Calls to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency are igniting a significant rift among Democrats, particularly as center-left groups caution against the potential backlash. Representative Shri Thanedar is taking a bold stand, announcing his intent to introduce a bill aimed at abolishing ICE. “ICE is totally out of control,” he stated, highlighting urgency after a recent incident in Minnesota where an ICE agent shot and killed a woman during an enforcement operation. This tragic event has spurred protests and reignited national discourse surrounding the agency and its controversial actions.
President Donald Trump responded to the unrest by warning that if local leaders do not rein in protests against ICE, he might invoke the Insurrection Act. He described the ongoing protests as a travesty and expressed strong support for ICE: “who are only trying to do their job.” Trump’s remarks reflect the administration’s stance that such actions are necessary and critical.
The think tank, The Third Way, advises caution among Democrats, arguing that calls to abolish ICE may undermine efforts toward meaningful reform. Their memo warns, “The slogan is simple. But politically, it is lethal.” They emphasize that such rhetoric could squander opportunities for progress, particularly when it hands Republicans a clear opportunity to pivot the focus of the debate. Adam Jentleson, the president of the Searchlight Institute, echoed this sentiment, calling any abolition call a “political albatross” that could ultimately hinder the party’s goals.
The debate about ICE is not new; various left-wing politicians have long criticized the agency’s formation and function. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has labeled ICE a “rogue agency,” while Representative Ilhan Omar has vocally advocated for its abolition. Their calls resonate with some activists, but The Third Way draws parallels to the “defund the police” slogan that caused significant political damage to Democrats’ electoral prospects in the past. They state, “when the debate sinks into polarizing slogans that read as anti-law or anti-safety, space for practical reform disappears.”
Instead of outright abolition, the center-left urges Democrats to focus on reforming ICE practices, calling for accountability and oversight. Jentleson argues for measures like retraining and changing organizational culture, insisting these approaches are more favorable to the general public than drastic abolitionist rhetoric. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has adopted a nuanced position, stating they would oppose ICE funding unless substantial reforms are enacted.
Amid negotiations over the 2026 funding package for the Department of Homeland Security, Democrats are demanding changes such as mandatory body cameras for ICE agents and the cessation of mask usage during operations. Rep. Pete Aguilar expressed a desire for accountability, asserting that ICE’s actions contribute to fears among many communities.
Public opinion reflects a complex landscape regarding ICE, marked by sharp partisan divides. Polls indicate that a significant portion of Americans disapprove of ICE’s current enforcement methods. A recent survey revealed that 57% of respondents held a negative view of the agency’s performance, while Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of its operations. In contrast, many Republicans express strong support for ICE, suggesting that the rift within Democratic ranks could have implications for electoral success moving forward.
Despite public criticism and protests, Trump remains steadfast in his support for the agency. He described the Minneapolis operation as “highly successful” and underscored his belief that national security remains paramount. As tensions rise and perspectives clash, the future of ICE and immigration policy as a whole appear increasingly uncertain, with both sides of the aisle preparing for potential clashes on this contentious issue.
"*" indicates required fields
