Will calls to 'abolish ICE' sway voters in 2026? The strategy has Democrats split

A fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis has thrust a contentious debate back into the Democratic party's mainstream: what to do about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The incident provides a political opening on a historically difficult issue, yet the strategic path forward has created a stark divide between the party's progressive and centrist wings, with the 2026 midterms looming as a critical test.

The core of the conflict centers on a three-word slogan—"Abolish ICE"—that energizes the progressive base but spooks strategists focused on winning over moderate and swing voters.

The Catalyst: A Political Opening

The killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Macklin Good last month have sparked a rare bipartisan backlash against the Trump administration's aggressive deportation tactics, led by ICE. Critics from both parties argue the agency has overstepped its authority, creating a unique opportunity for Democrats.

After struggling to craft a coherent message on immigration during the 2024 election cycle, the party now finds itself with a chance to seize the narrative.

• Flipping the Script: "There is no question that the dynamic from '24 has flipped, [during] which immigration was a sure strength for Trump and a profound weakness for Democrats," notes Jonathan Cowan, president of the centrist think tank Third Way.

• The Strategic Dilemma: The key question, Cowan argues, is how to channel the widespread anger over the administration's actions into effective policy change without alienating key constituencies. "The divide in the Democratic Party is not over rage, disgust and anger," he said. "The divide is what are you going to do about it?"

A Tale of Two Strategies

The internal Democratic debate boils down to two distinct approaches: abolition versus reform. This split mirrors a broader ideological tension within the party over how to balance bold, structural change with pragmatic, incremental adjustments.

1. The Case for Abolition

The loudest calls for abolition come from the party's progressive flank, particularly from younger Gen Z and Millennial candidates challenging the Democratic establishment. They argue that ICE is a fundamentally flawed and inhumane institution that cannot be fixed.

• A Moral Argument: Darializa Avila Chevalier, a 32-year-old progressive running a primary challenge in New York, has made abolishing ICE a central plank of her platform. "It's an institution that should have never existed to begin with," she states. "It's an institution that is younger than I am... we can all go back to a world where ICE doesn't exist."

• A Call for Boldness: Proponents like Avila Chevalier insist that Democrats must "be bold" in their solutions to galvanize voters and address the root causes of problems, rather than offering tepid reforms.

2. The Case for Reform

In contrast, many incumbent Democrats and party strategists are wary of the "abolish" tag. They advocate for an "overhaul" or "reform" of the agency, believing this language is more palatable to a broader electorate.

• Political Risk: These Democrats fear that the "abolish ICE" slogan is politically toxic, especially in swing districts. Their concern is that it allows Republicans to paint the entire party as radical and soft on crime and border security.

• The "Defund" Echo: Cowan explicitly likens the slogan to the "defund the police" movement that gained traction in 2020. "People embraced an emotionally satisfying slogan that in the long run proved to be politically toxic and a barrier to getting serious police reform," he warns. "We are in grave danger of the same problem happening."

The Republican Counter-Attack

Republicans are already capitalizing on the Democratic division, seeking to frame the "abolish ICE" movement as an attack on law and order.

The strategy is straightforward: link the slogan to the politically damaging "defund the police" narrative and portray Democrats as hostile to the law enforcement agencies that protect citizens.

• White House Messaging: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently amplified this line of attack on X, asking, "Why do Democrats keep attacking the law enforcement agencies that hunt down criminals and protect innocent American citizens?"

The Battlegrounds

This internal Democratic conflict is not just a theoretical debate; it is playing out in real-time in primary races across the country, particularly in states with significant immigrant populations and increased federal enforcement.

• Key States: The debate is especially salient in Democratic primaries in Minnesota, Illinois, California, and New York.

• Primary Challenges: In Illinois, candidates have already clashed on debate stages over competing proposals. In Minnesota, immigration enforcement has become a central issue in the high-stakes race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Tina Smith.

• Generational Divide: The issue is also exposing a generational fault line. Younger candidates are leveraging the "abolish ICE" call to frame their campaigns as a rejection of an older, more cautious Democratic establishment, as seen in Avila Chevalier's challenge to 71-year-old incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat.

The Bottom Line: A Risky Path to 2026

As Democrats gear up for the midterm elections, the party faces a critical strategic choice. It must decide whether to harness the energy of its progressive base with a call for abolition or to pursue a more cautious path of reform aimed at winning over the political center.

• The Core Dilemma: The challenge is to hold the administration accountable for its aggressive immigration tactics without adopting a slogan that could prove to be an electoral liability.

• What to Watch: The outcomes of the 2026 Democratic primaries will serve as a crucial barometer for which strategy is gaining traction. The results will not only determine individual candidates but also signal the party's broader direction on one of the nation's most polarizing issues.

Ultimately, the debate over "abolishing ICE" is more than a fight over a slogan. It is a battle for the soul of the Democratic party's immigration policy and a test of its ability to build a coalition that can win in an increasingly fractured political landscape.