Election season isn’t even at full throttle yet, but some Democrats are already being warned that they may be walking straight into a messaging trap they’ve fallen into before.
This time, the flashpoint is the growing push within progressive circles to “abolish ICE,” a slogan that’s gaining energy — and setting off alarm bells among veteran party strategists.
Obama-Era Strategist Sounds the Alarm
David Axelrod, a longtime political advisor to former President Barack Obama, is urging Democratic candidates to think twice before embracing the anti-ICE rallying cry.
Speaking on CNN, Axelrod argued that proudly campaigning on abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement could do serious damage to the party’s broader appeal, especially with moderate and undecided voters.
According to him, the slogan risks becoming another self-inflicted wound — much like the “defund the police” movement that haunted Democrats during and after the 2020 election cycle.
How ‘Abolish ICE’ Gained Momentum
The call to dismantle ICE has surged among the party’s most outspoken progressive voices.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar have both publicly backed the idea, framing it as a moral response to what they describe as systemic cruelty within immigration enforcement.
The debate intensified following the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during confrontations with border patrol agents in Minneapolis, incidents that reignited outrage and renewed demands to shut the agency down entirely.
Axelrod’s Core Argument: Reform Isn’t Abolition
Axelrod doesn’t deny that immigration enforcement needs reform — but he draws a firm line at elimination.
On CNN, he explained that most Americans believe people should enter the country legally and that consequences should exist for breaking immigration laws.
Where he thinks Democrats misstep is assuming voters want enforcement to disappear altogether.
In his view, they don’t.
“They may want change,” Axelrod suggested, “but they don’t want abolition.”
The Ghost of ‘Defund the Police’
To make his point clearer, Axelrod pointed back to the fallout from the “defund the police” slogan that gained traction after George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis.
While many supporters meant police reform, the phrase itself suggested something far more extreme — and Republicans quickly seized on that ambiguity.
The result? A damaging narrative that Democrats were soft on crime, even though most Americans favored reform over removing police departments entirely.
Axelrod believes “abolish ICE” risks creating the same political confusion and backlash.
What Voters Actually Think About ICE
Polling suggests the public is conflicted — but not fully aligned with abolition.
A recent Fox News poll found that support for abolishing ICE has doubled since 2018, now sitting at 36 percent overall.
Among Democrats, support jumps to 59 percent, while only 16 percent of Republicans agree.
At the same time, 59 percent of voters across party lines say ICE is too aggressive — a sharp increase from just a few months ago.
Axelrod interprets this as a mandate for reform, not demolition.
Rebranding vs. Removing the Agency
One point Axelrod did concede: ICE has a branding problem.
He acknowledged that even changing the agency’s name could be part of a broader effort to rebuild trust.
But abandoning immigration enforcement entirely?
He doesn’t see that winning majority support from either party.
In his words, there’s a big difference between fixing a broken system and scrapping it altogether.
Lawmakers Pushing Abolition Anyway
Despite the warnings, some Democrats are moving full speed ahead.
On January 15, Representative Shri Thanedar introduced the Abolish ICE Act, legislation aimed at dismantling the agency completely.
Thanedar framed the move as a necessary response to what he described as fear and intimidation experienced by immigrants across the country.
Progressive Voices Double Down
Mamdani has been especially vocal, posting on X that ICE was responsible for the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti and accusing the agency of routinely tearing families apart.
Ilhan Omar has echoed similar sentiments, arguing that ICE should be replaced with a new agency that protects national security without criminalizing immigrant communities.
She has also vowed to block additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security if it continues supporting ICE in its current form.
Shutdown Politics Complicate the Moment
Axelrod’s comments come as Congress scrambles to avoid a partial government shutdown tied to DHS funding.
President Donald Trump announced that Republicans and Democrats had reached a temporary agreement to keep most of the government funded through September.
As part of the deal, DHS funding has reportedly been separated from the broader budget, allowing lawmakers to continue debating Democratic demands to limit ICE’s authority without triggering an immediate shutdown.
What Comes Next for Democrats
The party now faces a familiar crossroads: lean into activist-driven slogans that energize the base, or recalibrate messaging to avoid alienating swing voters.
Axelrod’s warning is clear — Democrats can push for accountability and reform without embracing language that scares off the very voters they need to win.
Whether party leaders listen this time may shape the next election cycle more than any slogan ever could.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn