GEOFF BENNETT: A former ICE lawyer and# training instructor who resigned this## month is warning that the agency# has scaled back training hours for## new recruits and is instructing# them to violate the Constitution.

Ryan Schwank told Democrats in Congress this past# week that the academy where he trained cadets## is -- quote -- "deficient, defective, and broken.

"# He says it's part of an effort to turn out new## officers and increase arrests as part of the# Trump administration's crackdown on immigration.

Ryan Schwank is here and joins us now# with his attorney, David Kligerman.

DAVID KLIGERMAN, Attorney for# Ryan Schwank: Pleasure to be here.

RYAN SCHWANK, Former ICE Academy# Instructor: Thank you for having us.

GEOFF BENNETT: Ryan, you have testified# that ICE dramatically .. training program for new recruits# from 72 days to 42 days.

Exactly how## much training was removed and what# type of classes were eliminated?

RYAN SCHWANK: So, out of a 584-hour program,## they cut about 240 hours.

And the classes they# cut included classes on the fundamentals of## the Constitution and the officers' duties# within the structure of our legal system.

They cut out classes on -- multiple classes# on use of force, multiple classes on how to## use their firearms safely.

They took# out testing requirements that were set## to allow us to measure whether or not# the cadets that were coming out of the## academy could actually exercise their# authority in a safe and lawful fashion.

They took out classes that tied back to## our understanding of due process# within the legal system really.

GEOFF BENNETT: DHS, in response to your testimony,## issued a statement that reads in part: "No# training hours have been cut.

Our officers## receive extensive firearm training, are# taught de-escalation tactics, and receive## Fourth and Fifth Amendment comprehensive# instruction," to which you would say what?

RYAN SCHWANK: Well, I would start by# breaking that into a couple pieces.

They said Fourth and Fifth Amendment# instruction.

And that's true,## there is some of that in the curriculum.

But# notice that they don't say anything about the## removal of the First Amendment protections.# They don't say anything about the due process,## right?

They won't deny that part# in the statement they issued.

And, frankly, in that statement, they said no# hours have been cut.

That's simply untrue.

You## can look at the curriculum, which, by the# testimony of Todd Lyons was 42 days out## of a 72-day program, 42 days in the public# statement they issued in January.

And now,## all of a sudden, in the same statement# you're citing to, they say it's 56 days.

They suddenly added two weeks of training# magically the day after I testified.

GEOFF BENNETT: How well prepared do you# believe new recruits are to distinguish## between lawful enforcement activity and# actions that could potentially violate## constitutional protections# like the Fourth Amendment?

RYAN SCHWANK: Well, I will tell you that the# cadets themselves brought their concerns with this## to me.

I had cadets who told me they were not sure# of what their role was or what their duties were.

And to answer your question, no one can tell# you right now that these cadets are fully## prepared to understand the difference between# a lawful and an unlawful order because no test,## no measurement exists for the new cadets# of how they would apply it in practice,## because they specifically removed all of# the testing that would have told us that.

GEOFF BENNETT: At what point did you believe# that it was necessary for you to speak out?

RYAN SCHWANK: I realized the day I arrived# at the academy and I was shown an unlawful## memo that authorized officers and told me# to teach officers to go into homes without## a judicial warrant to make arrests# that there was a serious problem.

And from that day, my goal was to make sure# that I could document and track and see what was## happening with that memo and then to see what was# happening with the academy itself, because it was## kind of like an avalanche.

It started with this# and then thing after step after step after step.

I just saw this massive degradation and# destruction of our training requirements## and the things that we owe to these cadets.

We --# there's a lot of conversation and immigration law## about the rights of the immigrant, and that's# a very important conversation.

But these law## enforcement officers themselves are being done# a terrible disservice, because we are sending## them out into the world without the training# they need to do the job they signed up to do.

GEOFF BENNETT: Generally speaking, who# are these new recruits?

And I asked the## question because one of the Democrats# during your testimony this past week## said that ICE and its recruitment# is appealing to white supremacists.

RYAN SCHWANK: When I was at the academy,# certainly, there were probably people at## the academy who would fit that description.

But# the vast majority of the cadets I worked with## were first- or second-generation immigrants.

They# were average people from across the United States.

I had many cadets for whom English isn't even# necessarily their first language.

In fact,## I remember one particular training scenario, I had# six cadets and not one of them had English as a## primary language.

And it's very hard to argue that# cadets coming into the academy who come from such## a diverse background set are white supremacists,# when most of them are in fact not white.

GEOFF BENNETT: David, what legal# protections does your client have## as a whistle-blower?

And are you# prepared for potential retaliation?

DAVID KLIGERMAN: Yes, unfortunately.

And we see this a lot at WhistleblowerAid.org.# We hav.. environment, the game has changed.

It used to# be that you could come forward to an inspector## general or an Office of Special Counsel.# But those mechanisms have been swept away## by the Trump administration.

In fact, they have# been weaponized against our whistle-blowers.

So clients like Ryan ordinarily could just go# through the ordinary process.

They could remain## anonymous.

There'd be an independent person within# the system who was checking and balancing these.

With that gone, the only option is really to go# to Congress.

And that's suboptimal for a lot of## reasons.

First of all, it's a separate branch# of government, so it becomes adversarial.

And,## secondly, not all the information can be# revealed.

There are certain things that## ultimately clients have that may# be privileged or there are other## things that need to be protected.# So they're only getting a snapshot.

And Ryan's revealed a lot, but it would be# really ideal to go through the agency directly.

GEOFF BENNETT: Were you ever reprimanded,## pressured, or warned about speaking# up internally before you resigned?

RYAN SCHWANK: When I was shown the memo, it was# given to me by a supervisor who made it clear that## the consequence for disagreeing with it was going# to be the loss of my job, loss of my position.

And you could see it in the way the academy# operated.

There was a culture of fear with## all the officers I talked to.

I could have# conversations with officers about the program,## about our concerns, but we wouldn't do# it where other people could hear us.

You could literally see officers who wanted to# talk about the way they thought training was## going turn their heads, look over their shoulders,# and make sure there weren't other people around to## hear them.

And it would be -- literally, I would# have one officer do this, and then maybe the next## day I'm talking to the officer, another officer,# who was the officer he was worried about, right?

One looks over his shoulder# and sees the guy behind him,## and the next day I talk to the guy behind# him, and he's looking over his shoulder at## the guy I talked to the day before, right?# No one trusts anyone in that academy.

No one's willing to put faith in each other# to recognize the problems they have there,## because I think if they did, I think a lot of the# faculty would say, hey, maybe I don't know what## the legal department is doing or the firearms# department is doing, but I know in my unit,## in practical training, we're not measuring# things correctly.

Or I know in my unit,## where we teach the use of our computer# systems, we're rushing through it too fast.

And I think if they all sat down and# talked about it, they would recognize that,## step by step by step, the academy's graduate# and cadets who -- don't have the raw hours,## the raw practice they need# to do the job correctly.

GEOFF BENNETT: Do you see# a link between the training## quality and the fatal shootings# of Nicole Good and Alex Pretti?

RYAN SCHWANK: I do, but it's an indirect# link, and here's why I say that.

The officers involved in those shootings are# not recent graduates.

They're experienced## officers.

The officer in the Renee Good# shooting is a member of the SRT team,## the -- essentially the special response team# that they have at ICE.

That's a difficult## position to get.

You have to have a# good deal of experience to get that.

The officers who are coming out of this academy# have half the training.

And yet they're being## sent to some of the most contentious# and difficult operations ICE has ever## undertaken.

Never in the history of the agency# have they done what they're doing in Minneapolis.

And when you put officers who don't know the# law and don't know use of force policies and## don't have all the training they need# on their firearms into that situation,## it is a recipe for someone else to die,# potentially for multiple people to die.## And it's going to be done by officers# who deserved better from this government.

GEOFF BENNETT: Ryan Schwank, David# Kligerman, thank you both for being here.

DAVID KLIGERMAN: Thank you for having us.

RYAN SCHWANK: Thank you.

I appreciate it.