You’ve probably heard of the tragic and appalling cases of Liam Conejo Ramos, Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. What is less widely recognized is that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have also appeared on college campuses and are now actively operating in San Antonio. Last May, ICE agents conducted a raid on the University of Texas San Antonio campus and arrested several construction workers. In November, a joint operation involving federal and state law enforcement — including the FBI, ICE and the Texas Department of Public Safety — detained approximately 140 people at a food truck site near San Pedro Avenue and Basse Road, less than three miles from Trinity. Last week ICE agents raided a residence in the city without a warrant or consent, entering the home with weapons drawn, shouting at residents while children were present. Currently, ICE agents are conducting raids throughout the city, particularly in neighborhoods in which white residents are a minority. And every day, they are arresting migrants who show up lawfully to appear at court appointments downtown.
ICE activity is likely to increase in San Antonio. Recently, the agency purchased a warehouse on the city’s East Side for over $66 million dollars. The structure spans more than 600,000 square feet and sits on nearly 40 acres of land. ICE has signaled its intention to convert the facility into a detention center, which would significantly expand the agency’s local infrastructure and operational capacity. ICE is also leasing office space in the Northwest side of town.
Colleges and universities around the nation are preparing in advance for the possibility of ICE activity on or near campuses. How should our campus communities respond to the sudden appearance of heavily armed, masked, unidentifiable agents on campus grounds or in campus buildings? Many schools have posted policies concerning immigration agents on campus along with detailed guidance for students, faculty and staff. However, there is no clear consensus about best practices, institutional obligations or the limits of cooperation. Colleges and universities therefore face a range of options when it comes to assisting, complying with or resisting ICE activity on their campuses. These options reflect differing institutional priorities, legal interpretations, risk assessments and commitments to student safety, academic freedom and community trust.
Although we have received some information from Trinity administration concerning Trinity’s response, we have significant concerns.
First, this basic guidance was shared widely only after student protests demanded greater transparency. While we are grateful to the students for their advocacy, we believe that the administration should be more proactive, rather than reactive, in communicating vital safety information to members of the campus community.
Second, the information provided states that ICE will be “treated like any other law enforcement agency.” This framing is misleading, given that ICE is not, in fact, comparable to other law enforcement agencies, but is acting with the clear intent — and with the support of the Trump administration — to unlawfully terrorize and break apart peaceful American communities and to assault, kidnap and occasionally murder peaceful individuals. Failing to acknowledge this distinction not only normalizes this rogue agency but obscures the specific risks ICE activity poses to campus communities, particularly to undocumented and international students, faculty and staff.
Third, the guidance directs members of the campus community simply to “comply with law,” a directive that ignores the widely documented ways in which ICE has operated recklessly and violently outside legal norms and due process. Such language places the burden of interpretation and risk on individuals rather than the leaders of this institution, especially when the law itself is constantly changing, and in no way clear.
Fourth, the information presented in President Beasley’s statement is inaccurate; she claims that the administration has been in “close communication” with international faculty and students. However, international faculty members report that this has not been the case, and that they continue to feel isolated and unsupported.
Finally, the information provided falls far short of what we have requested and what we require for community safety. Many questions remain unanswered. What legal resources are available for the campus community and their family members who might be impacted? What is Trinity doing to educate students, staff and faculty about our rights in the face of ICE incursion? Is Trinity willing to offer this information (including “Know Your Rights” training) to privately contracted staff who work at Trinity? Is ICE permitted to recruit students? Is Trinity willing to require keycard access to campus buildings in order to broaden the notion of private space and prevent ICE agents from entering lobbies? Is Trinity willing to provide a campus alert system so that if ICE agents are spotted, community members can know to seek the protection of private spaces?
In short, we believe that the Trinity administration is falling short in its duty of care as violence continues to devastate communities across the country. We can do better.
The Trinity University AAUP ([email protected])
*This column was updated on Feb. 18, 2026.
