How has media coverage of ICE operations differed between 2009–2016 and 2017–2024, and what effect did that have on public opinion?
Executive summary
Media coverage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shifted from largely routine, law-enforcement-focused reporting in the Obama years toward intensely partisan, crisis-driven narratives after 2016, and that shift helped reframe public opinion—polarizing attitudes and contributing to surges in calls to abolish or sharply reform the agency [1] [2] [3]. Polling shows growing negativity toward ICE through 2024 and into 2025, with coverage styles and political leadership both cited as drivers of that change [4] [5] [6].
1. What coverage looked like from roughly 2009–2016: embedded reporting and law‑enforcement framing
During the Obama administration, mainstream outlets often presented ICE operations as routine law-enforcement activity, sometimes embedding reporters with agents to show raids and arrests in a procedural frame—an example is a 2016 CNN segment that embedded a reporter with ICE officers in Chicago and depicted arrests as targeted operations against serious offenders [1]. That coverage tended to emphasize agency professionalism and criminal removals rather than systemic critiques, a pattern critics point to when comparing pre‑ and post‑2016 coverage [1]. There is limited systematic source material in the provided reporting quantifying the full 2009–2016 media landscape, so assertions about that entire period rely on episodic examples like the CNN piece [1].
2. How coverage changed from 2017–2024: visceral imagery, policy controversy, and sustained scrutiny
Beginning in 2017 and accelerating during the Trump administration, reporting shifted toward conflict-driven coverage: vivid images of family separations, courtroom battles, and high‑profile raids turned enforcement into a potent political symbol, and media narratives increasingly connected ICE operations directly to presidential policy choices and controversies [3]. outlets across the spectrum began to select frames that matched their audiences—right‑leaning outlets often emphasized removal of dangerous criminals while left‑leaning outlets foregrounded wrongful detentions and humanitarian harms—producing divergent storylines about the same operations [2] [7]. This era also saw coverage of large-scale enforcement promises and operational expansions that kept ICE in the front pages and on social feeds [3] [8].
3. The mechanics: partisan selection, social amplification and political signaling
Partisan editorial choices amplified certain operations and muted others, with language (e.g., “illegal alien” vs. “immigrant”) and selection of cases steering audience interpretation, while social media and pundit networks magnified emotionally resonant episodes into national controversies [2]. Political leaders’ rhetoric—whether condemning or championing aggressive enforcement—served as a multiplier; researchers cited in reporting link changing political discourse from 2016–2024 to shifts in media focus and public attitudes, suggesting an “ebb and flow” tied to presidential party and messaging [3]. Critics on both sides accuse media of bias: some outlet studies argue mainstream networks downplay protester violence or partisan affiliations, while others document omission of enforcement successes in left-leaning coverage [7] [2].
4. Effects on public opinion: polarization, declining favorability, and policy demands
Polling after 2016 shows growing negativity toward ICE, especially among Democrats, with approval ratings plunging and support for abolishing or drastically reforming the agency rising—YouGov and other polls reported steep drops in favorability and increasing proportions favoring abolition or major changes between 2019–2025 [4] [6]. Coverage that emphasized family separation, wrongful detentions, and high‑visibility raids correlated with spikes in public concern and protest support, while coverage framed around border crossings and enforcement expanded fear narratives that pushed some independents and Republicans toward endorsing tougher measures [3] [9] [5]. The net effect documented in multiple polls was both a decline in overall public trust and an intensification of partisan splits: by 2025–26, majorities in some samples disapproved of ICE and large swaths of Democrats registered deeply negative views [4] [10].
5. Bottom line and limits of the record
The record in the provided reporting shows a clear directional change: journalism moved from procedural depictions of ICE operations toward politicized, high‑emotion framing after 2016, and that media evolution coincided with measurable shifts in public opinion—more skepticism, more calls for abolition, and sharper partisan divides [1] [2] [6]. Causation is complex: coverage interacted with presidential rhetoric, policy changes, and social amplification to reshape perceptions, but the sources do not fully disentangle which specific stories or outlets were most causative; rigorous longitudinal content analyses beyond the cited reportage would be needed to conclusively map cause-and-effect [3] [2]. The practical takeaway is unmistakable in the sources: how journalists and politicians frame enforcement matters—and the American public has responded in large, measurable numbers [3] [4].