What legal reforms have Democrats proposed to curb ICE's powers since 2024?
Executive summary
Since 2024, Democrats have offered a spectrum of proposals to curb Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ranging from full abolition to targeted operational reforms and funding limits; notable initiatives include Rep. Shri Thanedar’s Abolish ICE Act, Senate maneuvers by Sen. Chris Murphy to attach restrictions to funding, and several oversight and accountability bills from House progressives [1] [2] [3] [4]. The debate is fractious: some Democrats push dramatic structural change or funding cuts, while others favor narrower measures—body cameras, de‑escalation, identification rules—or leveraging appropriations to compel reform [5] [6] [7].
1. Abolition and full rescission: Rep. Shri Thanedar’s Abolish ICE Act
A high‑profile, headline-grabbing option has been Rep. Shri Thanedar’s Abolish ICE Act, which would dismantle ICE entirely and rescind its funding within 90 days—an explicit rejection of the agency as beyond reform advocated in the wake of widely publicized enforcement incidents [1] [2] [5]. That measure is politically maximalist and aimed at crystallizing public anger and progressive demands, but it faces steep legislative hurdles and mixed support inside the party as lawmakers weigh electoral risks [2] [8].
2. Funding levers and “power of the purse” strategies
Several Senate and House Democrats have signaled willingness to use appropriations as leverage: centrist members have floated reducing ICE funding back to FY2024 levels, while others in the caucus and on appropriations, including Sen. Chris Murphy, are trying to attach specific restrictions to Homeland Security funding bills to constrain ICE operations [3] [4] [7]. Some proposals go further—Seth Moulton and like‑minded Democrats have suggested repurposing ICE funding toward domestic priorities—an approach that would force symbolic votes but is unlikely to pass without broader consensus [7].
3. Operational oversight: body cameras, de‑escalation and identification rules
The most concrete and bipartisan‑oriented reforms being offered focus on operational oversight: Representatives Ro Khanna and Jasmine Crockett authored an “ICE Oversight and Reform Resolution” mandating body cameras, de‑escalation training and a ban on mask‑wearing during operations, while other lawmakers have proposed QR‑code or visible identification rules to make officers identifiable during raids [5] [9]. Advocates argue these measures would reduce abuses and increase transparency, though critics say they won’t address the agency’s fundamental mandate or scale [5] [6].
4. Legal and accountability reforms: qualified immunity, excessive‑force limits
Some Democrats are proposing legal changes intended to broaden civil remedies and accountability, including ending qualified immunity for federal immigration officers and tightening rules around excessive force—ideas advanced in response to high‑profile shootings and public outcry [1] [6]. These proposals aim to open pathways for civil suits and disciplinary action but would require statutory change and face Republican resistance and institutional inertia [1].
5. Political tensions and strategic divides inside the Democratic coalition
Democratic caucus debates reveal sharp tensions: progressives pressing abolition or hard funding cuts are clashing with moderates who fear electoral fallout and prefer incremental reforms or oversight mechanisms; state executives like Gov. Kathy Hochul have proposed state‑level curbs but even she confronts reluctance from swing‑district House Democrats [7] [10] [11]. The split reflects hidden political incentives—progressives seeking movement and moral clarity, centrists prioritizing governability and swing voters—and a recognition that enforcement shifts with administrations [3] [12].
6. The practical prospects and what’s likely to pass
Given the fractured Democratic strategy and the Senate math, the most plausible near‑term changes are modest operational and oversight reforms tied to appropriations—body cameras, training standards, identification rules—or narrow funding trims rather than abolition [5] [3] [7]. Abolition or wholesale defunding remains politically resonant and mobilizing for activists, but legislative success will hinge on whether leaders can convert public anger into a unified, vote‑winning package [2] [13].