This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.
I don’t know how you spent your frigid weekend hours, but I spent mine on my phone — compulsively refreshing the New York Times’s Minneapolis feed and feeling my cortisol levels grow. First came the news that federal agents had shot and killed another protester in Minnesota. Then came the videos showing the man restrained on the ground when agents opened fire. Then came the wild gaslighting from Trump administration officials, who — in defiance of evidence Americans could see for themselves — insisted that 37-year-old Alex Pretti had assaulted federal officers and was therefore a “terrorist.”
I was reminded of a Trump interview from early January. Asked whether there were limits on his global power, President Donald Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
But that’s not entirely true abroad, as last week showed. And it’s not true at home, either. While Trump and his Supreme Court have hollowed out many of the checks that historically constrained the executive branch, there are still ways Congress, the courts, and state governments can check the actions (and abuses) of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In today’s edition, we answer the question: How can ICE be reined in?
1. A federal shutdown could force Trump’s hand.
A stopgap spending bill has kept the federal government open since its bruising 43-day shutdown last fall. To avoid another closure, the Senate needs to pass a package of six annual spending bills before Friday — including a defense spending bill that allocates $10 billion to ICE. Senate Democrats are threatening to withhold their votes unless the DHS portion is stripped out or rewritten to put some guardrails around ICE’s operations. And because any changes that the Senate makes to the appropriations package will have to return to the House, a partial shutdown is almost inevitable.
2. Federal legislation could limit ICE’s tactics.
In that renegotiated appropriations bill — or in separate legislation — Democrats could try to place new restraints on ICE’s tactics. They could require that agents obtain judicial warrants before making arrests, for instance. Or they could require them to wear body cameras and forego face masks. Longer-term, lawmakers could also try to roll back the Supreme Court decisions that have essentially exempted federal agents from prosecution. Of course, that would prove pretty challenging in a Republican-controlled Congress.
3. Congress could open an investigation.
That said, some Republicans do seem ready to rein in the administration. On Monday, Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, asked the heads of ICE and two other immigration enforcement agencies to testify at a February 12 hearing, the first chance senators will have to question the Trump administration about the Minneapolis surge. Other Republicans are signaling openness to scrutiny, too; Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) called for a “full and transparent investigation.”
4. A court injunction could end the Minneapolis surge.
Minnesota has asked a federal court to end the administration’s enforcement action in Minneapolis and return ICE staffing to former levels, arguing that the surge violated constitutional limits on federal power. There isn’t much precedent for that type of order, and — even if granted — it would likely be overturned on appeal. But Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, may have bolstered Minnesota’s case with a letter she sent to Gov. Tim Walz over the weekend. It appeared to set conditions for ending ICE’s surge in the state.
5. State prosecutors could bring charges against ICE agents.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights division declined to open an investigation into the ICE officer who killed Renee Good on January 7, and it seems highly unlikely they’ll do anything different in the case of Pretti. But Minnesota prosecutors could attempt charges under state law, arguing that the shooting fell outside the “necessary and proper” exercise of the officers’ official duties. That path would admittedly prove tricky: The law governing when federal officers may be charged with state crimes is not clear. And even if a jury did convict, the Trump administration would appeal.
6. State governments could empanel accountability commissions.
The phrase “accountability commission” doesn’t exactly scream “power” or “leverage,” but it can build a record for future lawsuits and legislation. In October, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker created such a commission to document ICE misconduct in his state; it’s slated to make its first policy recommendations this week. In a recent op-ed for The Guardian, two former federal prosecutors encouraged other states to empanel similar committees.
7. Businesses and interest groups could make the situation politically untenable.
Trump routinely shrugs off the outrage of blue-state protesters. But it’s far more difficult for his administration to ignore the mounting criticism from businesses, religious leaders, gun rights groups, and even some Republican voters. A recent New York Times/Siena poll found that even before Pretti’s death, six in 10 voters believed that ICE’s tactics had gone too far. And since last weekend’s shooting, a string of Republican lawmakers have also begun speaking out.
That shift in public opinion seems to — maybe, possibly, preliminarily — be getting through to Trump. On Monday, the president posted an unusually conciliatory message to Truth Social, saying that he had a “very good” call with Gov. Walz. The two reportedly discussed an independent investigation into the deaths of Good and Pretti and a possible reduction in the number of federal agents in Minneapolis.
The post 7 ways to rein in ICE appeared first on Vox.
