By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Billionaire Tom Steyer has significantly boosted his California gubernatorial campaign through extensive ad spending and a focus on abolishing ICE. While this stance has drawn both support and criticism, including from Donald Trump and Elon Musk, Steyer is also facing scrutiny over past investments in private prison companies. He has hired influencer Carlos Eduardo Espina as a campaign advisor to engage with Latino voters, emphasizing issues like healthcare access and affordability.
Read the original article here
Forget the calls to “abolish ICE” for a moment; the conversation has shifted to a more pointed one: Tom Steyer’s assertion that ICE agents who have committed crimes should face jail time. This isn’t just about dismantling an agency; it’s about accountability for individuals within it, particularly those accused of violating the law. The sentiment behind this idea is that when individuals, regardless of their official capacity, are found to have broken the law, especially in ways that result in severe harm or death, they should face the same legal consequences as any other citizen. The notion that some ICE agents have potentially “violated court orders” or engaged in actions that could be construed as criminal, such as what’s described as “murdering people on camera with multiple witnesses,” fuels this call for prosecution.
The argument is that such actions aren’t some radical departure from justice but rather the “bare minimum” expected in a lawful society. If individuals commit acts that would warrant arrest and trial for anyone else, then agents of ICE should not be exempt. There’s a palpable desire from some for political figures to move beyond mere rhetoric and actively pursue justice against those accused of wrongdoing within ICE. For some, prosecuting ICE agents and those associated with the Trump administration’s policies has become a singular focus, overshadowing other political concerns.
This perspective frames certain ICE agents as “lawless criminals,” and therefore, the idea of jailing them is seen as a straightforward application of law and order. The logic is simple: if laws are to have meaning, they must apply universally, without exception for those in positions of authority. The idea of holding these individuals accountable is presented as a basic starting point for addressing systemic issues.
However, not everyone views Steyer’s pronouncements as genuine. Some suggest that this “jail them” rhetoric is a calculated political maneuver. It’s characterized as a “Blue Trump populist routine,” an attempt to tap into public anger and frustration by adopting a “wrecking ball” persona against an establishment that many feel has failed them. This strategy, it’s argued, is not about deep-seated conviction but about employing catchy slogans and populist appeals to gain traction, similar to how Trump used “lock them up” against his opponents.
The critique extends to Steyer himself, questioning his motives and authenticity. He’s described as a billionaire who profited from private prisons that contracted with ICE, and whose past investments and business practices are seen by some as antithetical to the change he claims to represent. The argument is that he’s leveraging public disdain for ICE to boost his own political standing, rather than genuinely advocating for systemic reform. There’s a suspicion that this is a performative act, a way to gain votes by appearing tough on an unpopular agency, while perhaps not truly intending to dismantle the underlying system he’s profited from.
Furthermore, there’s skepticism about his ability to follow through on such promises, especially concerning federal agencies. The idea that a governor in California would have direct control or impact on federal ICE impropriety is questioned, leading some to dismiss his promises as exaggerated or even absurd. The underlying concern is that Steyer, despite his anti-ICE stance, might still benefit from the continuation of the system he criticizes, particularly if he has financial ties to the private detention industry.
Some also see this as a case of “pandering,” where Steyer is attempting to replicate a successful political playbook without genuine commitment. The comparison to figures like Michael Bloomberg and John Fetterman highlights a concern that his message, while appealing on the surface, may not reflect his true intentions or his capacity for enacting meaningful change. The question of whether a billionaire like Steyer can truly be a force for change, given his past and his continued reliance on donations, looms large.
Ultimately, the sentiment expressed is that while the idea of prosecuting ICE agents for crimes is appealing to many, the source of that idea – Tom Steyer – casts a shadow of doubt over its sincerity. The desire for accountability is strong, but the concern is that this particular call for accountability might be more about political opportunism than about a genuine commitment to justice. The core principle remains: if laws are broken, consequences should follow, but the sincerity of those calling for those consequences is being heavily scrutinized.