Grassroots calls to “abolish ICE” have once again become a presidential fault line as Democrats with 2028 aspirations split over how to respond to the fatal shooting of a woman in Minneapolis.

Few 2028 hopefuls say they want Immigration and Customs Enforcement dismantled over the shooting, which has sparked days of protests and placed a national spotlight on agency tactics that Democrats say are aggressive and at times illegal. But each is taking a different approach to reform, as some flirt with adopting the slogan and others rebuff the movement as a political overreaction. 

The debate is a repeat of the one Democrats had toward the end of President Donald Trump’s first term, when the question of abolishing ICE became a litmus test for the crowded field of candidates vying for the presidential nomination. At the time, most tried to split the difference and called for reforming the agency or redistributing its duties to other departments.

Now, Democrats are facing fresh pressure to go even further as ICE, receiving tens of billions in new funding, steps up its enforcement operations. The death of Renee Good, fatally shot earlier this month by an ICE officer, has galvanized that opposition, but the agency has been a political lightning rod since Trump returned to office last year.

THE ICE SHOOTING COULD LEAD DEMOCRATS BACK TO THE SUMMER OF 2020 POLITICS

In particular, Democrats have bristled at being denied access to ICE facilities and what they say is the excessive use of force by agents. The Trump administration has placed blame at the feet of protesters and elected Democrats, accusing them of obstructing the apprehension of immigrants in the country illegally.

The progressive-centrist divide

So far, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is one of the few Democrats talked about as a 2028 contender who outright supports abolishing ICE. In fact, her shock victory over Joseph Crowley, a member of House Democratic leadership, helped bring the movement into the political mainstream back in 2018.

Today, Democrats running in competitive House and Senate primaries are using her playbook, appealing to the party base with calls to dismantle ICE, but others looking beyond the midterm elections, when many voters stay home and base turnout is critical, have flatly rejected the slogan.

When asked about Ocasio-Cortez’s support for abolishing ICE, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) said on his podcast that he “absolutely” disagreed, though he fell firmly in the “reform” camp when he ran as a gubernatorial candidate in 2018.

Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary under President Joe Biden, argued that ICE had a proper mandate on immigration enforcement, but was overstepping it under Trump. Both Democrats have attempted to stake out the more centrist lane as they lay the groundwork for a presidential run.

“The problem with ICE is not that it exists, the problem with ICE is how it is treating people and how it is being used,” Buttigieg told the New York Times after a town hall in Wisconsin last week. “They need to be sent to do their actual job, which is not to control American neighborhoods as though they were war zones.”

Newsom’s press office accused the Trump administration of “state-sponsored terrorism” after the shooting of Good, but Newsom later walked back that characterization.

Democrats riff on ‘abolish ICE’ slogan

The pushback reflects a sense among the party establishment that there is a political risk in embracing the “abolish” movement too warmly. Other maximalist slogans, such as “defund the police,” became a liability for Democrats, writ large under Biden, and Republicans are eager to use the slogans again to claim that Democrats oppose law enforcement. 

Shortly after the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Democrats are “furious” the administration is deporting illegal immigrants and that “Democrats are calling to defund federal law enforcement agencies who are protecting public safety.”

Still, not all Democrats have shied from the “abolish” mantra, attracting national headlines with rhetoric that, at first blush, comes close to it. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), who won a Senate race in purple Arizona in 2024, said on Sunday that ICE “needs to be totally torn down.” Two days earlier, Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor, said he would “end ICE as you know it and you see it today.”

Both men went on to suggest they believe in reform or restructuring, not wholesale abolition, with Emanuel criticizing the use of masks and the lack of body cameras for ICE agents. He also questioned why ICE receives more funding than Pell Grants do each year.

“My point is not about ending ICE — it’s ending ICE as you see it and as you know it, getting the right type of things,” Emanuel said.

Notably, Gallego is among the Democrats who have said in other interviews that it would be a “mistake” to abolish ICE, arguing the public supports a “slimmed-down” agency with a narrower enforcement mission. 

Funding, with strings attached

For now, the thrust of the conversation over ICE has become caught up in a spending fight on Capitol Hill, with several lawmakers believed to be eyeing a presidential run refusing to vote for new funding unless additional guardrails are added on officer conduct.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of those possible contenders, has led that fight, given that he chairs the Senate subcommittee that deals with ICE funding, and is joined by other Democrats introducing legislation to address what they say is a “lawless” agency.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who ran for president in 2020, has a bill that would require body cameras and raise the standards for training agents, while legislation from Gallego and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) addresses officer use-of-force standards.

“Of course, you need a domestic enforcement mechanism for the immigration laws of this country, but the way in which ICE is operating today is inhumane and illegal,” Murphy told NBC News earlier this month, recounting the case of a 16-year-old who was detained for six months.

“That’s not a system that anybody in this country wants to fund,” Murphy added.

SCHUMER PRESSES TRUMP OVER ICE RAIDS AT WHITE HOUSE MEETING

Outside of Congress, Democrats have used the funding debate to skirt around questions of whether ICE should be abolished. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), asked about the “abolish” movement on Friday, criticized Republicans’ decision to surge funding to the Department of Homeland Security as part of Trump’s tax law. 

“I think what we need at the federal level is not spending tens of billions on ICE, as they did in their last appropriations bill, but finally do real and meaningful immigration reform,” he said on MS Now, adding that he supported “investing in law enforcement.”