By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, called for the defunding and disbanding of ICE, citing the events as evidence of systematic cruelty. In a social media post, Cohen stated that he had been intending to create an ice cream in memorial of Good, but changed his mind following Pretti’s death. Cohen highlighted the relatively recent founding of ICE, advocating for a return to the pre-2001 system, sparking mixed reactions on social media. This response has come amid broader public outcry and political battles surrounding ICE’s authority, including debates over government funding and potential impeachment efforts.
Read the original article here
Ben & Jerry’s founder calls for ICE to be “defunded and disbanded,” a statement that has clearly sparked a range of reactions, from enthusiastic support to critical skepticism. The very act of a recognizable figure in the business world, especially someone associated with a brand as universally known as Ben & Jerry’s, taking a stand on a politically charged issue, is bound to create waves. The idea of defunding and disbanding ICE, a federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement and customs, isn’t a new one, but the endorsement by a well-known personality certainly amplifies the conversation.
The core of the argument appears to center around the idea that ICE, as it currently operates, has become problematic. The concern seems to stem from the belief that the agency has lost public trust and is no longer aligned with upholding laws in a way that serves the public good. There’s a suggestion that the agency has become “toxic,” with leadership potentially infiltrated by individuals with specific agendas. This viewpoint indicates a fundamental disagreement with the current practices and priorities of ICE.
The proposal to “defund, disband, and refound” the agency is a multifaceted one. Defunding, as the term implies, would involve redirecting financial resources away from the agency. Disbanding suggests a complete dismantling of the existing structure. Refounding then speaks to creating a new agency, perhaps with a different focus, set of priorities, and approach to its mission, or perhaps redistributing the duties to other existing agencies. It’s important to acknowledge that this process wouldn’t be simple, and it raises a lot of questions.
One of the practical concerns revolves around what would happen to the personnel and resources currently allocated to ICE. The agents, the equipment, and the responsibilities would need to be reassigned. Some speculate that these duties might be absorbed by other agencies, such as the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security. This highlights the complexity of the issue; simply removing ICE doesn’t eliminate the need for immigration enforcement and border security.
The debate also touches on the potential impact of such a move. Some supporters express a sense of relief, seeing this as a necessary step to address perceived injustices. It seems to be framed as a matter of principle and a necessary change to align the agency’s actions with a more humane approach. Others, however, raise concerns about the consequences of removing ICE. Questions are posed about the practicalities of a transition, what would happen to the current 47 days agents, and the impact on national security.
The discussion also inevitably brings up the broader political context. With any agency, especially one as controversial as ICE, it’s clear that the actions of political leaders and government administrations greatly influence its direction. The implication is that the policies and priorities of the government of the day shape the agency’s actions. The context of these comments would undoubtedly shift depending on who is in power.
There is also the question of whether this is simply an issue of changing names and logos, or a fundamental change in the way things are done. Is it enough to just rebrand an agency, or do the underlying issues of policy and enforcement need to be addressed? The goal, if the agency is truly to be reformed, goes well beyond surface-level changes. It requires a fundamental shift in the culture and purpose of the agency.
The comments also reflect a critical attitude regarding the history of the founders, and their actions. It is worth noting the founders had strong opinions on international events as well, particularly with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It seems that while some agree with the statement calling for ICE to be “defunded and disbanded,” they do not approve of their other actions or political opinions.
Finally, it is worth noting the impact of this discussion on the Ben & Jerry’s brand itself. Ben & Jerry’s has built a reputation on social and political activism, so it is unlikely that this opinion from the founder will impact the business, given their long history of progressive stances. However, it’s a reminder that even the most recognizable brands can stir strong emotions.