The only ones defending ICE now are foreign trolls on social media.
Executive summary
The claim that "the only ones defending ICE now are foreign trolls on social media" is false: defenders of ICE include official agency accounts, an organized domestic recruitment and influencer strategy, sympathetic partisan constituencies, and private contractors—while foreign actors and far‑right amplifiers are part of the chorus, they are not the sole source of defense [1] [2] [3] [4]. Public opinion data show broad unease with ICE tactics even as recruitment and outreach intensify, producing a complex ecosystem of defenders, critics, paid messengers and organic amplifiers [5] [3].
1. ICE is actively defending and promoting itself, not just being defended by trolls
ICE maintains an official social media presence and uses it to promote operations and recruit, meaning institutional defenses come from the agency itself and its sanctioned channels rather than only from fringe accounts [1] [3]. Procurement and outreach plans show ICE is budgeting large campaigns—including a reported $100 million push and targeted demographic advertising—which necessarily creates a supply of pro‑ICE messaging driven by the agency’s strategy, not foreign trolls alone [4] [2].
2. Domestic paid influencers and creators are part of a coordinated pro‑ICE effort
Reporting shows ICE has allocated funds to work with online creators and influencers as part of recruitment and image campaigns, including an influencer program with explicit payments to participants—this is institutional messaging bought and distributed through domestic channels, not a purely foreign troll operation [2] [4]. Platforms and contractors facilitating "social listening" and campaign delivery, including commercial vendors, further professionalize pro‑ICE outreach [6] [2].
3. Partisan publics and some voters still defend border policy even while disliking tactics
Polling indicates a split posture among voters: many back the administration’s handling of the border while simultaneously saying ICE’s tactics have “gone too far,” which means partisan defenders exist who may support removal policy even as they criticize execution [5]. YouGov polling on DHS social posts shows Republicans are more likely than Democrats to follow and view those messages favorably, signaling domestic political defenders beyond anonymous foreign accounts [3].
4. Far‑right groups and external amplifiers are demonstrably involved, but they do not comprise the entire pro‑ICE ecosystem
Journalists and experts have documented that far‑right groups have recirculated ICE recruitment posts and responded favorably to the tone and language of certain outreach—evidence that extremist audiences amplify and endorse ICE messaging online [4]. That amplification matters, but reporting also documents paid domestic campaigns, contractor involvement, and official posts, all of which sit outside the category "foreign trolls" [2] [6].
5. Surveillance and contractor networks muddy the line between organic support and engineered defense
ICE’s expansion of surveillance tools and contracts for social media monitoring, face and phone analytics, and data purchases creates a feedback loop: the agency can both craft messages and harvest signals that inform targeting and recruitment, meaning pro‑ICE defense can be engineered through technology and vendors rather than emerging purely from online trolls [7] [8] [9]. Reporting on companies like PenLink and Palantir and vendor hiring for 24/7 monitoring underlines the institutional infrastructure behind modern messaging [7] [8].
6. Advocacy groups, local communities, and journalists report a different reality than online defenders
Coverage from outlets and advocates documents fear, community impact, and allegations of intimidation tied to ICE activity, which contrasts sharply with pro‑ICE messaging—these are signs that pro‑ICE voices do not convincingly represent affected communities and that official defense meets substantial civic pushback [10] [11] [12]. The presence of vigorous domestic criticism undermines any caricature that only foreign trolls defend the agency.
7. Bottom line: nuance over absolutism
Available reporting supports a clear answer: it is inaccurate to reduce ICE’s defenders to "foreign trolls on social media." The landscape includes official agency accounts, paid influencer campaigns, partisan supporters, contractors and far‑right amplifiers; foreign trolls are one component of a larger, highly organized outreach and surveillance apparatus—and public polling and civic reporting show persistent domestic skepticism and opposition [1] [2] [4] [5] [10]. This complexity matters for policy and public debate because labeling all defenders as foreign actors obscures the domestic funding, strategy and political choices sustaining pro‑ICE narratives.