New Paragraph

U.S. ICE/Border Patrol: Where is the true leadership?
January 26, 2026

It’s certainly not Bovino, Noem and higher.


Over the past several months the U.S. President’s seemingly valid promise to close the southern border and to rid the U.S. of illegal aliens who are “killers, rapists, drug dealers and individuals from mental institutions” has evolved into something less defendable. Like him or not, it was tough to argue with the public safety need to deport dangerous criminals back to whence they came. I wish Canada would do the same, but in a more strategic way. Chasing undocumented women through Home Depot and dragging U.S. citizens out of vehicles on Main Street – while clad in mostly civilian attire, screaming profanities and with covered faces, has not worked well for ICE and CBP, in terms of public perception and community trust.


Enforcing these laws is not easy for those agencies, even when acting within their legislative framework and with probable cause. Angry crowds; individuals with far-left anti-government convictions who just want to hijack the agenda and commit violent acts; and the doxing of federal agents to cause threats to them and their families, cause untold stress on and danger to law enforcement. None of that is justified and is most often a crime. 


The public needs to stay out of these operations. If someone interferes with the agents and/or their lawful operations, they should expect to be arrested. Placing cameras in officers faces or trying to obstruct them as they conduct an activity, does nothing but raise the temperature of the operation and will end with the placement of handcuffs. Videoing from afar is different, but some take it to the next level. If they threaten anyone with a weapon of any kind, they should anticipate being shot and perhaps killed. That is reality. 


But at the same time, law enforcement cannot exist without public trust. If the various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entities that are conducting these operations always acted as per the original strategy and didn’t often violate the rights of people based on the look or colour of so-called “suspects”, as professionally as possible, there would likely not be such an inflammation of the normal American citizen psyche. After all, Trump was elected in part based on his stated “criminal illegal alien” agenda. However, the way his goal was operationalized and the questionable tactics often publicly witnessed has denigrated the trust of many citizens on both sides of the political spectrum.


The most recent loss of life occurred in Minneapolis Minnesota on Saturday January 24th. I won’t pass final judgement on the actions of the agents involved in the shooting death of the U.S. citizen there before the results of a professional and unbiased investigation are released. I was obviously not on the ground with those officers to see and hear all they did from their various positions and angles. 


I have watched all the videos that have been posted, however, and I will say this: “At this point, it does not look good.”


When I was a police commander and received information from the field of a critical incident, the initial information was seldom accurate. In fact, over the hours to follow it changed regularly. I would not make any proactive statement to the media, but if asked, I would simply say that we had the proper resources on the ground and I would await verified information, etc. If it was an officer involved shooting or chase that involved injuries or death, I would follow the protocol of the mandatory independent investigation, and would generally say: “It’s undoubtedly a tragic situation, and my thoughts are with the involved officers, citizens and their families, but it is an ongoing investigation and I cannot provide any more information than that.”


But what is the DHS leadership saying? What are elected officials saying? Some have already defended the agents and others – like the Governor, are damning them. 


Within hours of the shooting CBP Commander Greg Bovino publicly defended the actions of the officers, saying that the deceased man had been armed and that the suspect intended to “do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Yes, he was armed, according to local police, but lawfully licensed to do so according to the 2nd Amendment that many Americans treasure. Regardless, it is not clear in any video so far that the man held anything but a camera in his hand when brought to the ground, and Bovino himself could not bring any clarity to his early statement when asked by the press on Sunday morning. He simply fell back to letting the investigation run its course. Sorry Greg, you’re a day late and a dollar short on that one. 


Then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told the media, “This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.” She acts like the deceased man brandished a gun and threatened the officers. Trump administration officials then called the dead man a “would-be assassin.” If that was the case, being shot and killed should have been the expectation, but are we seeing that? Not so far. 


How does any of that banter from so-called leaders lend itself to public confidence for an independent investigation that they can trust? True ‘leadership’ involves doing what is right for the people you serve first and foremost, closely followed by the people you lead. These comments do not exhibit leadership at all. 


ICE and CBP normally operate in enforcement environments at or near (within a hundred miles of) international border points. They absolutely make dangerous arrests at times. But are they selected and trained to operate within the urban environments we are currently witnessing? Perhaps to a degree, but DHS has hired thousands of agents this past year who have received abbreviated training. That’s never a good thing from organizational and officer risk perspectives. I’m not saying normal ICE/CBP agents aren’t as trained and capable as local and state police officers. I’ve known many and they were wonderful officers, but their basic training cannot be the same. Their operating environments may overlap but are generally different. Similarly, most local cops aren’t trained in border enforcement and immigration laws and practices either.


In the Minneapolis situation, local police are not supporting the operational activities of the federal agents. The Chief of Police and Mayor are both publicly opposed. Support by local police should be a given – not for random stops of people that look Hispanic and yelling demands for proof of citizenship, but during valid probable cause arrests and the execution of warrants. To stand and watch DHS officers who are unprofessionally targeting innocent U.S. citizens – including off duty local police officers of colour, comes with a loss of public trust as well as ethical and civil liability conflicts. However, I do believe it is the duty of local police to protect DHS agents who are being attacked in the street. 


DHS should put an immediate halt on any operational activities outside of international border points and pull back from municipalities. Municipal and state police leaders across the country must put their heads together with DHS officials and sort out who does what and how, very quickly. The need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and rules of engagement for their agencies and their people on the street. By being intelligence-led; conducting thorough investigations; working cooperatively and professionally through their varying legislative authorities as they search for and arrest undocumented criminals, they may be able to restore some level of public trust. This cannot continue as is.


CBP’s Greg Bovino gave a passionate speech on Sunday afternoon where he spoke of “choices” made by protestors, politicians and the media. It was apparent that he was passing blame on everyone but the DHS in this debacle. Undoubtedly there have been poor choices by many but come on, man. You, the DHS Secretary and your ICE counterpart need to make the “choice” to pause, reflect, regroup and strategize for the good of the people you serve, the American people. Then your President needs to make the right choice and support the change. 

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

By Chris Lewis • March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.