The left’s new tactic against ICE is stirring up a political storm, leaving many to wonder if it’s a strategic misstep or a bold move for change.
Story Overview
- Progressive Democrats are reviving calls to abolish or defund ICE amid the 2026 midterm campaigns.
- This movement is particularly significant in key battleground states like Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey.
- There’s a growing divide within the Democratic party, with centrists urging caution and Republicans seizing the opportunity.
- The movement’s outcome could echo the political repercussions of the 2020 “defund the police” campaigns.
Renewed Calls to Abolish ICE
Progressive Democrats have reignited efforts to abolish or defund the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections. This push is most visible in politically strategic states like Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey, where candidates are vocalizing their stance in debates and public forums. The resurgence of these calls follows a series of contentious events, such as protests at ICE facilities and a shooting in Minnesota, which have intensified the debate around immigration policy.
The movement, reminiscent of the 2018 “Abolish ICE” campaigns, has sparked significant political discourse, with many viewing it as a risky strategy that could backfire. While some progressives see it as a necessary stand against what they perceive as an unjust system, others within the Democratic party are wary of the potential electoral backlash, akin to the negative outcomes from the “defund the police” rhetoric in 2020.
Key Figures and Their Positions
Several prominent figures are at the forefront of this movement. Daniel Biss, the Mayor of Evanston and a candidate in Illinois, has been a vocal advocate against ICE, often appearing in media confronting Border Patrol practices. Meanwhile, his rival, Kat Abughazaleh, who faces federal charges for allegedly assaulting an ICE officer, continues to prioritize abolishing the agency. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, a Senate candidate, criticizes the current state of ICE, advocating for reforms rather than outright abolition.
Centrists like Rep. Haley Stevens and Sen. Mallory McMorrow in Michigan advise a more tempered approach, suggesting reforms and budgetary controls rather than dismantling ICE entirely. This internal conflict highlights the broader ideological rift within the Democratic party, with each faction vying for voter support in the upcoming primaries.
Political Implications and Risks
The renewed calls to abolish ICE could have significant implications for the Democratic party. In the short term, the infighting risks weakening the party’s stance in key midterm races, providing Republicans with ammunition to characterize Democrats as radical and out of touch. The GOP, through figures like NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella, has already begun to exploit these divisions, casting the movement as an example of “radicalism.”
In the long term, the strategy could either galvanize progressive support or alienate moderate voters, depending on how the narrative develops and public opinion shifts. Recent polls indicate a near-even split among the electorate, with 46% supporting the abolition of ICE and 43% opposing it. This delicate balance underscores the potential for significant political ramifications, mirroring the impact of the “defund the police” campaigns that many believe contributed to Democratic losses in the 2024 elections.
Protest Dynamics and Public Sentiment
The situation around ICE has not only become a political battleground but also a social flashpoint. Protests at detention centers, such as the one in Broadview, Illinois, have escalated, with incidents involving tear gas and arrests, further stoking tensions. These events have placed immigration enforcement practices under scrutiny and have become central to the discourse in the current political climate.
Public sentiment remains divided, reflecting the complexities of immigration policy in America. While progressive groups advocate for drastic changes, citing moral imperatives, centrists and Republicans call for more measured approaches, emphasizing the need for secure borders and effective law enforcement. As the midterm elections approach, the outcome of this debate will likely influence not only the future of ICE but also the broader direction of U.S. immigration policy.
