A week after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fatally shot a Minneapolis woman, half of American women are in favor of abolishing the law enforcement agency altogether, according to one new poll. 

Dismantling ICE was a policy embraced by a number of Democratic politicians under President Donald Trump’s first administration, particularly the progressive Squad made up largely of women of color legislators. But whether to double down on a renewed push to abolish the agency is a divisive issue within the party. 

Congress is gearing up for another spending battle this month, and Democrats have limited leverage ahead of a complex midterm landscape, especially within the Senate — so the bulk of messaging on abolishing the department has fallen on House lawmakers, including an already vocal contingent of women.

“I want everybody to understand: the cuts to your health care are what’s paying for this. All of that extra money … was taken out and given to ICE,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters this week. “You get screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face.”

Democrats who spoke with The 19th all highlighted the urgency to do something to limit ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 37-year-old Renee Good was shot by an officer on camera while in her car. They said the video was an alarming reminder that the agency needs more restrictions, though there is still internal disagreement about how far Congress should go.

Polling out this week from YouGov and The Economist found that for the first time, more Americans support than oppose abolishing the agency. Support is higher among women, with 50 percent backing abolishment, up from just 28 percent in June. This and other recent survey results represent a significant turn for the public, which historically has not backed ICE’s elimination even when approval for its actions has been lower.

Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez, long a vocal opponent of Trump’s mass deportation plans, referenced the new polling that showed a plurality or majority of respondents specifically calling for abolishing the agency: “Not defund [or] take some money from them — completely get rid of ICE as an organization. It now requires members of Congress to reckon with, what does that mean?”

Democrats have put forward a number of proposals to rein in ICE. In addition to an upcoming proposal to eliminate the agency coming from Michigan Rep. Shri Thanedar, lawmakers have also suggested curbing “excessive force” from federal immigration officers and requiring officers to be more easily identifiable. The Congressional Progressive Caucus nearly unanimously voted to oppose new DHS funding without reforms, while Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly and over 50 colleagues filed articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday.

But the appetite for a full defunding or dismantling of the agency is still low among most Democrats, much less the Republicans who currently control Congress and the White House.

Abolishing ICE became a central campaign issue for progressive congressional candidates in 2018, which solidified following Trump’s family separation policies during his first administration. Ocasio-Cortez became one of the most vocal proponents of eliminating the agency, and some presidential hopefuls joined calls to seriously reconsider ICE’s role within immigration enforcement ahead of launching their national campaigns. 

Much has changed politically since the House last officially took up the issue in 2018, when more than 130 Democrats voted “present” to avoid publicly opening themselves up to more criticism during a contentious midterms year — in which they won dozens of seats and turned the House blue. Since then, the party has struggled to unify around messaging as anti-immigrant sentiment grew leading up to the 2024 election, but the administration’s aggressive enforcement techniques have renewed a sense of urgency to address the agency’s role. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly faced defections within his caucus on votes, and his already slim majority has shrunk further, so Democrats might get closer margins on reforms than they previously anticipated. But Republicans still are the majority in Congress and the White House, and the GOP already appropriated a historic $178 billion for DHS funding last year.

On the Senate side, Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, has proposed additional restrictions on ICE and has also been trying to build a coalition for voting leverage down the line. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others are unlikely to hold up government negotiations again this year when they need to flip key GOP seats to remain competitive. 

The party’s more centrist wing is warning against speaking in extreme terms about dismantling the department on the campaign trail, with center-left think tank Third Way calling the position “politically lethal” and “emotional” in a memo on Tuesday. 

Some Democrats are making clear that they don’t want to get rid of immigration enforcement itself, and that discussions should avoid getting swept up in pithy slogans in the wider momentum of anger toward DHS. Even Ocasio-Cortez was noncommittal about any widespread use of the phrase “Abolish ICE” across her colleagues’ 2026 campaigns, saying, “It’s really about who you are and what you’re running for.”

Over the last week, Democratic messaging has focused on Good’s status as an American citizen, reinforced that ICE has existed since just 2003, and stressed that immigration enforcement can be accomplished by other means. But Ramirez and other members said outside of phrasing semantics, Congress needs to address the growing discontent with ICE in some way or another.

“People keep arguing, ‘Is it a bad hashtag? Is it going to lose elections? Is it going to kill us in 2026?’” Ramirez told The 19th. “People, regardless of whatever you call it, are saying we need serious accountability. ICE cannot continue to exist as it stands today, and members of Congress have to figure out what the actual language looks like for them, but they have to demonstrate to their constituents that we’re doing something about it.”