The New Defund ICE Strategy – Performance Over Policy

While there is no record of him having said it, Albert Einstein is often credited with observing that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." When it comes to opposing President Donald Trump, congressional Democrats have been found guilty of ignoring this unwritten rule many times. Over and over again, one might say – but always with the same result. Though many political strategists on the left have admitted that “defund the police” wasn’t exactly a winning idea, certain Democrats are now looking to defund ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that is now constantly maligned by those who object to the application of federal laws.

This isn’t quite the whole story, though. Defund ICE, for many on the left, means attaching strings to additional funding, if not reducing it. They are already working to fund ICE under certain conditions. Perhaps they are recalling the ultimate public relations failure of the “defund the police” campaign.

Defund ICE Is Little More Than a Slogan

In fact, it seems that calls to defund ICE are little more than red meat for the progressive base. More likely, Democrats plan to hold the agency hostage as the appropriations fight continues ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline to fund the federal government and avoid another shutdown.

According to media reports, left-leaning lawmakers want ICE agents to operate only at the borders, undergo additional training, be required to wear bodycams, and be banned from masking their faces. That final demand, considering the incendiary rhetoric targeting the agency, almost certainly would put agents’ lives at risk, along with their families.

The questions, then, are would Republicans agree to such provisions to avoid a partial government shutdown, and would Democrats jeopardize the safety of ICE agents to set back the president’s immigration enforcement agenda?

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL) is firmly in the defund ICE camp, telling Axios, "We need funding reductions,” but saying, "Some of us are at the 'abolish' place, proudly. And I think moderates can start thinking about what does 'defund' mean."

Ramirez claims to be working on legislation that would "reprioritize funding that should have never gone to kill people into housing and health care."

Not Politically Viable

Certainly, any serious effort to defund ICE is a steep hill to climb. Without the support of every Democrat – which is by no means a sure thing – and at least a few Republicans, any appropriations bill covering the Department of Homeland Security that includes significant cuts to ICE specifically is going nowhere. As Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX) says, "I don't know if we need to defund ICE," adding, "we don't have the votes for that anyway." And perhaps, again, with a rearview mirror look at the “defund the police” movement, Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) observed, "I think it is not politically viable, and I don't believe in it substantively.”

While voices on the left, including some elected officials, are throwing around calls to abolish or defund ICE, it doesn’t appear likely that congressional Democrats have much stomach for shutting down the government over this one policy difference. Still, they are going to make a fight of it and may wring some minor concessions from the GOP.

Will it end ICE operations in major cities across America or even drastically change the way the agency handles them? Probably not. Despite claims by many on the left that most Americans oppose what ICE has been tasked with, Trump surely knows that this is what mobilized the electorate behind him in 2024.