The killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis have renewed a long-running debate among Democrats over how best to address immigration enforcement, and whether advocating for "abolishing ICE" fits into a winning political playbook.
It is a debate that has taken on new urgency among Democrats against a backdrop of bipartisan backlash to the Trump administration's deportation efforts, led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Critics on both the left and the right say the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal officers last month show the administration has gone too far.
For Democrats, the events in Minneapolis have created an opening ahead of this year's midterm election to shift the conversation on immigration — a notable change after struggling to message on the issue in the 2024 election.
But internal divides over what to do about ICE could complicate the effort. Calls to "abolish ICE" have been particularly amplified by progressive candidates, especially among younger Democrats running for Congress and those challenging Democratic incumbents. On Capitol Hill, far fewer Democrats have re-upped support for abolishing the agency, despite many rallying around the issue during President Trump's first term.
Instead, many elected Democrats have called for reforms at ICE, wary of appearing out of step with voters who want strong enforcement of immigration laws but who disagree with the administration's tactics.
"There is no question that the dynamic from '24 has flipped, [during] which immigration was a sure strength for Trump and a profound weakness for Democrats," said Jonathan Cowan, president and co-founder of the centrist think tank Third Way. But, he cautioned, if the party wants to be successful in November, they should keep the focus on the administration's missteps.
"The divide in the Democratic Party is not over rage, disgust and anger," Cowan said. "The divide is what are you going to do about it? How do you channel that rage in a way that actually changes policy? Both short and long run."
He warns the "abolish ICE" slogan may not be universally embraced among voters across the country. Democrats hoping to flip districts or win over swing voters, Cowan said, should lean into different language, such as calling for a "reform" or "overhaul" of ICE.
He likens the debate to when many Democrats coalesced around the "defund the police" movement in 2020, a decision that Cowan argues created an opening for Trump to paint Democrats as soft on crime.
"People embraced an emotionally satisfying slogan that in the long run proved to be politically toxic and a barrier to getting serious police reform in the country," Cowan said. "We are in grave danger of the same problem happening for those who are embracing abolish ICE."
That may already be happening. In response to calls to abolish the agency, many Republicans have attempted to link the movement with "defund the police." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed that in a post on X last week, asking, "Why do Democrats keep attacking the law enforcement agencies that hunt down criminals and protect innocent American citizens?"
Loudest calls come from progressives and new candidates
The debate is poised to be especially salient in Democratic primaries and in states that have faced increased enforcement, such as Minnesota, Illinois, California and New York. Democratic candidates have already faced off on the debate stage in Illinois with competing pitches to abolish and reform ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. In Minnesota, immigration enforcement has become a key issue in the race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Tina Smith.
Some of the loudest calls to abolish ICE have come from Gen Z and millennial candidates, many of whom have sought to frame their bids around a larger rejection of Democratic Party norms.
Darializa Avila Chevalier has embraced that message. The 32-year-old progressive organizer and Ph.D. student is running a primary challenge against Rep. Adriano Espaillat, 71, in New York's 13th congressional district, which includes upper Manhattan and part of the Bronx.
"From the very beginning, I've been adamant that I wanted the abolition of ICE to be central to what we're talking about," said Avila Chevalier.
"It's an institution that should have never existed to begin with," she added. "It's an institution that is younger than I am. And so I've lived in a world where ICE didn't exist, and we can all go back to a world where ICE doesn't exist and never exists again."
Avila Chevalier says Democratic candidates need "to be bold" in their solutions to issues affecting voters right now, and that includes on immigration.
"If I could trust that the leadership we have was reflecting our values, was actually meeting this moment," she said, "I wouldn't be running."
Avila Chevalier is one of 10 candidates currently backed by Justice Democrats. The political group has supported a handful of progressives who have gone on to win seats in Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who delivered an upset primary win in 2018 and ran on a platform that included abolishing ICE, a stance she's reaffirmed in recent weeks.
For nearly a decade, Justice Democrats has rallied around anti-establishment candidates of all ages who often draw contrast to the Democrats they're challenging by rejecting donations from corporate PACs or pro-Israel lobbying groups. But in the wake of the fatal shootings in Minnesota, candidates the group supports are also drawing a line in the sand on immigration — pledging to abolish ICE.
"Every single one of these communities has an ICE story of their own. And it's up to us to listen to those communities … and show people what an opposition party, if in power, would actually do," said Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi. "That's what our slate of candidates exists to be."
Andrabi disagrees with the idea that "abolish ICE" creates more party divides than flips voters.
"The slogan is not the problem. ICE is the problem," he said.
Recent polling indicates there is some support for the issue among voters, though not overwhelming. A plurality of Americans, 46%, strongly support or somewhat support abolishing ICE, according to a YouGov poll conducted after the shootings in Minneapolis. Americans under 30 were most likely to oppose Trump's immigration agenda, according to the poll, and nearly 7 in 10 voice some level of support for getting rid of the agency.
It's a generational sentiment that may add important context when looking at the influx of younger candidates voicing support for the issue.
"I think that they are furious. They see it all over their news feeds. They see it in their communities. They also, I think, are less beholden to this idea of tradition or the way things have been done," said Amanda Litman, the founder of Run for Something, an organization that recruits and supports young people running for local office.
"I think that sense of the crisis and of the urgency of this moment … is something that young leaders really bring with them into their positions of power," she added. "And it is both their super strength and often their weakness because they're a little more radical in some ways."
Divides on Democratic messaging
Immigration enforcement has become a central issue in funding negotiations on Capitol Hill, where Democrats are lobbying for changes to the tactics used by immigration officers. Democrats want to narrow the type of warrants immigration officers can use to enter homes, require them to wear body cameras and prohibit the use of face masks.
While Democrats in Congress are united in what they see as the bare minimum needed to reform immigration enforcement, there is less consensus on how far to take the rhetoric. Though Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is pushing to "defund and abolish ICE," as are some House lawmakers, other Democrats have taken a different approach.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D–Mass., would not directly answer whether she supports calls to abolish ICE, telling NPR it needs to be "totally reorganized" and "torn down to the studs and rebuilt." She declined to say whether campaigning on abolishing ICE would benefit Democrats.
It's a debate that's also playing out in competitive midterm matchups, including in the Senate Democratic primary in Maine, where the state's governor, Janet Mills, and first-time progressive candidate Graham Platner are running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Mills has advocated for ICE reforms, calling for "measures" that would "prohibit ICE's lawless, dangerous conduct and their abuses of power." Platner has called for the agency to be "dismantled," characterizing it as "the moderate position" in a post on X.
The degree to which candidates choose to embrace — or reject — calls to abolish ICE could prove particularly decisive in swing districts.
Though many voters want the current situation to change, calls to abolish ICE may mean different things to different people, argues Cowan of Third Way.
"You can take the literal word, slogan, abolish ICE, and it will get a certain level of support," he said. "But the moment you start asking people specifically what they actually support, the concept of abolishing interior immigration enforcement is not popular."
Though nearly half of Americans say they have some support for abolishing ICE, according to the latest YouGov poll, far fewer, less than a third, support abolishing the U.S. Border Patrol. When respondents were asked if they support Trump moving forward with a smaller enforcement effort, "aimed at criminals, not at hotel maids and gardeners," 55% strongly or somewhat approved.
The lack of Democratic consensus on the issue isn't stopping some progressive congressional hopefuls from standing by the policy they believe is right.
Mai Vang was in high school in 2003 when ICE was created. Now, more than two decades later, the 40-year-old Sacramento City councilmember is campaigning on abolishing the agency as she challenges 81-year-old Democrat Doris Matsui in California's 7th Congressional District.
"What we've seen is this agency has inflicted harm on our communities, and you can't reform it. There is not enough training or even body cameras that would justify what they are doing," she said in an interview.
When asked if she considered shying away from using the slogan, Vang pushed back.
"Not really because people are being killed and murdered by ICE," she said. "It's not a radical position to say we don't want an entity harming our families and loved ones. I don't think it's radical to want to dismantle an agency that is killing citizens."
Copyright 2026 NPR
