Is Ice targeting only Democratic-led or sanctuary jurisdictions and in communities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement?
Executive summary
ICE’s recent surge in operations has overwhelmingly focused on jurisdictions that identify as “sanctuary” or that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities—many of which are led by Democrats—but the agency is not literally confined to Democratic-run or sanctuary areas and has longstanding partnerships and operations in Republican jurisdictions as well [1] [2] [3].
1. What the evidence of targeting shows: sanctuary status and Democratic leadership are prominent factors
Public reporting and statements from both the administration and observers indicate that the presence of sanctuary policies and limited local cooperation is a central criterion driving where ICE deploys enforcement resources, and virtually all the jurisdictions the White House has publicly focused on to date are led by Democrats, prompting threats to cut federal funding for “sanctuary” states and cities [1] [4] [5]. Department of Homeland Security and ICE officials have tied operations to locales that refuse detainers or otherwise limit transfers to federal custody, and former acting ICE leadership has explicitly said sanctuary policies present operational challenges that influence city selection [3] [2]. News outlets tracking deployments—The New York Times, The Guardian and others—have documented stepped-up “strike team” activity and public confrontations in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis and Charlotte, all jurisdictions described in reporting as having policies or leadership resistant to routine cooperation with ICE [6] [2] [7].
2. Why critics say the pattern looks political—and why the administration disputes that reading
Democrats and civil-rights groups argue the focus on cities and states governed by their party amounts to political targeting designed to manufacture confrontations and punish opponents, a claim bolstered by the administration’s public threats to cut funding and by the timing and visibility of deployments following high-profile clashes such as the Minneapolis shooting [4] [5] [8]. Administration officials and some law-enforcement commentators counter that operational choices are driven by law-enforcement priorities—presence of noncooperation, known populations of removable individuals, and logistical considerations—not partisan scorekeeping, with ICE leadership and former agency officials pointing to sanctuary policies as a legitimate operational variable [3] [1]. Reporting shows both narratives are being advanced publicly, underscoring an overlapping mix of law-enforcement rationale and high-stakes political signaling [9] [1].
3. Where the simple “only Democrats” claim breaks down—ICE’s footprint is broader
ICE’s expansion is not limited to blue cities: the agency maintains and is expanding formal cooperative programs like 287(g) with many Republican-led localities and states, has built detention capacity in smaller, sometimes conservative towns, and uses surveillance tools and national databases that reach beyond city boundaries—evidence that operational reach crosses partisan lines even as recent high-profile operations have concentrated in places with sanctuary policies [2] [10] [11]. Reporting also notes that California and other Democratic jurisdictions, despite sanctuary postures, still host large ICE facilities and have seen federal operations, which complicates a neat partisan binary and shows ICE can and does operate inside blue jurisdictions as well [12] [8].
4. Bottom line, limitations and what remains uncertain
The available reporting shows a clear and intentional emphasis by the current administration on targeting sanctuary jurisdictions—almost all publicly identified locales are Democratic-led and many explicitly limit cooperation with ICE—but it does not support the absolutist claim that ICE targets only those places; historical programs, new detention plans and surveillance capabilities demonstrate a nationwide capacity and occasional operations in Republican areas too [1] [2] [10] [11]. Public sources do not provide a comprehensive, itemized rulebook of city-selection criteria or a complete dataset of every ICE operation to prove exclusivity one way or the other, so while the pattern of concentration in sanctuary/Democratic jurisdictions is well-documented, any claim that ICE “only” targets those jurisdictions overstates what the reporting can definitively prove [1] [3].