Democratic candidates and party officials remain divided over the future of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. While the party has largely unified around messages regarding border security, internal disagreements persist between those calling for the total abolition of the agency and those advocating for institutional reforms.
The division follows the 2024 presidential election, where Democrats faced political backlash over the Biden administration's border policies. Currently, candidates in battleground states are attempting to balance the preferences of a progressive base with those of undecided voters who, according to recent polling, generally oppose dissolving the agency.
A POLITICO poll conducted between August 8 and 12 found that only 21 percent of undecided midterm voters support abolishing ICE. In contrast, 51 percent of self-described moderate Democrats and 67 percent of progressive Democrats support that position. Candidates in border states, such as Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D), have proposed reforms like banning face coverings for officers and requiring body cameras, while Senate candidates in Maine and Michigan have called for the agency to be eliminated.
The disagreement reached the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during a meeting in Austin. Members were unable to reach a consensus on a single platform, ultimately approving two separate resolutions: one calling for the agency's abolition and another focusing on reform. The lack of a unified stance comes as the party looks toward the 2028 presidential primary, which will feature early contests in Nevada and New Mexico, states with high Hispanic populations where immigration enforcement is a central issue.
The scale of this issue is reflected in the divergent strategies of high-profile candidates across several states. In Maine, Democratic nominee Troy Jackson is campaigning on an "abolish ICE" platform following a July incident where a federal agent killed a man in Biddeford. In Texas, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D) is instead focusing on legislative guardrails, such as requiring judicial warrants for worksite entries and protecting sensitive areas like churches from enforcement actions. These policy differences mean that a voter's experience with federal immigration authorities could vary significantly depending on which faction of the party gains legislative influence.
Knock-on effects include the potential for shifts in how federal funds are allocated for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sub-agencies. If proponents of reform like Rep. Cuellar succeed, federal agents would face new mandates for body cameras and stricter protocols for interacting with the public. If proponents of abolition gain ground, it could lead to the decommissioning of an entire federal agency, a move that would require a complete restructuring of how the U.S. government processes non-citizens and enforces interior immigration laws. The immediate next steps include the November 2026 midterm elections, which will serve as a test for which message resonates with the general electorate.