By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The controversial memo advocating against the “Abolish ICE” slogan was penned by Blas Nuñez-Neto, a senior advisor at WestExec Advisors. WestExec Advisors, a secretive firm that counts major defense and surveillance industry contractors as clients, does not disclose its client list. Nuñez-Neto’s advice, given in his capacity as a senior fellow at the Searchlight Institute, suggests a focus on reforming and modernizing ICE to appeal to moderate voters. Nuñez-Neto believes the slogan “Abolish ICE” would alienate voters, and that ICE is needed to enforce the law.
Read the original article here
The news that the author of the controversial memo advising Democrats on immigration messaging is a corporate consultant, specifically one linked to the defense and surveillance industries, is, frankly, not surprising to anyone. It’s almost a cliché at this point. The memo itself, which suggests abandoning the “Abolish ICE” slogan in favor of reform and retraining, raises eyebrows. The fact that the author, Blas Nuñez-Neto, is a senior advisor at WestExec Advisors, a shadowy firm that consults for government contractors, throws a lot more fuel on the fire.
Nuñez-Neto, the memo’s author, is not just any consultant. He’s working in an area intimately connected to the expansion of the police and surveillance state. WestExec Advisors, while not required to register as lobbyists, clearly operates in the world of securing contracts for defense and tech companies with the U.S. government. Nuñez-Neto himself acknowledges his work in immigration, customs, and trade. This places the firm directly in the crosshairs of the militarization and surveillance activities of U.S. immigration enforcement. It’s an arena where profits are made, and policy is often subtly shaped.
The inherent conflict of interest is obvious. When a consultant, whose clients may benefit from the continuation or even expansion of entities like ICE, offers advice on how to talk about those entities, one must question the motivations. The focus on “reform and retraining,” while potentially well-intentioned on its surface, could be viewed as a way to maintain the status quo. It’s about tweaking the machine, not dismantling it.
The pushback against the “Abolish ICE” slogan is a key point of contention. The argument is that this phrase is off-putting to potential voters and that a more nuanced approach is needed. However, the counter-argument is that “Abolish ICE” is a clear, concise statement of intent, and that “reform” often translates into simply not changing anything.
The role of consultants in political campaigns, and particularly with Democrats, is increasingly under scrutiny. Many see them as corporate bootlickers, prioritizing the interests of their clients over the needs of the electorate. They are criticized for recommending out-of-touch strategies, for example, pushing for policies that are out of sync with the needs of the populace. Some would say that any campaign that shuns them entirely will have a net positive outcome.
ICE has become, for many, a symbol of the worst aspects of immigration enforcement, seen as a tool for aggressive and often brutal actions. The concern is that even if the administration changes, the agency and its methods might remain, simply repurposed for different goals. In this light, the debate shifts to dismantling the whole apparatus, not just tweaking the wording around it. Some Democrats are accused of not being truthful to the American people and the lack of unified leadership on this front.
Ultimately, this is a story about money, influence, and political messaging. It shows how the interests of the powerful—in this case, defense and surveillance contractors—can subtly shape the conversation around complex issues like immigration. The consultant’s role is not just to advise, but to steer the narrative in a way that benefits those who pay the bills. And, to the surprise of absolutely no one, this creates a cynical and suspicious electorate.