Tom Steyer, a Democrat running for governor of California, laid out a plan to prosecute federal immigration agents and their supervisors at the Department of Homeland Security, and put them behind bars. In a post on X, the billionaire activist called for ICE agents to be jailed "for their crimes" and outlined five steps he said would give California the power to "take on ICE and win."
The proposal amounts to a state-level declaration of legal confrontation with federal law enforcement. Steyer said he would counter "ICE head-on," going "after both their agents on the streets" and the leadership in DHS, and putting them in jail.
Set aside the constitutional questions for a moment. A candidate for the highest office in the nation's most populous state is openly campaigning on the promise to arrest federal officers for enforcing immigration law. That tells you everything about where the Democratic primary in California is heading, and how far the party's leaders are willing to go to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.
Steyer framed his proposal around five specific actions he pledged to take if elected. First, he said he would pass legislation building on existing California laws to prevent ICE agents from profiling people based on race, ethnicity, or their jobs. Second, he would give the California Attorney General authority to hold ICE agents accountable for any violence that occurs during enforcement operations.
Third, and most aggressive, Steyer said he would "appoint and fund a special investigative unit" to work alongside the Attorney General. That unit's mission: gather evidence so the state can prosecute "offenders and their leadership."
The fourth and fifth planks round out the picture. Steyer promised to bring people who may have been detained or taken by ICE agents "back home," and to create "a much larger and stronger immigration legal defense." He also pledged to "launch a massive statewide 'Know Your Rights' public education and public awareness campaign."
In short, the plan is to build a state-funded legal apparatus whose entire purpose is to obstruct, investigate, and prosecute the men and women tasked with enforcing the nation's immigration laws. Not to reform policy through Congress. Not to challenge specific regulations in court. To jail the agents.
Steyer's language on X went well beyond standard political criticism. He wrote:
"ICE is acting like a criminal organization, carrying out indiscriminate racial profiling and using violence, intimidation, terrorism, and the murder of Americans to extend Trump's rule by fear."
He described President Donald Trump as attacking and robbing "the most vulnerable in our society, while protecting and enriching the most powerful." He called for ICE to be abolished outright. And he framed the entire effort as stopping what he called the "authoritarian takeover" of Trump and ICE.
Notice the escalation. Steyer did not accuse ICE of excessive force in a particular incident. He did not cite a specific case. He labeled the entire agency a "criminal organization" engaged in "terrorism" and "murder." Those are not policy objections. Those are the words of a man building a campaign around demonizing federal officers.
The crowded California governor's race has already exposed deep fractures among Democrats competing for the nomination. Steyer's gambit reads like a bid to outflank the field from the left by promising the most confrontational posture possible toward federal immigration enforcement.
Steyer's proposal does not exist in a vacuum. A recent City Journal report found that outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom "covertly spent $1 billion importing 400,000 migrants from poor countries" into California. The outlet traced the money and reported that Newsom had "granted approximately $1 billion to an army of nonprofits that has encouraged unchecked numbers of migrants to enter the country, fought deportation orders in the courts, and led street protests against ICE."
That finding puts Steyer's plan in context. California's state government has already spent enormous sums to undermine immigration enforcement. Steyer is proposing to formalize and escalate that effort, adding criminal prosecution of federal agents to the toolkit.
Taxpayers in California are already bearing the cost of a state government that has channeled public funds to organizations working against federal law. Under Steyer's plan, those same taxpayers would fund a special investigative unit, an expanded legal defense operation, and a statewide public awareness campaign, all designed to make it harder to remove people who entered the country illegally.
When state leaders devote this kind of money and institutional energy to shielding illegal immigrants, the people who pay the price are the lawful residents, the ones stuck with the tab, the overcrowded services, and the fraud that flourishes when accountability breaks down.
The legal foundation of Steyer's plan is, to put it gently, untested. Immigration enforcement is a federal function. ICE agents operate under federal authority. The idea that a state attorney general can prosecute federal officers for carrying out their lawful duties runs headlong into the Supremacy Clause and decades of precedent on federal preemption.
Steyer did not address those constitutional barriers in his post. He spoke in terms of legislation, attorney general authority, and a special unit, but offered no explanation of how California would overcome the basic legal reality that states cannot criminalize the execution of federal law.
That gap matters. Voters deserve to know whether a candidate's signature proposal has any chance of surviving its first day in court. Steyer's plan reads more like a campaign message than a governing blueprint.
California's political class has a pattern of making bold promises about resisting federal authority, then leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for litigation that goes nowhere. The state's sanctuary policies have already generated years of legal battles. Steyer is proposing to raise the stakes dramatically, from non-cooperation to active prosecution of federal agents.
Steyer's rhetoric is a window into the incentive structure of the California Democratic primary. In a field where candidates compete for the most progressive lane, the pressure runs in one direction: toward more confrontation with federal enforcement, more public spending on illegal immigrant legal defense, and more inflammatory language about ICE.
There is no reward in a California Democratic primary for acknowledging that immigration law exists for a reason, or that the agents who enforce it are public servants doing a difficult job. The reward goes to whoever promises the most aggressive resistance.
That dynamic has consequences beyond the campaign trail. When a leading candidate for governor calls ICE a "criminal organization" engaged in "terrorism," it does not just shape a primary. It shapes the way state employees, local police, and community organizations interact with federal law enforcement. It signals that obstruction is not just tolerated, it is the official position of the state's aspiring leadership.
The broader pattern among prominent California Democrats has been to treat accountability as something that applies only to political opponents. When the scrutiny turns inward, whether over law enforcement contacts, personal conduct, or the use of public funds, the instinct is to resist, deflect, and escalate.
Steyer's plan fits that pattern. The accountability he demands is entirely one-directional: aimed at federal officers, never at the state officials who have spent billions making California a magnet for illegal immigration.
If Tom Steyer wants to run for governor on a platform of jailing ICE agents, voters are entitled to ask a few straightforward questions. What specific crimes does he believe ICE agents have committed? Which incidents is he referring to when he accuses them of "murder" and "terrorism"? What legal authority does a California governor have to prosecute federal officers? And how much will this special investigative unit cost the taxpayers who are already watching their state spend a billion dollars to undermine immigration enforcement?
None of those questions were answered in Steyer's post. The proposal was long on outrage and short on legal substance.
Meanwhile, the pattern of California Democrats facing serious accusations while demanding accountability from everyone else continues to define the state's political culture. Steyer's plan to jail federal agents is the latest and most extreme expression of a governing philosophy that treats law enforcement as the enemy and illegal immigration as a right.
A state that spends a billion dollars to import illegal immigrants and then promises to prosecute the agents sent to enforce the law is not standing up for the vulnerable. It is telling its own citizens that their laws, their safety, and their tax dollars come last.
