By Richard F. Hamm
As the actions of agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement come under intense scrutiny, it’s worth noting that a little more than 100 years ago, another expansion of federal policing – to enforce national Prohibition – also sparked nationwide concern.
As a U.S. history scholar, I know both the government agencies charged with enforcing national Prohibition in the early 20th century and with mass deportation in the early 21st century were hastily expanded. They were asked to achieve difficult objectives and were staffed by sometimes poorly trained people who at times resorted to violence.
National prohibition enforcement
When Congress approved the Volstead Act in 1919 that outlawed the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcoholic liquors, it purposely limited the number of Prohibition enforcement officials due to pressure from powerful dry lobbying groups, which supported the prohibition of alcohol sales and consumption. These groups thought the majority of the Prohibition policing would be done by states.
The Volstead Act also exempted Prohibition agents from civil service laws, which would have required job applicants to pass certain minimum standards. The exemption was written into the law because the prohibitionist lobby only trusted committed “drys” – people resolutely dedicated to maintaining an alcohol-free society – to do the enforcing, and they thought that they would control the appointments.
For the first years of Prohibition, the Bureau of Prohibition belonged to a division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue – some were converted alcohol tax collectors. Then they became part of the Bureau of Prohibition in the Treasury Department. And in 1930, they moved to the Department of Justice.
These moves to various bureaus and departments reflected attempts to curtail corruption, reduce the influence of the prohibitionists on staffing, and increase effectiveness. Despite the moves, funding and training for Prohibition agents never improved. Additionally, in an effort to cut government spending during the Great Depression, the Herbert Hoover administration cut Prohibition agents’ per diem pay from US$6 to $5.
The initial group of Prohibition agents were either committed prohibitionists or “political hacks with little law enforcement experience,” according to author W. J. Rorabaugh. The hacks, Rorabaugh wrote, soon outnumbered the prohibitionists.
Bettmann/Getty Images
In 1927, Federal Circuit Judge William S. Keynon said that “three-fourths of the 2,500 dry agents are ward heelers and sycophants named by the politicians.” The assistant attorney general in charge of Prohibition enforcement, Mabel Walker Willebrandt, said that Prohibition agents were “as devoid of honesty and integrity” as those who violated Prohibition laws.
When Prohibition agents were placed under the civil service, 60% of them failed their civil service tests. In a six-year period beginning in 1920, 752 Prohibition officials lost their jobs for delinquency or misconduct. Drunkenness and bribery were the two main reasons for dismissal.
In 1930, the 1,450 front-line Prohibition agents dwarfed the 350 FBI field agents across the country. They were the largest federal law enforcement body, and they were busy.
From 1921 to 1930, they averaged over a half-million arrests per year. They seized over 45,000 automobiles, and by their own account, Prohibition agents killed 89 people.
However, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment calculated that about 1,000 people were killed in enforcing Prohibition.
Endemic violence
Federal officials authorized Prohibition agents’ use of violence. One official told U.S. Sen. Wesley Jones, a strong prohibitionist, that some bootleggers “deserve a good killing, and I am not losing any sleep if now and then a bootlegger is killed.”
But Prohibition agents did not just shoot criminals. The Washington Herald detailed in 1929 a pattern of reckless use of force, with prohibition agents shooting at the tires of escaping cars and accidentally firing weapons. In 1924, within blocks of the U.S. Capitol, a Prohibition agent who was firing at a fleeing car carrying a bootlegger accidentally shot Sen. Frank L. Greene of Vermont. Greene, wounded in the head, never fully recovered the use of one arm.
The author Daniel Okrent illustrated the link between trigger-happy officers and shoddy recruitment and training when he detailed the case of “the first agent to kill a suspect bootlegger in the line of duty.” The Prohibition agent had been accepted into service under a false name. He was not a stranger to killing, as he had killed a man when he was 14. He had also served multiple prison terms. Indeed, he was given his badge when “still incarcerated at Dannemora State Prison,” according to Okrent.
Kerem Yucel/ AFP via Getty Images
The parallels between Prohibition and the Trump administration’s mass deportation tactics are not identical. Prohibition was more unpopular in much of the country compared with mass deportation. And Congress was not willing to adequately pay for Prohibition enforcement, while it has generously funded ICE.
Several reports detail ICE’s recent massive expansion. In early January 2026, the agency announced it grew by 120%, adding 12,000 agents to the existing force of 10,000, which raised concerns among lawmakers about lowered training standards to meet recruitment targets. Other accounts reveal lax vetting, insufficient training and past officer misconduct.
But both efforts share important similarities. They were hastily built, with agents who were asked to do something very difficult, and staffed by sometimes poorly trained people who were authorized to use force.
Richard F. Hamm is Professor of History at the University at Albany, State University of New York.
mkr says
but I completely irrational article. confusing two completely unrelated topics to push a particular agenda. isis just following federal law and keeping criminals at our country who do not belong here and making sure they don’t become future Democrats what a wonderful concept let’s keep moving forward. anyone who loves their country should support ice doing their job. and if you don’t like ice why do you live here?
Deborah Coffey says
More to the point, why do you live here if you don’t like democracy? It was a Republican Congress that passed Prohibition in 1919 and overrode President Wilson’s (Democrat) veto, not caring one whit what the American people thought about it! It’s the same now. If your goal is to make sure no one should become future Democrats, where do you think that hatred will get you? Complete control of everyone? Sounds like you’d be much happier in Russia or China or a host of other authoritarian countries. It’s historic with tons of data that Democrats rule FOR the people; Republicans rule for rich business people, lying to the people that the wealth will trickle down…which it never does and never will. Which party was responsible for the Great Depression and for almost every single Recession thereafter? Right, the Republican Party. And, I’m sure you’re familiar with Hitler and the fact that he only cared about the White race, which he thought superior. Still can’t see the connections in this article? Unfortunate….
PaulT says
The only successful approach to the narrow minded irrationality of prohibition was to abandon it as futile.
The same should be applied to the current narrow minded approach tp immigration. By all means secure the borders and detain and deport violent or persistent criminals after due process.
But stop the carte blanche pursuit of all undocumented immigrants who are already in this country, instead provide a route to legal work authorization and eventual residence..
Ed P says
Hello PaulT,
The following post is not intended to be anything other than pointing out the potential reality and financial cliff of doing nothing that would befall us.
If the 2020-2025 cohort of illegal immigrants is economically isolated as a group by age, education, and skills, the financial cliff reveals itself in 25-30 years. You can’t just lump that surge in with every other historical surge, because those groups are already accounted for in the estimates. The groups can’t be conflated if you want an honest view.
Yes, many have found work after months of being on welfare and are positively contributing to the economy. Many will have children who will be citizens but are eligible for welfare. In the short term, they do send home a sizable amount of their incomes which doesn’t help because it doesn’t cycle through the economy. Many will pay taxes and even social security while they can perform the labor laden work their education, lack of English, and skill set mandates. It will take 20+ years to educate their children before allowing them to contribute.
Once the parental cohort reaches the age/ health that they can no longer work, ask yourself now what?
Even though they contributed, there is still a conservative estimate of a $150 billion dollars per year cost when all costs from local, state and federal are accounted for.
There is a smoke/mirrors figure that claims they are net positive. That ignores the local and state costs. But local expenses can’t be ignored. Taxpayer are paying. They are real.
Then in “retirement”, this group is not legally eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other retirement benefits, even though may have paid in something when working.
We can’t just let them starve or die homeless, so who houses and feeds 15-20 million non citizens? It’s a financial time bomb because the national debt/deficit is already stressed and Congress does not understand fiscal restraint. No one wants anything cut. A 150 trillion dollar federal debt could be in the headlights.
Do we simply place that financial burden on our grandchildren or address the reality and scope of the issue?
If we follow your plan but don’t achieve an explosive GDP, north of 6-7% for a decade (let’s hope Trump is right about the golden age) then we will be in fact to blame for the miserable indentured life we leave for our grandchildren.
Any other plausible solutions? Simple math slaps us into reality.
Hope and prayer is a solid strategy either.
Deborah Coffey says
Not one set of data to confirm all your numerous statements (conjectures)? Really? BTW, Trump hasn’t been right or TRUTHFUL about anything…ever. And, to provide all of that data would take several volumes.
Ed P says
Hello Ms Coffey,
In response to your post, I wish you were right.
This perfect storm has been brewing for decades.
The financial cliff I referenced will be more of a reckoning when the only way out will be massive congressional spending cuts.
Look left, look right. There’s blame enough for everyone.
Denying the inevitable or believing a few out lying liberal analysts that this isn’t coming may make people feel better.
I’m sounding the alarm bells earlier rather than later to ameliorate the pain and suffering.
Research it for yourselves. Our elected officials aren’t going to tell us because their time lines are 4 or maybe 8 years.
Reality comes knocking according to basic math in 10-15 years and our leaders don’t see it coming.
Here’s how big the problem is.
A 100 trillion dollar federal debt is probable in 30years. At just current rates, we add 1 trillion every 5 months. We are at 38+ trillion now. Even with zero increases for inflation.
30 years x 12 months = 360
360 divided by 5 months = 72 trillion more in debt.
Current 38+72=110
Just the math.
My point is we can’t afford to do nothing, everything is on the table, even deportation.
Deborah Coffey says
Not one set of data to confirm all your numerous statements (conjectures)? Really? BTW, Trump hasn’t been right or TRUTHFUL about anything…ever. And, to provide all of that data would take several volumes of facts.
Laurel says
It’s not about immigration. It’s about controlling the masses with anonymous police. It’s about chaos. It’s about using bigotry to get votes.
So far, it’s working.
If it was about immigration, we would find better ways of controlling the border, helping with paths to citizenship and document people with working permits.
But then, we’d have to find another group to hate and fear.