It would be political folly for the Democratic Party to fully embrace calls to “abolish ICE,” at least without adopting a substitute blueprint for strong immigration enforcement.

That’s not to say Immigration and Customs Enforcement hasn’t abused its power during President Donald Trump’s second term. American citizens have been harassed, detained, even killed. Immigrants with legal status or those that lived in the U.S. for years have suffered similarly, as happened yet again this month with the killings of Johan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas. Even the conditions and safety of detention have come under scrutiny after several in-custody deaths.

Not surprisingly, many voters have soured on ICE. Half of U.S. adults said they were at least “somewhat” supportive of “abolishing ICE,” including 77% of Democrats and 52% of independents, according to a YouGov survey published in March.

That explains why several Democratic congressional candidates are campaigning to “abolish ICE,” in upcoming midterm elections. Among them is Michigan Senate contender Abdul El-Sayed, who like many progressive Democrats pushing to dismantle ICE, has not offered an alternative agency or strategy for handling immigration enforcement. Ditto Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who is running for reelection and is a rumored 2028 contender. That’s a mistake.

Abolishing ICE is a simplistic message that makes Democratic candidates easy pickings for Republicans. Voters’ opposition to bad immigration enforcement doesn’t mean they want lax enforcement. Failing to provide a detailed proposal for ICE’s legitimate functions after the agency were to shut down only compounds that political miscalculation. It stokes lingering voter suspicions that Democrats don’t have a problem with ICE but with the enforcement of U.S. immigration law more broadly.

That’s not just my analysis. Some veteran Democratic insiders worry the party is exceedingly vulnerable on this front: Republican campaigns are sure to air advertising this fall that accuse Democrats of opposing the deportation of immigrants in the U.S. illegally who have committed violent crimes. That’s a policy that remains popular, even as voters’ opinions of ICE, and Trump’s handling of immigration, have slumped.

“It’s really important for candidates in places like Florida, Texas, Iowa, Ohio, Alaska to have a posture on crime that neutralizes the attacks that will come in the fall,” veteran Democratic operative Neera Tanden told the New York Times’ Thomas B. Edsall. She’s not wrong. The Democrats’ path to the Senate majority, if one exists, runs mostly through red states with voting majorities that prioritize border security.

Proponents of abolishing ICE usually argue that they’re not opposed to immigration enforcement, that criminals in the U.S. illegally don’t deserve to stay, that ICE is irreparably damaged and reforming the agency is impossible and that the abuses can only be stopped by starting from scratch with a new approach. They often emphasize that ICE is only 23 years old, a product of the government reorganization spearheaded by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Immigration reform occurred pre-ICE and can continue post-ICE.

“ICE, as we know it, is an infant government agency. And I have no problem whatsoever, personally, abolishing it,” Ethan Fauré, a senior research analyst at the progressive Political Research Associates told me. “The reality is that when you talk about changing ICE in some way to only find the bad people [immigrants] — however that’s conceived — the reality is that… the police departments and sheriffs throughout the country are ostensibly doing that already, so ICE itself is a redundant agency.”

I’m not questioning the sincerity of Democrats who are troubled by ICE and want the agency abolished. Nor am I suggesting politicians aren’t justified in being aghast at the agency’s misconduct. What I am questioning is the feasibility of their position. Simply put, calls to “abolish ICE” versus “reform ICE” aren’t politically viable— especially if presented without a comprehensive alternative. And Democrats should know better.

President Joe Biden’s response to Trump’s first-term immigration tactics, which never rose to the level of his second administration, was initially to reduce enforcement — at the border and within the country. The perception of chaos, crime and unfairness sent voters scurrying back to the current president. (Yes, inflation and the economy played a major role in Trump’s reelection but so did immigration policy.) It’s why Biden attempted to reverse course late in his presidency and cracked down on illegal border crossings and the gaming of the asylum system. It’s why then-Vice President Kamala Harris tried to recast herself as an immigration hawk when she ran for president.

Ultimately, voters’ dissatisfaction with Trump, the Iran war and persistent inflation may reward Democrats with control of Congress regardless of how many of them hop on the “abolish ICE” bandwagon. But if the party wants to be in the strongest position to win the White House in 2028, it needs to reconsider, or at least develop a plan, for what happens next.

____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

David M. Drucker is a columnist covering politics and policy. He is also a senior writer for The Dispatch and the author of "In Trump's Shadow: The Battle for 2024 and the Future of the GOP."

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.