Democrats’ Lukewarm Response to ICE Actions Fuels Outrage and Calls for Abolition
As two U.S. citizens are fatally shot in Minneapolis within a span of weeks, and reports surface of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detaining young children, the response from the Democratic Party has been met with increasing criticism. Many argue the party’s reluctance to forcefully oppose the actions of President Donald Trump’s administration – and the perceived “absolute immunity” granted to its agents – is exacerbating the crisis.
The situation escalated even before the shooting death of Alex Pretti on Saturday, where he was shot in the back after federal agents disarmed him. The actions of ICE and Customs and Border Protection in Minneapolis already demanded a decisive response. However, when presented with the opportunity, Democrats largely failed to deliver.
Last week, seven House Democrats – including Washington Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and outgoing Maine Rep. Jared Golden – voted alongside their Republican counterparts to approve a bill allocating additional funding to ICE. This vote occurred despite House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries only “recommending” a no vote, rather than enforcing party discipline. While Senate Democrats reportedly intend to block the bill to avoid a government shutdown, skepticism remains regarding their commitment to holding firm.
Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., stands as a notable exception, having introduced legislation to restrict ICE’s use of force, which she describes as “the bare minimum.” However, the bill faces an uphill battle in the GOP-controlled House.
In Minnesota, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz’s response to the January 7th killing of Renee Good was criticized for prioritizing a preemptive rebuke of protesters, posting: “Trump wants a show. Don’t give it to him.” While Walz has expressed anger over ICE’s presence in the state and requested its departure, he has yet to outline concrete plans for its removal. Furthermore, Attorney General Keith Ellison has not filed charges against Jonathan Ross, Good’s alleged killer, despite Walz’s authority to direct him to do so under state law.
Minnesotans are actively protesting and demanding action, but are receiving limited tangible support from their elected leaders.
Days before Pretti’s death, on January 20, Walz invited the president to “join me, and others in our community, to help restore calm and order and reaffirm that true public safety comes from shared purpose, trust, and respect.” However, following Pretti’s killing, the administration signaled a lack of “shared purpose, trust, and respect” with Minnesota. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino held press conferences where they were accused of deliberately misrepresenting the circumstances of Pretti’s death, which was captured on video from multiple angles. Walz’s call for the state to lead the investigation into Pretti’s death, mirroring his approach to Good’s killing, has been largely ignored.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Democratic Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith have both resorted to profanity in their public statements, but this, as one observer noted, “serves to remind the public that sound and fury often signifies nothing.” Frey, in particular, has resisted calls to abolish ICE, even after the agency’s involvement in a constituent’s death.
The Democratic base has been vocal in its demands for action against ICE for months. Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat vying for the Senate seat held by Ed Markey, initially called ICE “cowards” and threatened to defund and prosecute its officers. Following publication on Monday night, Moulton issued a statement declaring, “ICE is beyond repair, so it must be abolished.” However, a majority of elected Democrats have stopped short of advocating for outright abolition, despite a growing plurality of voters supporting the idea.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, chair and vice chair of the Democratic Governors Association, issued a vague call for “transparency and accountability” after the events in Minneapolis, without specifying concrete steps. Former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle released a statement expressing concern but lacking substantive proposals. Former President Bill Clinton offered a more forceful statement, framing the moment as historically significant but failing to offer specific guidance.
Critics argue that the Democrats’ cautious approach is both morally questionable and politically unwise. The party, they contend, is constrained by a fear of alienating moderate conservative voters and, more importantly, donors.
One idea gaining traction is the impeachment of Noem, though its success is considered unlikely. Similarly, proposals from some Democrats, like Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, to reform ICE by restricting agent behavior or ending quotas are seen as insufficient, given the agency’s demonstrated unwillingness to comply with constraints and the White House’s assertion of “absolute immunity” for its actions.
A more assertive opposition party, it is argued, would capitalize on public anger for political gain. Instead, Democrats appear to be focused on suppressing dissent and ensuring that any response to the Pretti outrage remains contained and does not challenge existing power structures.
This hesitancy is fueled by a network of advisors and think tanks that actively encourage Democrats to moderate their positions. This approach is exemplified by groups like the “popularists,” a cohort of centrist think tankers who prioritize triangulation based on polling data, with the notable exceptions of issues related to Israel or Abolish ICE. Even after Good’s killing, Adam Jentleson, founder of the Searchlight Institute, dismissed calls to “Abolish ICE” as a “political albatross.” Following Pretti’s death, he attempted to reframe the narrative. Paul E. Williams, positioned as a left-leaning voice within the popularist group, stated that he did not object to Democrats like Gluesenkamp Perez voting to fund ICE, only to their criticism of Frey and Walz’s response to the shooting.
It should not be difficult to oppose funding an agency accused of kidnapping two young children – aged 5 and 2 – in a single week, let alone the killing of American civilians. These groups, like the politicians they advise, offer little substance beyond empty gestures.
However, for many, Democrats remain the primary vehicle for organized opposition at the federal level. They must, the argument goes, embrace the role demanded of them and take decisive action before it is too late.
Update: January 26, 2025, 9:20 p.m. ET
This story has been updated with a statement from Rep. Seth Moulton.
