How have attitudes toward ICE changed over the last five years across major polling firms?
Executive summary
Public attitudes toward immigration-and-customs-enforcement">U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have shifted markedly over the last five years, moving from broadly unfavorable but not abolitionist in 2019 to a 2026 landscape in which roughly half of Americans express unfavorable views and support for abolishing or radically reforming the agency has surged in multiple polls [1] [2] [3]. The change accelerated sharply after high‑profile enforcement actions and the January 2026 Minneapolis shooting, with consistent cross‑poll signals of rising disapproval, increased belief that ICE is “too forceful,” and growing public sympathy for protests against the agency [4] [5] [6].
1. National snapshot: growing disapproval and openness to abolition
In January 2026, multiple major polls converged on a picture of increased public skepticism: YouGov found about 52% of Americans held an unfavorable view of ICE and roughly half described its tactics as too forceful [2] [4], The Economist/YouGov reported near‑parity or plurality support for abolishing the agency in its post‑shooting survey [1], and Civiqs data aggregated by analysts showed support for abolition rising from roughly a quarter before the administration to about 42% in early 2026 [3]. CBS News/YouGov and Reuters summaries echoed this pattern, with a majority telling pollsters they thought ICE was making communities less safe and that tactics had become too tough [6] [7].
2. The five‑year trendline: from distrust to a pivot toward abolitionist sentiment
In 2019, early polling recorded widespread unfavorable views of ICE but relatively modest support for outright abolition—The Economist/YouGov then found around 32% favoring elimination—while through 2023–25 disapproval remained substantial but not uniformly abolitionist [1]. By mid‑2025, Quinnipiac showed consistent disapproval majorities (around mid‑40s to mid‑50s) and in the months after January 2026 the shift toward abolition and harsher ratings became pronounced; Civiqs and YouGov comparisons show the most dramatic movement occurred during Donald Trump’s second term and spiked after the Minneapolis shooting [3] [1] [2].
3. Partisan fault lines: entrenched divides but some cross‑cutting unease
Polls consistently show sharp partisan splits: Republicans overwhelmingly approve of ICE’s enforcement in Quinnipiac’s surveys while Democrats and many independents disapprove, and these gaps persist even as aggregate negative ratings rise [8] [5]. Yet several surveys report cross‑cutting concerns—such as majorities saying ICE tactics are “too tough” or that operations make communities less safe—which suggest specific tactics and high‑profile incidents can erode support beyond typical partisan anchors [6] [7]. Reuters and AP‑NORC coverage highlight that even within Republican constituencies there are nuanced reactions to use‑of‑force incidents, complicating a simple partisan realignment [9] [10].
4. How polling firms differ—and why the changes should be assessed cautiously
Major firms (YouGov, Quinnipiac, CBS/YouGov, Civiqs, AP‑NORC, Reuters/Ipsos) produce broadly similar directional results but differ in wording, timing, mode, and samples—YouGov’s online opt‑in panel framed questions about favorability and tactics [2], Civiqs aggregated trend data on abolition support [3], and Quinnipiac’s registered‑voter samples show durable party splits [5]. Those methodological differences mean magnitudes vary—one poll may show 46% favor abolition while another shows 42%—but the consistent sign across independent surveys is what defines the trend [1] [3] [2]. Reporting often ties sudden swings to news events (the Minneapolis shooting), a reasonable association given synchronized timing across multiple poll releases [5] [4].
5. Political stakes and limitations of the evidence
Polls indicate the ICE issue has become more politically volatile, creating risks for Republicans who have relied on immigration as a security message and offering Democrats a possible opening on reform or abolition debates—coverage from Reuters and opinion pieces note both electoral and legislative implications [9] [11]. However, available reporting does not allow a definitive attribution of long‑term cause beyond correlation with policy shifts and high‑profile incidents, and the precise durability of these opinion changes heading into 2026 elections remains uncertain within the cited sources [3] [10].