The Democratic National Committee approved competing measures to both abolish and reform ICE at its summer gathering in Austin, Texas, a split that laid bare the party's inability to settle on an immigration message even as midterm elections approach.
DNC members voted Saturday on two separate, non-binding resolutions addressing the future of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. One called for "concrete reforms" of the agency. The other called for abolishing it entirely. Both passed. Neither sets the party's official platform, which will be determined at the 2028 convention, but the dueling outcomes put the party's internal fracture on full display.
The abolition resolution goes further than a symbolic statement. It calls for legislation to abolish ICE, restrict Department of Homeland Security funding, and close detention facilities by ending contracts with private prison companies, the Washington Examiner reported. That language moves well past the reform-minded resolution and into territory that would dismantle core federal immigration enforcement infrastructure.
DNC member Michele Johnson of Louisiana, who proposed the abolition measure, framed it as a matter of political authenticity. She argued the party's cautious, poll-tested messaging has eroded public trust.
"I think one of the reasons why people are not trusting the party is because we sound so academic. We sound focus group tested, we sound poll tested because we're worried about saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong thing and not just like, just stand on business, like take a position."
Johnson pointed to the dissolution of ICE's predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, as a precedent for shutting down a federal enforcement body. That comparison glosses over the fact that the INS was reorganized into new agencies, including ICE itself, after the September 11 attacks, not eliminated because Congress decided immigration enforcement was unnecessary.
DNC Chairman Ken Martin, who hails from Minnesota, attempted to cast the vote as a sign of unity rather than division. In an interview, he argued that Democrats agree on the big picture even if they differ on the prescription.
"Clearly, the one thing that unites Democrats, regardless of their position on reform versus abolish or whatever other ways to change what's happening, is people believe that what ICE is doing right now, and CBP and the federal government, should stop. There has to be a better way."
That framing asks voters to ignore the obvious: the party just passed two contradictory positions on the same agency at the same meeting. One says fix ICE. The other says destroy it. Martin's claim that both camps are really saying the same thing does not hold up when one resolution calls for closing detention centers and cutting DHS funding.
Not every DNC member bought the unity pitch. Yvonne Reeves-Chong, a DNC member who voted against the abolition measure, warned that the resolution would energize only a slice of the party's base while drawing opposition from other voters the party needs.
"I would strongly suggest we get to the business of winning races so we can make the policies that make a difference."
Reeves-Chong's objection carried a practical edge that Johnson's did not. Winning elections requires persuading voters beyond the party's activist core, and polling suggests immigration is not ground where Democrats are gaining.
An AP-NORC poll released this month found that 39 percent of U.S. adults approve of President Trump's handling of immigration, down from 49 percent at the start of his second term. The AP reported that immigration remains a stronger issue for Trump than the economy or Iran.
That decline in approval might look like an opening for Democrats. But the DNC's response, passing both an abolish resolution and a reform resolution at the same meeting, does not project a party ready to capitalize. It projects a party that cannot decide what it believes.
The "Abolish ICE" slogan first gained traction during Trump's first term in 2018, when it became a progressive rallying cry. At the time, Democratic leadership largely kept the idea at arm's length, recognizing it as a political liability in swing districts. Eight years later, the DNC has now formally passed a resolution endorsing the concept, alongside a competing resolution that implicitly rejects it.
The Republican National Committee seized on the DNC's split. RNC Chairman Joe Gruters issued a statement casting the resolutions as proof that Democrats prioritize illegal immigrants over American families.
"Democrats made it official: they care more about protecting violent illegal aliens than American families."
That line is campaign rhetoric, but it lands because the DNC handed Republicans the material. Passing a resolution to abolish the federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement, one that explicitly calls for defunding DHS operations and shutting down detention centers, gives opponents a concrete policy position to run against. Breitbart noted the vote highlighted internal party divisions ahead of the midterms, a vulnerability Republicans intend to exploit.
The timing compounds the problem. Three people were killed in encounters with ICE in the span of under a week in July, and two fatal shootings by the agency occurred that same month. DNC Chairman Martin referenced the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota earlier this year. Democrats have framed these incidents as evidence that ICE operates recklessly and without adequate accountability.
But the party's response to those incidents, abolish the agency or reform it, take your pick, undercuts the seriousness of its own argument. If ICE's conduct is as dangerous as Democrats say, a party serious about the issue would settle on a single course of action and fight for it. Passing two contradictory resolutions at the same meeting suggests the goal is to let every faction claim a win rather than to solve anything.
Martin emphasized that the vote does not bind Democratic candidates or officeholders. Lawmakers will continue to determine their own positions on immigration enforcement, and the party's official platform will not be written until the 2028 convention. In practical terms, the resolutions are messaging documents, statements of sentiment from party activists, not governing blueprints.
That distinction matters less than Martin might hope. Non-binding or not, the DNC just put "Abolish ICE" on the record as an official party resolution. Every Democratic candidate running in a competitive district will now face questions about whether they support it. Those who distance themselves from the resolution risk alienating the activist base that pushed it through. Those who embrace it risk confirming the Republican attack line in front of swing voters.
Reeves-Chong's warning, get back to the business of winning, may have been the most clear-eyed statement anyone made in Austin. The DNC chose to pass feel-good resolutions instead.
When a party cannot agree on whether to fix an agency or eliminate it, the only message voters receive is that the party has no message at all.
