of the agency responsible for street arrests and deportations issued a new policy mandating a dress code for field operations. 
The nationwide policy, shared with The Intercept by a Department of Homeland Security whistleblower and confirmed by multiple ICE officers, details a new set of appearance standards aimed at making it easier for the public and fellow law enforcement officials to recognize ICE officers in the field. 
“Law enforcement officers performing field operations shall wear readily identifiable ICE attire, including a ballistic vest during high-visibility operations,” says a guidance memo signed by Acting ICE Director David Venturella . 
“Appropriate field attire includes khaki or coyote brown tactical type pants, paired with an ICE polo, or dark blue or black polo.” 
The memo adds, “Clothing such as jeans, sweatshirts, hoodies, non-collared shirts, or apparel displaying graphics or screen prints is not authorized during field operations.” 
The new directives for ICE’s Employee Code of Conduct came in the wake of a botched arrest last week in Las Vegas by two ICE officers wearing hooded sweatshirts, with one attempting to pull a hood down over his face as onlookers recorded video. 
(ICE did not respond to a request for comment.) 
The officer attempting to make the arrest “looked like a kidnapper,” said one ICE official who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity to protect their livelihood. 
“Ending the era of ICE agents making arrests in hoodies and unbranded street clothes is a long-overdue admission that unidentifiable immigration enforcement is dangerous, instills fear, and erodes public trust,” Nick Wilson, the senior director of public safety policy at Center for American Progress, told The Intercept. 
“Real public safety requires holding federal agents to the exact same standards of visibility, training, state and local oversight, and independent investigations of civil rights violations as local law enforcement.” 
“Ending the era of ICE agents making arrests in hoodies and unbranded street clothes is a long-overdue admission that unidentifiable immigration enforcement is dangerous.” 
Along with the use of masks , ICE officers’ failure to clearly identify themselves amid arrests and other enforcement actions have drawn criticisms from the public and raised the ire of elected officials. 
Attorneys general have pleaded with Congress to pass legislation requiring that ICE officers wear identifying insignia, and members of Congress have themselves urged ICE to require officers better identify themselves to the public. 
Botched Las Vegas Arrest 
The new dress code, two ICE officials told The Intercept, came in direct response to the recent fatal ICE shootings in Texas and Maine and the botched arrest attempt by two plainclothes ICE officers on July 13 at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas. 
“It’s because of the incident that happened in Las Vegas,” said the ICE official. 
Video of the Las Vegas airport incident, recorded by a bystander, shows two people in hooded sweatshirts tackling a man in the middle of a busy terminal. 
After passersby draw near, the officers abandoned the arrest but left the man handcuffed on one hand. 
The man tackled in the video, later identified as Phu Nguyen, a 57-year-old Australian national who allegedly overstayed his visa, was arrested by ICE the following day at Los Angeles International Airport. 
“It blew all our minds,” the ICE official said. 
“It didn’t look professional. 
They didn’t present a badge when they initiated.” 
The new ICE dress code policy mandates that all arresting officers must clearly display an ICE badge while conducting arrests. 
“During low-visibility operations, the ICE badge must remain visible at the time of arrest.” the policy says. 
Another ICE official, who also cited the Las Vegas airport incident, said a wave of new ICE recruits and relaxed training standards had contributed to the lack of professionalism. 
“What an embarrassment the Vegas video was,” said the second ICE official, who also requested anonymity. 
“Those two fucking clowns should’ve been immediately fired. 
Half these fucking new DOs”  deportation officers  “don’t even know the basics of immigration law or how to process an alien. 
They hired a bunch of fucking clowns and they look sloppy as shit.” 
Read Our Complete Coverage 
In a statement to the press, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson blamed bystanders for the botched arrest in Vegas. 
“As officers attempted to arrest Nguyen, a crowd of anti-ICE agitators surrounded officers,” the statement said. 
“To de-escalate the situation and for officer safety, officers did not proceed with the arrest.” 
According to ICE officials who spoke to The Intercept, the new dress code could be the first step toward a major shift in ICE’s long-standing status as a plainclothes agency. 
“I would say the writing’s on the wall,” said one ICE official. 
“I wouldn’t be surprised if we go to a uniformed agency.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.8%Karl Loftus: 2.3%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias8.8%This article: 5.5%Karl Loftus: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias5.5%This article: 2.1%Karl Loftus: 4.3%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Karl Loftus: 9.0%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Karl Loftus: 0.9%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias3.7%This article: 1.4%Karl Loftus: 0.7%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias1.4%This article: 26.8%Karl Loftus: 11.0%The Intercept: 12.5%Negativity Bias26.8%This article: 3.8%Karl Loftus: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 3.6%Karl Loftus: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.5%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Karl Loftus: 0.9%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.5%Karl Loftus: 3.6%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Karl Loftus: 1.2%The Intercept: 2.5%Ad Hominem3.6%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.6%Karl Loftus: 6.4%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority11.6%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.1%Karl Loftus: 0.5%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope5.1%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.5%Karl Loftus: 5.5%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization9.5%This article: 2.0%Karl Loftus: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring2.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.8%Karl Loftus: 4.8%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion6.8%This article: 3.0%Karl Loftus: 0.3%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question3.0%This article: 11.0%Karl Loftus: 5.5%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.8%Karl Loftus: 1.0%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.9%Karl Loftus: 2.2%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal3.9%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.5%Karl Loftus: 2.1%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.5%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 35.8%Karl Loftus: 6.3%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote35.8%This article: 2.8%Karl Loftus: 2.4%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 2.6%Karl Loftus: 2.9%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice2.6%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.4%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 1.6%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.5%Karl Loftus: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.5%

811 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers20%attributed speech652writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Venturella • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageNick Wilson • 47 words • 0.0% coverageNick Wilson • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security spokesperson • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security spokesperson • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security spokesperson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nick Wilson

100%flagged-word coverage
77 attributed words48% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Unattributed Quote-44.5 ptsWriter: 44.5%Nick Wilson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Nick Wilson: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Nick Wilson: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.6 ptsWriter: 0.6%Nick Wilson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.