White House says President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin agree on resuming ICE vehicle traffic stops

President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are “on the same page” about resuming Immigration and Customs Enforcement traffic stops, the White House said Wednesday, adding that DHS has already issued verbal instructions to field offices nationwide.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt made the remarks during a briefing when asked about the status of ICE vehicle traffic stops and whether DHS guidance would change. Leavitt said, “Vehicle stops are continuing,” and she added that “verbal guidance has been given to all field offices across the country by the Department of Homeland Security.”

Leavitt’s comments link the federal enforcement posture to Mullin’s role at DHS, but the White House did not publicly cite, in the briefing account, a specific directive, memo, or court ruling tied to any nationwide change in traffic-stop practices. The Hill reported that the clarification came as part of the administration’s effort to confirm operational status in the field.

In the background of the dispute over how immigration enforcement interacts with traffic enforcement, the White House has previously posted administration materials describing customs and enforcement priorities. One posted presidential action titled “Strengthening Customs Enforcement” states that customs enforcement is tied to “national security, foreign policy, and economy” and asserts authorities intended to prevent the importation of unlawful and dangerous goods. The document does not, on its face in the provided record, detail ICE vehicle traffic stops or provide a field implementation timeline specifically for traffic enforcement.

The immediate practical impact of the White House’s statement is on how ICE-related operations may be carried out at the roadside, including whether officers may conduct stops using vehicles as the point of contact. When DHS provides guidance to field offices, local execution can vary depending on resources, investigative priorities, and coordination with other components, even when national instructions exist.

The White House did not, in the available account, provide specific dates for when the verbal guidance began or whether it changed prior practice in any particular location. The administration also did not indicate whether the guidance affects other related activities, such as how stops are documented, how consent is handled, or what oversight mechanisms are in place for any roadside enforcement operations.

If the administration’s approach is challenged in court or through oversight, the legal questions are likely to focus on the statutory authority for the stops and the scope of agency discretion, including how enforcement actions comply with constitutional limits and existing legal constraints. The White House statement itself, as reported, centers on operational continuity rather than a detailed legal framework in the briefing account.

For further confirmation, the White House said verbal instructions were issued broadly, but an official written directive or an entry in the Federal Register was not identified in the provided reporting record. As the implementation continues, the next step for verifying the policy’s legal mechanics would be locating any formal DHS or White House action that specifies standards for vehicle stops and any related procedures.