By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Democrats should incorporate abolishing ICE into their 2026 platform due to the agency’s controversial actions and the unpopularity of President Trump. Polls indicate significant public support for abolishing ICE, with many Americans viewing the agency as overly aggressive. Despite this opportunity, Democratic leaders have been hesitant to embrace this stance, fearing a “Defund the Police” label. The lack of positive public perception of ICE, combined with reports of misconduct and lavish compensation, provides Democrats with a strong political advantage. The author urges all Democrats to make abolishing ICE a key message, presenting it as a matter of good governance and public safety.
Read the original article here
Democrats need to run against ICE in 2026 : If Democrats don’t seize this moment politically and morally, then they shouldn’t even call themselves an opposition party. The core of this challenge lies in the deeply held belief that the current Democratic leadership is failing to fulfill its role as an opposition party. Instead of actively opposing the policies and actions of the opposing party, they are perceived as being spineless, unwilling to take decisive action, and ultimately, complicit in the problems facing the nation. The sentiment is that they are not a real opposition force.
Instead of avoiding the issue, the call is to confront the increasingly controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency directly. The argument is that the agency’s actions, including the treatment of migrants, family separations, and alleged abuses of power, create a powerful moral and political opportunity for Democrats. Running against ICE, the argument goes, would provide a clear distinction between the parties and attract voters disillusioned with the current state of affairs.
However, the path to successfully running against ICE is not straightforward. The potential pitfalls are clear: the fear of alienating moderate voters who may support border enforcement. The memory of campaigns to “defund” law enforcement and the subsequent backlash are likely in the minds of some strategists. These concerns suggest that the strategy might backfire. Some argue that running against an agency like ICE, given the public’s general trust in the Republicans on immigration, is not a winning strategy. Instead, it is a gift to the opposing party.
The focus must be shifted to the actual practices, the cruelty of these operations, and the inhumane treatment of migrants. The idea is to tap into the compassion and empathy of voters who are horrified by the stories of families being torn apart and people being treated unfairly. It means running on humane immigration reform that recognizes the inherent dignity of all people. It involves holding accountable those who violate the rights of citizens and migrants, regardless of their political affiliation.
The key to victory, as some see it, is to focus on the economic issues that resonate with a broad swath of voters. The cost of living, affordability, and economic opportunity are primary concerns for many voters across the political spectrum. This is where the Democrats can build a winning coalition. The focus should be on building a better economic future. This includes healthcare, the economy, and the protection of basic rights.
The article suggests that while running against ICE might be a part of a broader strategy, it should not be the sole focus. Instead, it needs to be integrated into a larger platform that includes economic justice, protecting individual freedoms, and addressing the root causes of economic inequality. It involves proposing solutions to build a better future.
The concern is that the Democrats are hesitant to take any strong stances, seemingly prioritizing not offending anyone over taking the correct actions. The suggestion is to stop trying to please everyone and instead stand firm. This would require standing up to the forces that are using ICE to inflict harm on innocent people. It requires having the political courage to challenge the status quo. To do otherwise is to concede their place in the political arena.
The overarching sentiment is that the current political landscape requires bold and decisive action. The current leadership needs to take a stand. If they cannot do that, the public may rightly view the party as unwilling to actually take on these crucial issues. The urgency of this moment requires immediate attention. It involves a fundamental re-evaluation of the role and the purpose of the Democratic Party and its function as the opposition.