Democrats in Disarray: ICE Shooting Erupts Into All-Out Party War

Paul Riverbank, 1/16/2026ICE shooting ignites Democratic infighting, revives “Abolish ICE” debate, and shapes 2024 electoral risks.

Let’s rewind to the crux of it. Renee Good, just 37, was killed when federal agents arrived to make an arrest. Their side of the story? Good allegedly tried to weaponize her car, prompting a split-second shot from an ICE officer who claims self-defense. Still, that official account landed with a thud in Minneapolis, where local Democrats acted swiftly—and loudly. Mayor Jacob Frey and Governor Tim Walz pronounced the killing “unlawful” and squarely rejected the narrative of justified force. Within days, Minnesota had launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration, calling the most recent surge in immigration enforcement “unprecedented”—a word that’s felt overused lately, and yet it fits.

As the suit made its way into headlines, outrage was already boiling over. Rallies poured into the streets. “Abolish ICE!” became the refrain echoing from city corners and social feeds—even as progressive lawmakers in Washington jumped into the fray. Rep. Shri Thanedar was quick to declare intentions for a bill to do exactly that. Ayanna Pressley echoed the push, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—never one to mince words—described ICE as a “rogue agency formed in the post-Patriot Act era that should not exist at all.” Their arguments reached a familiar fever pitch, but this time the reaction from within the party was quicker, and decidedly less unified.

If 2020’s “Defund the Police” debate left scars, this feels like reopening the wound. Some Democratic strategists and centrist allies are sounding alarms, warning that “Abolish ICE” is a slogan with real electoral consequences. The moderate think tank Third Way was almost exasperated: “Every call to abolish ICE risks squandering one of the clearest opportunities in years to secure meaningful reform,” they wrote, adding that Republicans would love nothing more than to paint Democrats as extreme. Adam Jentleson—whose job it is to stress-test progressive messaging—said bluntly what others danced around: “Any call to abolish ICE is and always will be a political albatross.”

There’s reason for their caution. The parallel with the “Defund the Police” movement is hard to avoid; polling suggested even Democratic voters found it alienating, and Republicans didn’t have to stretch to caricature the opposition. Ruben Gallego of Arizona put it like this: “The last thing we need is to make the same mistake again. People want ICE to focus on security, not overreach. Talk of abolition only muddies the waters.”

The data tells a lopsided story—just not the lopsided narrative anybody might expect. Surveys from Quinnipiac show that 57% of Americans don’t like how ICE is handling its job, a number that climbs to a staggering 94% among Democrats. But while Republican approval is sky-high, most independents seem to be siding with the left this time. CNN, Yahoo, and other pollsters keep pulling in the same numbers: ICE’s tactics appear to be eroding a sense of safety rather than enhancing it in many Americans’ eyes.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers in state legislatures aren’t waiting for a consensus in Congress. Oregon Democrats want residents to sue federal agents over civil rights infringements. California is once again pushing to curb state cooperation with ICE, while in New Jersey, “sanctuary state” measures are now only a signature away from becoming law.

All of this drama—and it is drama—seems only to harden the resolve on the right. Former President Trump didn’t hesitate to label protesters “agitators and insurrectionists,” threatening dramatic action if local leaders didn’t “restore order.” He’s doubled down on ICE as essential to law and order, and so far, Republican lawmakers have held the same line.

Back in the halls of Congress, the issue is getting knotty. Some progressives have said flat out: reform, or we’ll block funding. They're calling not just for oversight, but for the basics—body cameras, no face coverings during operations, transparency at last. Rep. Pete Aguilar paints ICE as a terrorizing force, and Minnesota’s Angie Craig went for a historical comparison, likening today’s actions to those in 1930s Germany.

Still, ICE agents have plenty of supporters, and not just among Republicans. Supporters point to the recent arrests of violent offenders—gang members in New Mexico, child abusers in Minnesota and California—as reason to keep the agency strong.

For now, the road ahead looks as rough as ever. Democrats are teetering between the need for justice and a keen awareness of how easily a single phrase could tip crucial swing states. Republicans, meanwhile, find themselves equipped with another wedge issue heading into a turbulent election season. The debate about ICE—the agency, the idea—may be the spark, but larger questions loom. What, after all, does the Democratic Party stand for on law enforcement and immigration? How nuanced can reform be before it’s framed as weakness? What will voters hear above the shouting—in Minneapolis or anywhere else?

With budget battles brewing for 2026 and the presidential race already in gear, every word, every policy, is up for scrutiny. What happens next will say as much about the future of American politics as about the fate of ICE itself.

The fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis didn’t just light the usual fuse between left and right—it’s exposed raw divisions running right through the Democratic Party itself.Let’s rewind to the crux of it. Renee Good, just 37, was killed when federal agents arrived to make an arrest. Their side of the story? Good allegedly tried to weaponize her car, prompting a split-second shot from an ICE officer who claims self-defense. Still, that official account landed with a thud in Minneapolis, where local Democrats acted swiftly—and loudly. Mayor Jacob Frey and Governor Tim Walz pronounced the killing “unlawful” and squarely rejected the narrative of justified force. Within days, Minnesota had launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration, calling the most recent surge in immigration enforcement “unprecedented”—a word that’s felt overused lately, and yet it fits.As the suit made its way into headlines, outrage was already boiling over. Rallies poured into the streets. “Abolish ICE!” became the refrain echoing from city corners and social feeds—even as progressive lawmakers in Washington jumped into the fray. Rep. Shri Thanedar was quick to declare intentions for a bill to do exactly that. Ayanna Pressley echoed the push, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—never one to mince words—described ICE as a “rogue agency formed in the post-Patriot Act era that should not exist at all.” Their arguments reached a familiar fever pitch, but this time the reaction from within the party was quicker, and decidedly less unified.If 2020’s “Defund the Police” debate left scars, this feels like reopening the wound. Some Democratic strategists and centrist allies are sounding alarms, warning that “Abolish ICE” is a slogan with real electoral consequences. The moderate think tank Third Way was almost exasperated: “Every call to abolish ICE risks squandering one of the clearest opportunities in years to secure meaningful reform,” they wrote, adding that Republicans would love nothing more than to paint Democrats as extreme. Adam Jentleson—whose job it is to stress-test progressive messaging—said bluntly what others danced around: “Any call to abolish ICE is and always will be a political albatross.”There’s reason for their caution. The parallel with the “Defund the Police” movement is hard to avoid; polling suggested even Democratic voters found it alienating, and Republicans didn’t have to stretch to caricature the opposition. Ruben Gallego of Arizona put it like this: “The last thing we need is to make the same mistake again. People want ICE to focus on security, not overreach. Talk of abolition only muddies the waters.”The data tells a lopsided story—just not the lopsided narrative anybody might expect. Surveys from Quinnipiac show that 57% of Americans don’t like how ICE is handling its job, a number that climbs to a staggering 94% among Democrats. But while Republican approval is sky-high, most independents seem to be siding with the left this time. CNN, Yahoo, and other pollsters keep pulling in the same numbers: ICE’s tactics appear to be eroding a sense of safety rather than enhancing it in many Americans’ eyes.Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers in state legislatures aren’t waiting for a consensus in Congress. Oregon Democrats want residents to sue federal agents over civil rights infringements. California is once again pushing to curb state cooperation with ICE, while in New Jersey, “sanctuary state” measures are now only a signature away from becoming law.All of this drama—and it is drama—seems only to harden the resolve on the right. Former President Trump didn’t hesitate to label protesters “agitators and insurrectionists,” threatening dramatic action if local leaders didn’t “restore order.” He’s doubled down on ICE as essential to law and order, and so far, Republican lawmakers have held the same line.Back in the halls of Congress, the issue is getting knotty. Some progressives have said flat out: reform, or we’ll block funding. They're calling not just for oversight, but for the basics—body cameras, no face coverings during operations, transparency at last. Rep. Pete Aguilar paints ICE as a terrorizing force, and Minnesota’s Angie Craig went for a historical comparison, likening today’s actions to those in 1930s Germany.Still, ICE agents have plenty of supporters, and not just among Republicans. Supporters point to the recent arrests of violent offenders—gang members in New Mexico, child abusers in Minnesota and California—as reason to keep the agency strong.For now, the road ahead looks as rough as ever. Democrats are teetering between the need for justice and a keen awareness of how easily a single phrase could tip crucial swing states. Republicans, meanwhile, find themselves equipped with another wedge issue heading into a turbulent election season. The debate about ICE—the agency, the idea—may be the spark, but larger questions loom. What, after all, does the Democratic Party stand for on law enforcement and immigration? How nuanced can reform be before it’s framed as weakness? What will voters hear above the shouting—in Minneapolis or anywhere else?With budget battles brewing for 2026 and the presidential race already in gear, every word, every policy, is up for scrutiny. What happens next will say as much about the future of American politics as about the fate of ICE itself.