The Minneapolis shootings renewed scrutiny of ICE, highlighting its post-9/11 mission creep, partisan clashes over immigration and federal-local tensions.
In a nutshell
- ICE was established to fight terrorism, not enforce immigration
- ICE is targeted by progressives to delegitimize it for political reasons
- The agency’s immigration operations could be reassigned
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here
In January 2026, two fatal shootings of American citizens by federal immigration agents occurred in Minneapolis amid heightened enforcement operations and ongoing protests. These incidents have intensified scrutiny of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), making its activities a hot-button issue and a focal point of partisan debate across the United States. The issue has emerged as a central flashpoint in policy debates during President Donald Trump’s second term. Immigration policy has become a fundamentally divisive issue that pits federal authorities against state and local officials in a test to American federalism.
Democratic policymakers have called for the abolishment of ICE, often resorting to heated rhetoric that compares immigration enforcement to the actions of Nazi Germany. While such language is inflammatory, a closer look at ICE’s mandate and oversight reveals significant problems arising from bureaucratic drift at scale. It was created primarily as a counterterrorism agency but has since assumed expansive immigration enforcement duties.
Although ICE faces political criticism from both progressives and some conservatives, it has operated effectively in many respects. Yet its flawed institutional design now exposes serious shortcomings.
The post-9/11 origins of ICE
ICE is primarily known today for immigration enforcement. But its origins can be traced back to the bureaucratic changes that followed the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, particularly with the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security. In the June 2002 proposal by lawmakers that called for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in which ICE is embedded, the term “terrorism” was mentioned more than twice as often as “immigration.”
Immigration was not among the three core points in its proposed mission: “prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from terrorist attacks that do occur.”
The fundamental flaw in the organization’s intent is evident from its 2002 proposal, which explicitly states that the “Department of Justice and FBI, for example, will remain the lead law enforcement agencies preventing terrorist attacks.” The original intent of the DHS, which oversees ICE, was not focused on immigration enforcement. Moreover, the entire DHS structure added a new layer of bureaucracy that essentially duplicated the functions of existing agencies. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) remains the lead agency for combating domestic and international terrorism.
The DHS was created by absorbing 22 different agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the U.S. Customs Service. This consolidation led to a division of enforcement responsibilities that were previously handled by INS and the Customs Service. These duties were redistributed among the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and ICE. Before the DHS was established in 2003, INS and Border Patrol were part of the same agency and operated under the Department of Justice (DOJ). From a counterterrorism and border security perspective, INS, Border Patrol and the FBI worked cohesively under the DOJ and could have continued to collaborate effectively within their specialized roles without the need for the creation of DHS.
The establishment of the DHS, and by extension ICE, diluted immigration enforcement as an institutional specialty originally under DOJ auspices. Historical data indicates that ICE has not significantly improved deportation rates, which fall under its mandate. Although deportation rates did increase from 2003 to 2004, coinciding with the formation of DHS, this rise was part of a broader upward trend rather than a direct result of ICE’s efforts.
Trump’s interior crackdown
In his 2024 campaign, President Trump pledged to carry out “mass deportations” of unauthorized immigrants. Enforcement has intensified significantly since his inauguration in January 2025, with a sharp focus on interior enforcement. Procedures have become stricter, including expanded use of expedited removal.
However, overall deportation numbers (including both interior removals and border-related actions) in President Trump’s current term remain lower than peaks under previous administrations in many metrics. Barack Obama’s administration, particularly during his first term, achieved the highest annual deportation totals in recent decades, often prioritizing individuals with criminal records through formal enforcement priorities. The current Trump administration places less emphasis on criminal history as a priority for enforcement.
According to data from the Cato Institute, drawn from ICE reports from October 1 to November 15, 2025, the majority of ICE arrests involve individuals without serious criminal convictions or pending charges: Only about 5 percent of ICE detainees had prior violent convictions, while roughly 73 percent had no criminal record at all.
Several factors explain this dynamic, particularly for an agency designed with an intense national security mandate. The first is that ICE’s operating environment is significantly more polarized and confrontational due to “sanctuary” policies in progressive cities and states. These policies prevent local authorities from cooperating with immigration enforcement efforts. During its first term, the Trump administration pointed out that when local police and jails refuse to cooperate with ICE, it forces the agency to change its tactics. Instead of relying on handovers from these agencies, ICE has to conduct enforcement raids in community settings such as neighborhoods, schools and workplaces.
Second, because of ICE’s mandate to enforce immigration laws and its focus on serious offenders, the agency often finds itself in situations where its anti-terrorism and anti-crime operations intersect with unauthorized migrants who do not have additional criminal histories. This circumstance forces ICE to operate in contexts that do not align with its original design, contributing to the bureaucracy’s mission creep.
Third, the sanctuary locations where these operations take place often put the federal agency in conflict with progressive state and local policymakers and their political allies.
Read more by Dr. Ian Oxnevad
ICE as a focal point for progressive criticism
Discussions and controversies surrounding ICE cannot be divorced from the current polarization in American politics and its effects on the agency’s operations. While broader immigration debates fall outside this analysis, polling on sanctuary policies suggests they stem from a strong progressive base within the electorate.
A study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies in July 2025 found that while voters generally favor stricter immigration policies, they also disapprove of certain deportation methods and sanctuary policies. An NPR/Ipsos poll from February 2025 revealed a sharp partisan divide over allowing ICE operations in sensitive locations such as schools, churches and hospitals: Only 13 percent of Democrats supported this policy, in contrast to 68 percent of Republicans. A recent Gallup poll found that 84 percent of voters support requiring identification for voting, and 83 percent support requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Most Democrats also support these measures.
While the overall issue of immigration is polarized, support and opposition for enforcement policies are nuanced depending on the policy in question. Sanctuary policies at the state and local levels create environments openly antagonistic toward ICE, effectively demonizing the agency among progressive leaders.
Some Democratic lawmakers have used extreme language, comparing ICE officers to “Nazis” or “slave patrols,” or voter ID laws to “Jim Crow 2.0.” Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has referred to immigration officers as “Gestapo.” In Minneapolis, Marxist activist groups have been organizing efforts to confront ICE operations. What is notable about the Minneapolis protests and the two federal officer shootings that occurred there is the localized nature of the confrontations.
Unlike the nationwide 2020 protests following George Floyd’s death, the anti-ICE movement enjoys less genuine grassroots anger but more coordinated activism. The protests and walkouts that have occurred are linked to specific organizations, such as teachers’ unions, or are localized to specific urban areas.
Recent federal investigations have revealed connections between certain Marxist and socialist organizations and anti-ICE actions. There are also reports suggesting possible links to Chinese influence operations.
In June 2025, the FBI arrested members of a Los Angeles-based organization known as the Centro Community Service Organization (Centro CSO) for “conspiracy to commit civil disorders and aiding and abetting civil disorders.” One member of the group has been suspected by federal officials of supporting Palestinian terrorist groups and Colombian revolutionaries. Centro CSO, along with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, has been at the forefront of organizing anti-ICE protests. Other groups, such as the Sunrise Movement and 50501, have also played major roles in promoting anti-ICE activism.
Groups allegedly backed by China, such as the People’s Forum and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, have been suspected of being key players in the opposition against ICE. The combination of extreme rhetoric and organized activism can escalate into violent confrontations between civilians and ICE officers. Recently, Kyle Wagner, a member of Antifa – a Marxist activist group – was arrested for charges including cyber stalking, doxxing and making threats to kill ICE agents.
Balancing enforcement needs with structural flaws
Despite the disconnect between progressive discussions and support for policies regarding ICE, the agency plays a crucial role, including apprehending criminals and fighting human trafficking. Border Czar Tom Homan has stated that since the beginning of President Trump’s second term, the agency has rescued more than 62,000 children who were smuggled or in dangerous situations. In August 2025, a Senate Judiciary Committee report criticized the Biden administration for placing tens of thousands of children with unvetted sponsors.
Unauthorized migration also raises safety concerns that go beyond trafficking and crime. In recent years, the U.S. has witnessed a rise in fatal traffic accidents involving undocumented immigrants, with some attributing this to riskier driving behavior among this group. These events have sparked discussions about border security and public safety, drawing attention from federal authorities, who emphasize the growing frequency of such incidents.
During the Biden administration, an estimated 6.7 million unauthorized entries took place. The threat of terrorism continues to loom large, fueled by domestic polarization, geopolitical tensions and ongoing jihadist activities abroad. These underscore the importance of effective enforcement.
Nevertheless, ICE remains structurally awkward as a tool for large-scale deportation operations due to its creation after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Scenarios
Most likely: ICE survives as an agency and mission creep continues
Calls to abolish ICE in the aftermath of the officer shootings in Minneapolis might become a central theme in the November 2026 midterm elections. Although the key issues of the midterms are not yet clear, the chances of ICE being abolished are low due to both political and bureaucratic reasons.
First, abolishing ICE outright would require surpassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate. Similarly, defunding ICE is highly unlikely because the agency has secured dedicated funding through 2029.
Secondly, bureaucracies as organizations often prioritize their own resources and survival. They tend to apply the same capabilities to new challenges to remain relevant. While ICE was established in the wake of 9/11, primarily to address urgent counterterrorism concerns, it has since become the leading agency for immigration enforcement. Because immigration is now one of the defining issues of contemporary party politics, it is unlikely to lose relevance for the foreseeable future.
Less likely: ICE is abolished, immigration restrictions are significantly reduced
In this unlikely scenario, ICE could be abolished alongside reductions in immigration restrictions, aligning with long-standing progressive goals. Abolishing ICE would again require overcoming the Senate filibuster, and its outright abolition would warrant either a reduction in government size or a reprioritization of the agency to another function. The filibuster itself is simply a norm and not mandated by the Constitution.
Theoretically, ICE could be abolished in a manner similar to the way the Department of Education was slated for a shutdown through executive action. However, even abolition does not mean the end of function. In this potentiality, Border Patrol could develop an internal enforcement function and effectively absorb ICE’s operations.
Another reason ICE is unlikely to be abolished is that progressives have other options available if they want to expand immigration policies upon regaining power. As an executive agency, the president has the authority to shift ICE’s focus toward other activities, effectively creating a “shadow” abolishment. While this approach could facilitate the implementation of progressive policies, the agency itself would likely continue to exist, functioning within a different scope of its mandate.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.