Democrats Push ICE Reform as Agency Faces Growing Backlash

Nearly half of American voters want to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement entirely. Six in 10 say the agency has crossed the line. Against this backdrop of public disapproval, Senate Democrats this week unveiled their vision for ICE reform—but what they're proposing reveals as much about political pragmatism as it does about policy priorities.

The New Normal That Wasn't Normal

For most of its existence, ICE operated differently than it does today. The agency primarily handled "custody transfers"—taking over cases from state and local authorities rather than conducting street-level enforcement. But under Trump's second administration, that's changed dramatically.

"At-large" arrests have surged, with thousands of immigration officers now conducting "roving patrols"—stopping and interrogating people about their immigration status without warrants. It's a shift that has fundamentally altered how immigration enforcement works in America.

Democrats want to pump the brakes. Their proposal would require ICE to coordinate with state and local police and revise rules governing immigration arrest warrants. In essence, they're pushing for a return to pre-2025 norms of targeted enforcement.

There's an irony here, though: Last year, the Supreme Court had the chance to rein in roving patrols and chose to do the opposite. Even the judiciary seems divided on where the boundaries should be.

When Force Goes Too Far

The videos speak for themselves. ICE agents smashing car windows, ramming down doors, using chokeholds and other life-threatening techniques. A ProPublica investigation found agents used banned maneuvers on at least 40 occasions since Trump's inauguration—without consequences.

Democrats say federal immigration agents should follow the same use-of-force policies that govern state and local law enforcement. These typically require officers to de-escalate dangerous situations and limit when they can use deadly force. Just as importantly, they include mandatory reporting and investigation requirements.

But the devil's in the details. Who conducts these investigations? Can victims sue the officers involved? The proposal leaves these crucial questions unanswered, and the answers will determine whether reform has real teeth or remains largely symbolic.

Masks Off, Cameras On

The case of Alex Pretti illustrates the accountability problem perfectly. State investigators still don't know the names of the ICE agents who shot and killed him in Minneapolis last weekend. Face coverings and unmarked gear make it nearly impossible to identify officers involved in controversial incidents.

Chuck Schumer was blunt: "No more anonymous agents, no more secret operatives." Democrats want federal immigration agents to remove face coverings, wear visible identification, and use body cameras.

This might seem like the most straightforward reform, but it's also contentious. Republicans argue masks protect agents from harassment, and some point out that the bipartisan funding bill negotiated before Pretti's death already included $20 million for body-worn cameras.

What's Not on the Table

Perhaps more telling than what Democrats included is what they left out. Over the past year, bills in both chambers have proposed much broader reforms: explicit bans on racial profiling, prohibitions on raids at schools and churches, elimination of arrest quotas, withdrawal of federal agents from Minneapolis, bans on detaining US citizens, and mandatory reviews of all use-of-force incidents.

Polls show growing support for abolishing ICE entirely—a position that's moved from progressive fringe to mainstream consideration. But Schumer has reportedly instructed his caucus to focus on a different goal: "restrain, reform, and restrict" rather than eliminate.

The question is whether this more moderate approach can satisfy public demands for accountability while being politically viable in a divided government.