People are furious with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries right now.
On "The Joy Reid Show," he refused to say the words "abolish ICE" -- even as frustration with the agency is at a boiling point.
Podcast host Wajahat Ali came armed with facts, citing CATO Institute polling showing 65 percent of people taken by ICE had no convictions, and 93 percent had no violent convictions. So he wanted to know why taxpayer dollars were being used to support this.
Here's the exchange:
Ali: "What you're telling us is that you want our taxpayer dollars to pay for a lawless, masked, armed agency to continue terrorizing our cities. I'm trying to figure out how you as a leader can be telling Americans that their taxpayer dollars should be going to ICE."
Jeffries: "I don't understand anything that you just said when I've made clear that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for the American people, not brutalize or kill them -- that's the whole reason we're in this fight."
Ali pressed again: "So you agree with me and Joy -- Abolish ICE?"
Jeffries: "Listen, I'm gonna use the language that I want to use and you can use the language that you want to use."
That answer lit up social media. But here's the nuance: ICE's brutal tactics are unpopular. So is border insecurity. Voters can oppose lawless enforcement and still want order at the border. Both things are true.
Right now, Democrats are holding up Homeland Security funding to demand oversight reforms. Funding has expired, triggering a partial shutdown. Some parts of DHS are squeezed; ICE and CBP are not. They're flush with funding from last year's "One Big Beautiful Bill."
So there's a bind -- Democrats want to curb ICE's excesses without sounding like they're walking away from enforcement altogether.
The killings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis were horrific. It was all foreseeable. It reflects an enforcement approach that rewards escalation over restraint. And yes, moments like that make people demand dramatic action.
But slogans and strategy are not the same thing.
Slogans like "Defund the police" or "Abolish ICE" don't connect with the voters Democrats need in purple and red districts. It almost seems like Democrats are walking into a trap set by the president and his advisers, giving Republicans the opportunity to label them as extreme. While ICE's responsibilities could be reassigned, with Democrats in the minority in Congress, the focus has to be on what's realistically achievable right now.
That's the political reality.
There is a serious argument here: Abolish abuses. End masked squads. End unaccountable force. End opaque detention systems. Tie funding to transparency and professional standards. Make enforcement lawful, targeted and humane.
That is not softness. That is governance.
Americans want accountability without cruelty. Enforcement without lawlessness. A system that works and respects rights.
The question isn't whether ICE should exist in theory. It's whether it can operate within the bounds of law and public trust.
And if Democrats want to win the power to change it, they have to make that case carefully, and convincingly, to the country they're trying to lead.
Lindsey Granger is a NewsNation contributor and co-host of The Hill's commentary show "Rising." This column is an edited transcription of her on-air commentary.