After a year of relative silence on immigration, Democrats in tough races across the country are now making President Donald Trump’s aggressive enforcement tactics the focus of their campaigns.
But there are still divisions over just how far to go, with many carefully avoiding the “abolish ICE” slogan that leaders concluded was politically toxic and may have contributed to recent election losses. Many Democrats are calling for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and making clear they oppose “Trump’s ICE” — without uttering the word “abolish.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) advocated stripping the agency “down to its studs.” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minnesota) said “we need to start over with ICE” and “reimagine” it. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), a possible 2028 presidential candidate, called for cleaning house to “bring new leadership, bring in new standards, protocols, rules.”
Steve Israel, former chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the party learned the hard way that slogans like “abolish ICE” and “defund the police” alienated centrist and independent voters.
“Voters want fairness, and they want fixes, but very few of them want anarchy,” he said. “Democrats have a real opportunity to lean into ending ICE abuses without falling into the trap of appearing to oppose the constitutional enforcement of immigration laws.”
That has not stopped some Democrats from resurrecting the slogan — which became popular with some progressives during Trump’s first term — particularly those involved in tough primaries ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, where they are trying to win over the party’s left.
Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts), who is facing a primary challenge, said this week that Democrats had an opportunity to “defund and abolish ICE.” Democratic Senate candidates in Illinois and Michigan have also used the phrase in recent days. In Maine, Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said “dismantling ICE is the moderate position.” And in Texas, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and her Democratic primary rival in the Senate race there, state Rep. James Talarico, both agreed the agency needs to be overhauled. “It’s time to tear down this secret police force and replace it with an agency that actually is going to focus on public safety,” Talarico said during a debate.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, said on a podcast that Trump had corrupted ICE so deeply that Democrats “have to abolish it.”
Other Democrats, playing offense on immigration for the first time since Trump’s second term began, are more wary of overplaying their hand.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) energized progressive Democrats in 2020 in part by promising to break up ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection if he won the presidency. But in a speech Friday on the Senate floor, Sanders criticized “what amounts to a domestic army … terrorizing occupants,” without calling for its demise.
It’s unclear whether that semantic distinction will matter with voters, or if the party’s base will see it as a retreat. Democrats in Congress are united for the moment around a narrow set of demands for changes within ICE as a condition for funding the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans, who are increasingly breaking with Trump on ICE’s tactics in Minneapolis, have indicated they plan to use Democrats’ rhetoric against them in upcoming elections regardless of the specifics.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) described Democrats this week as “the same crowd that called for defunding the police — how did that work out? — or for abolishing ICE.”
“Are these people who want no enforcement of our immigration laws? Well, apparently so,” Cornyn said on the Senate floor.
GOP pollster Whit Ayres said the Democrats using the phrase are at risk of squandering an opportunity.
“It is a classic example of Democrats overreaching and going overboard on an issue where the public is currently on their side,” Ayres said.
Democrats’ debate over rhetoric reflects a broader uncertainty over longer-term policy. The party for years has struggled to unite around a comprehensive immigration plan as polls have continually shown voters trust Republicans more on the issue. Democrats have whipsawed on the issue as public sentiment has shifted throughout Trump’s first and second terms.
But a more limited consensus is emerging among the public that DHS agents and Secretary Kristi L. Noem have gone beyond Trump’s campaign promise to deport undocumented criminals. That has galvanized Democrats on Capitol Hill, almost uniformly, to demand accountability and changes.
A Jan. 24 YouGov poll showed 46 percent of people supported abolishing ICE, compared with 41 percent who oppose it. That is a slight uptick from earlier this month, when a YouGov poll conducted days after Good was killed showed 42 percent of voters supported eliminating ICE as a federal agency, compared with 45 percent who opposed it. In July 2019, 33 percent of voters supported abolishing ICE.
“There seemed to be confusion coming out of the 2024 election that mass deportation was necessary, was popular and was not going to involve a level of interior enforcement we’ve never seen in history,” said Andrea Flores, a former immigration adviser under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. “This is the first time I’ve seen Democrats talk about reforming both ICE and the Border Patrol together, and you’re seeing them be quite bold in naming longtime problems at DHS.”
But there is a belief among Democrats that they should avoid tackling broad immigration changes given that, overall, polling still shows voters trust Republicans more with handling immigration, border security and crime.
Many Democratic leaders concluded that their losses in 2024 were fueled by voter frustration over Biden’s failure to control a surge of migrants at the southern border. Having moved left on immigration during Trump’s first term, party leaders saw the results as a warning — one that pushed them toward tougher border security and away from openly resisting Trump’s enforcement crackdown. Since then, Democrats have more frequently joined Republicans in backing the detention of undocumented migrants convicted of certain violent crimes and in funding DHS. They drew the line, however, at Trump’s sweeping tax and budget bill, unanimously opposing the measure’s $75 billion boost for ICE when it came to a vote in July.
The politics have swiftly shifted this month as Trump’s deployment of ICE agents to Minneapolis has turned chaotic and deadly. Federal agents shot and killed Renée Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, and the administration immediately tried to paint both of them as violent actors threatening officers’ lives. Video evidence of both shootings contradicted the administration’s claims, and the outrage over Pretti’s killing has forced Trump to change course.
Democratic candidates have begun featuring ICE prominently in launch videos and ad buys. Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D), who is seeking to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), featured footage of ICE agents’ aggression during an operation in her home state while Mills decries their tactics and calls them “unconstitutional.” In a crowded New Jersey House Democratic primary, an outside group has released an ad targeting former congressman Tom Malinowski for a 2019 House vote that provided $200 million for ICE.
It has also united the most moderate Democrats on Capitol Hill, who oppose funding DHS until changes are made to ICE — a stark change from last year, when most moderates were joining Republicans on immigration votes. Rep. Gabe Vasquez, a moderate Democrat who represents a swing district along the New Mexico-Mexico border, told vulnerable colleagues that the vote isn’t about whether they support defunding ICE, but rather about standing on the right side of the law.
“You can go back home to your districts and not only defend your position, but also do it with the moral clarity and with the courage that this moment demands of us,” he recounted telling his colleagues.
Rep. Tom Suozzi, a moderate Democrat who represents a swing district in New York and who supported funding DHS as recently as last month, expressed regret in an email to constituents that he had “failed to view the DHS funding vote as a referendum on the illegal and immoral conduct of ICE in Minneapolis.” Other moderates have made similar pivots — a sign of how the issue is resonating with swing voters.
Democratic leaders have in private been pointing to recent memos from Searchlight, a newly formed Democratic think tank seeking to move the party back to the center. The group has urged Democrats not to get caught in another debate about abolishing ICE, warning that voters support immigration enforcement but want ICE’s tactics to be reined in, believing its agents have been too aggressive. Instead, Searchlight says Senate Democrats should “play hardball” and use their leverage in government funding negotiations to demand changes to the agency.
“A majority of voters want changes to immigration enforcement,” the memo says, citing a number of external polls. “Taken together, these findings indicate that reform, not abolition or expansion, is the option with the strongest public consensus.”
The post Democrats want to ‘reimagine’ immigration enforcement. Just don’t say ‘abolish ICE.’ appeared first on Washington Post.
