Daniel Altman and Matthew Klein have over 65 years of combined law enforcement and oversight experience. Both retired from Custom and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) Office of Professional Responsibility in 2025 after having served in career senior executive roles across multiple administrations.
In 2021, we led an internal CBP investigation into a nationally scrutinized Border Patrol use-of-force incident. That work unfolded amid intense media attention and early public judgments—raising real questions about whether independent oversight was even possible.
What that experience reinforced is this: public confidence is restored not through speed or statements, but through independent investigations, disciplined communications, patience, and a clear commitment to transparency. Based on lessons learned from that experience, here is a road map to get us there:
1. Allow CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to do its work—and follow existing transparency requirements. CBP OPR has the mandate, expertise, and statutory authority to independently investigate federal use-of-force incidents. Its investigations are tied to congressionally required transparency measures, including timely public notification, factual disclosures, and—where applicable—independent oversight of body-worn camera releases. In this case, the first required notification to Congress and the public is due on January 27, 2026, and should be released on schedule with the standard factual elements required by policy. OPR investigations support accountability when misconduct occurs and exoneration when it does not.
2. Direct a transparent DOJ civil-rights review that protects due process. Although the federal government lacks a uniform lethal-force review protocol, clear constitutional and statutory standards exist. A DOJ review—through an FBI investigation and referral to the appropriate U.S. Attorney—determines whether civil-rights violations occurred. This process does not presume wrongdoing; it safeguards constitutional rights and allows decisions to be made based on evidence rather than public pressure.
3. Clarify the role of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and separate it from a civil-rights review. HSI does not have the mandate or expertise to conduct civil-rights use-of-force investigations. If HSI is examining peripheral criminal conduct, that role should be clearly communicated and decoupled from any civil-rights inquiry. The public should understand who is investigating what—and how findings will be shared.
4. Establish a clear framework for federal–state investigative coordination. Use-of-force incidents involving federal officers raise complex jurisdictional issues. While no nationwide protocol exists, coordination with state authorities is appropriate and almost always necessary. Agencies involved should establish a clear, incident-specific framework for collaboration.
5. Exercise restraint in public commentary to protect the investigative process. Public statements by senior leaders can undermine independent investigations and erode the due-process rights of everyone involved. These cases implicate grave constitutional interests. Discipline and restraint are essential to maintaining legitimacy.
6. Commit to transparency as the only durable path forward. Public confidence has already been damaged. Transparency—through disciplined, sequenced release of investigative findings—allows the public to judge the results for themselves. That is how confidence was restored after the 2021 case, and how it can be restored again.