Calls to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have moved from activist circles to mainstream political debate, especially in the wake of aggressive enforcement policies under the Trump administration. But what does “abolish ICE” actually mean—and how could it be done? Abolishing ICE offers a crucial opportunity to end systemic abuse in immigration enforcement and replace the agency with a more humane, accountable system that upholds justice and human rights.

The movement to abolish ICE burst into the national consciousness in the summer of 2018. The idea was the natural extension of years of thoughtful organizing by a loose coalition of grassroots immigrant-rights groups, who became convinced that efforts to reform ICE were futile and that a more radical approach was needed. The first Trump administration’s policy of separating children and detaining parents and children created a tipping point for the movement.

Abuse and Lawlessness: A Pattern of Misconduct

ICE is not immigration itself. It was created in 2003 during the post-9/11 reshuffling of federal agencies under the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. Its core mission—to enforce immigration laws—has increasingly blurred with militarized policing, mass deportations, and controversial detention practices, particularly targeting communities of color.

ICE’s brutality, lawlessness, and ineffectiveness have been well documented. The barbarism of separating toddlers from their parents, holding them in cages, and forcing them to defend themselves in complex legal proceedings against trained government lawyers has become emblematic of its controversial tactics. In addition, there is an established and ongoing pattern of egregious medical neglect in immigration detention facilities across the country. Not surprisingly, ICE’s mistreatment of detainees has led to a startling pattern of deaths in ICE custody.

Despite its aggression, ICE’s operations have been ineffective in achieving their stated goals. For instance, a significant portion of those detained had no criminal offenses beyond immigration violations. This approach not only fails to address genuine security threats but also undermines public trust in law enforcement.

The administration’s heavy-handed tactics have led to widespread protests across the United States. In Los Angeles in early June 2025, demonstrations against ICE raids escalated, leading to the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops—a move condemned by California officials as a breach of state sovereignty. These actions have further strained relations between federal and local authorities and heightened tensions within communities.

The one area where ICE has demonstrated startling success has been in garnering resources for itself. In fiscal year 2025, ICE is projected to receive a gross annual appropriation of approximately $9.31 billion. While this marks a 2.6% decrease from the previous year, ICE’s funding trajectory reflects the administration’s prioritization of immigration enforcement.

The Case for Abolishing ICE

Any successful proposal for a post-ICE immigration-enforcement scheme must achieve two distinct goals. First, the new system must commit to cure the inhumanity and brutality that characterize immigration enforcement under ICE—notably by eliminating immigration detention and mass deportation. Second, the new system must be more effective in promoting compliance with immigration law.

Abolishing ICE wouldn’t mean open borders or the end of immigration enforcement. It would mean dismantling an agency that many see as structurally abusive and replacing it with a more humane, accountable system focused on civil—not criminal—immigration processes.

Legally, ICE can be dismantled through Congressional action—reallocating its funding and responsibilities to other agencies or a restructured framework under the Department of Homeland Security. This wouldn’t be unprecedented: federal agencies have been dissolved or reorganized before (e.g., the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2003). However, it would require significant political will and public pressure.

Implications for Democracy and Justice

The implications are complex: ending ICE without replacing its functions responsibly could create enforcement gaps or chaos. But with careful planning—emphasizing due process, community-based alternatives to detention, and demilitarization—the U.S. could begin to treat immigration as an administrative issue, not a criminal one.

One thing is for certain: ICE’s unchecked abuses and the administration’s disregard for legal constraints pose significant threats to democratic principles. The normalization of such practices erode public confidence in government institutions and the rule of law.

By abolishing ICE, the United States has the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to justice, human rights, and the dignity of all individuals, regardless of their immigration status.