Related to this general theme, the kind of family rift often attributed to Trump happened for me 20 years ago. My brother stormed out of my home with a colorful line about what I could do to myself, prompted by my refusal to support Bush's Iraq adventurism, thereby betraying "our boys" sent to wage that war. We have been largely estranged ever since. Given he was that emotional over disagreeing with Bush policy, try to imagine where his head is in the era of MAGA.
💙❤️💙❤️ Nancee — I feel this so much. That kind of family rupture didn’t start with Trump; he just poured gasoline on something that was already smoldering. The “betraying our boys” line is such a perfect snapshot of how dissent gets treated like treason in certain households—like you’re not allowed to disagree with policy, you’re only allowed to cheer for it. And when someone is already wired to take disagreement as a personal insult, MAGA doesn’t just shape their politics — it gives them permission to turn their anger into a whole identity.
What gets me is how fast that emotional jump happens: you weren’t attacking your brother, you weren’t wishing harm on anyone, you were criticizing a war. But in that mindset, critique becomes “disloyalty,” and then “disloyalty” becomes “you’re my enemy.” That’s not normal political disagreement — that’s a worldview that can’t tolerate a shared reality unless it’s wrapped in nationalism and force.
And you’re right: if he was that heated about Bush-era Iraq, MAGA is basically the deluxe edition of that same posture — louder, crueler, and more personal. I’m sorry you’ve had to carry that for twenty years. That’s not just “politics,” that’s grief.
Now let me tell you about my son, my only surviving child. He is a product of the exclusively right wing media he consumes. While he denies being a Trump supporter - they're all the same, you know- his perspective on every issue reflects his trusted sources, like the Epoch Times. That cuts me deeply!
I remember when the phrase Homeland Security first came up. It shot red flags into my soul. But I shoved it aside, and went back to raising my kids and writing humor related to our everyday lives. Still do write about that.
So I am so happy for your thorough recap of the horrendous history of ICE. And for our elected Democrats still having an irresponsible time playing hard HARDBALL with Republicans.
Yes. Dismantle ICE. Find another way. In the meantime I say to those who will weep and wail that we’re opening the floodgate to mounds and mounds of criminal immigrants…no. View dismantling the stinking, rotting, out of control thing that is ICE as like cutting out a fatal cancer in the US.
Ruth — I felt that “Homeland Security” line in my bones. The name alone was a warning label: take normal government functions, slap a post-9/11 panic sticker on them, then dare anyone to question it without getting accused of “not caring about safety.” 
And you’re dead-on about why I keep going back to origins any time someone tries to sell me the “ICE can be redeemed” pitch. ICE wasn’t a longstanding institution that went off the rails. It was built in the post-9/11 reorganization—created under the Homeland Security Act, folded into DHS, and designed around a “homeland security” mandate from day one.  That origin story matters because it explains the personality of the agency: broad discretion, permanent urgency, and a built-in incentive to expand its footprint in the name of “security.” That’s not a bug. That’s the product.
So when people tell me “just restructure it,” I hear: keep the same incentive structure, keep the same culture, just change the brochure. That’s like trying to “reform” a wasp nest by appointing a nicer head wasp.
Also: you’re right about Democrats playing hardball like it’s a game of chicken they keep losing. They act like the GOP is still operating under the old rules—good faith, shared reality, mutual restraint—when the entire point of the modern right-wing ecosystem is to punish restraint and reward escalation. That’s how you get trapped defending the indefensible instead of drawing a bright moral line and holding it.
On the “floodgates” crowd: they always pretend the only two options are ICE or an apocalyptic stampede. That’s fear marketing. Dismantling ICE doesn’t mean “no immigration system.” It means rebuilding one that isn’t organized around permanent suspicion and performative cruelty—separating legitimate cross-border crime investigations from mass interior enforcement that treats human beings like a quota. ICE’s own structure makes clear how much of it is enforcement-and-removal machinery, not some sacred national-security necessity. 
Your cancer metaphor is right: you don’t “restructure” the tumor. You remove it — and you build a healthier system in its place.
Thank you for the article, it seems that our government has been giving away our taxpayer dollars like we drinking water. I hope Senator Schumer sticks to his word instead of enabling the GOP. I am sick and tired of ice killing people , I hope the ice agents are charged with state crimes , I understand why Governor Walz is very concerned and careful with this matter.
Linda — you’re not wrong. From what we’ve seen and what’s been reported, this looks like an unjustified killing, period. If an ordinary civilian shot someone like that, we wouldn’t be doing this polite little dance with “administrative leave” and “internal review.” We’d be talking about charges.
And you nailed the bigger point: we keep dumping taxpayer money into agencies that behave like they’re exempt from consequences, then we’re told to accept it as “security.” That’s not security — that’s a license.
Schumer sticking to his word is the very least he can do. Anything less is him helping normalize the idea that ICE can kill people and the political class will shrug as long as the right headline gets written.
As for Walz: being careful is fine, but careful can’t mean timid. If this happened the way it appears to have happened, the state needs to treat it like what it is — a killing that demands real accountability, not a PR rinse cycle.
Kevin — that Franklin line is exactly the trap we’ve been living in since 9/11. “Security” becomes the blank check, and the bill always comes due in somebody’s blood and somebody else’s rights. ICE is Exhibit A: a post-9/11 agency that keeps expanding its power while accountability keeps shrinking. That’s not safety — that’s permission.
A word to the wise If the Fed chairman is warning investors(https://bit.ly/4t4vGGb) about an overbought/overvalued equity/stock market, buyer beware should be a clear signal
Powell also understands but won’t make a public statement about the purchasing power of the dollar with respect to gold Measured in what the dollar was in 1971 in terms of gold the dollar’s current purchasing power is almost zero
It’s not that the price of gold is going up but that the purchasing power of the dollar is zilch Over the last year the dollar has dropped 20 basis points and some financial news outlets are telling investors to get into hard assets such as gold, silver, and real estate Troubling times are ahead and people should be protecting their lifetime savings
Your article took be back to 9/11 days, The Patriot Act, and Pres. George W. Bush. In my household we saw the The Patriot Act for what it was: An infringement on civil liberties because it expanded surveillance and law enforcement powers of the U, S, government. And here we are today with ICE. ICE is just questionable, needing reform, is a lazy "A" remark from fence sitters. ICE needs to be abolished for the lawless group it is. I am only sorry that over the years I or we as country didn't really pay attention to this. We knew and stored the Patriot Act in our memory jungle where the memory was tangled in our everyday lives--lives that are now threatened by the goons in power. Your article opens the path through that jungle. Come on Senate---don't fund ICE like its normal and just needs a tweak, it needs closing down, and from top to bottom the agents need to face their lawlessness. What has been happening is murder, not bad mistakes. (That "mistakes happen" statement is galling. Trump and goons know no shame.)
Renee Nicole Good and Alex Jeffery Pretti, we will remember your bravery and dedication to protecting and helping others. May our voices and actions help stop this madness.
Maxine — you nailed it. The Patriot Act wasn’t just a “policy moment,” it was a civil-liberties demolition that normalized surveillance, secrecy, and the idea that the government can expand its power first and ask questions never. And ICE is one of the ugliest downstream consequences of that whole post-9/11 panic architecture.
And I can tell you this personally: I was 19 when Bush’s term began and 27 when it ended. I remember those years vividly. I also remember when Obama got elected and friends telling me, “It could never get worse than W. Bush.” And I said, with my full chest, it can always get worse. Never underestimate this country’s capacity for evil—especially when fear gets dressed up as “security” and cruelty gets marketed as “common sense.”
You’re also right about the fence-sitter language. “Reform” becomes a comfort word when people don’t want to say the actual truth out loud: the lawlessness isn’t a glitch, it’s the culture. And once an agency gets comfortable operating like a goon squad—protected by political cover, vague mandates, and accountability theatre—“major reform” starts sounding like a polite way of saying “keep it, but please stop embarrassing us.”
The “mistakes happen” line is galling for exactly the reason you said: what’s happening is murder, and the administration is trying to launder it into a tragic oopsie. That’s not leadership. That’s propaganda. And you’re dead on that these people don’t do shame.
I also really appreciate what you said about “opening a path through the jungle.” That means a lot, because a huge part of the fight is getting people to stop treating this as disconnected headlines and start seeing the system—the throughline from the Patriot Act mentality to DHS to ICE to the current blood-on-the-sidewalk reality.
And thank you for saying their names the way you did. Renée Nicole Good. Alex Jeffrey Pretti. They deserved better than this country gave them, and they deserve more than a news cycle’s worth of attention.
Jeff — you’re not wrong. If the recount in Florida plays out differently, we’re probably not living in the same post-9/11 timeline at all: no Bush administration building DHS, no Patriot Act as we came to know it, no Iraq War fever-dream, and no ICE as the institutional “answer” to national trauma.
And that’s what people keep missing when they try to treat ICE like it’s some normal agency that just needs a tune-up. It was born out of that exact political moment—fear, overreach, and a Supreme Court willing to bless it—and we’ve been paying the price ever since.
Trump is the natural conclusion to the "Reagan Revolution". Reagan was every bit as dumb and racist as Trump, but Reagan knew better how to "message" his beliefs. Is it any wonder so many of us distrust government to do what is best for the majority of us?
I admit I didn't know much about DHS when it was formed. My only belief at the time was that it was a redundant department - the FBI actually knew something was up in early 2001 and alerted Bush's administration to what was going on in pilot training areas around the country. I believed that DHS was created to make the public think our government was committed to protecting us. I didn't believe it then and naturally don't believe it today. And, I won't even get into the word "Homeland" in the name - a silly, yet racist dog whistle of a word.
But why was ICE created within DHS? We already had a border security department. Why couldn't we simply improve that? In retrospect, I think you're correct, Prof. Ealy, in that it WAS created to target minorities. Cruelty was always the point. I've wanted ICE (and DHS) dissolved for years, but I don't expect the milquetoast Democrats in Washington, and certainly not the Republicans, to do anything that "extreme".
So, where does that leave us? As I've felt for a while, we need a huge change in this country, an ANTI-Reagan revolution. Perhaps everything that has happened over the past year of Trump's 2nd Term will help others to feel that way, too.
Koko — I’m with you on Reagan being dumb. “As dumb as Trump” might be a bridge too far for me 😂 but your overall point is absolutely taken: Reagan, for all his stupidity and evil, had far better political instincts than Trump—and he knew how to wrap the cruelty in something that sounded like optimism and patriotism.
And you’re right about DHS feeling redundant even at the time. A lot of it was designed to signal “we’re doing something” after 9/11, and that signaling became its own justification. The word “Homeland” was never neutral either—it’s the kind of language that’s supposed to make you feel protected while quietly training you to accept a bigger surveillance-and-enforcement state. When people start talking about “homeland,” it’s usually because they want you thinking in tribe terms, not rights terms.
Your question about why ICE had to be created inside DHS is the key one. We already had immigration enforcement infrastructure. What DHS + ICE did was fuse immigration into the post-9/11 “security” mindset—so immigration stops being treated as civil enforcement and starts getting treated like an enemy-management project. And once you build an agency around that identity—“we’re the thin line protecting the homeland”—cruelty becomes a feature, not a bug. In retrospect, you’re right: it was built to target marginalized communities, and it’s why the mission statement never matches the lived reality of the people who get put in its crosshairs.
And on where it leaves us: I agree that a real “anti-Reagan revolution” is basically the only honest answer here. Not just electorally, but philosophically—undoing the idea that government’s main job is to police, punish, and protect wealth while calling it “freedom.” Because ICE/DHS is what you get when you take decades of that worldview, add a national trauma, and then institutionalize panic.
Also: your point about Democrats—“milktoast” (accurate) and cautious—lands. They’re terrified of being labeled “extreme,” even when the “moderate” position is tolerating a federal agency that keeps producing the same abuses in different cities, different years, different administrations. That fear is part of why we’re stuck: they keep trying to manage the optics while the machinery keeps grinding.
Appreciate you laying it out like this. You’re not wrong—Trump is the natural endpoint of a long political project, and DHS/ICE is one of the clearest receipts.
Thanks for all that background. I hate making pronouncements on things without more than a little knowledge about it. As to Reagan's stupidity, we'll have to agree to disagree :D. There's George W., though. Come to think of it, the only smart Republican POTUS we've had since Reagan was George H. W. Bush. That says a lot right there.
The handwriting was on the wall when George W Bush established DHS. Sooner or later some President was going to pick up this club for internal management of the US: built in armies, no need for DoD, and room to run on policing policy.
James — exactly. DHS was built like a domestic “just-in-case” army: huge mandate, weak guardrails, and plenty of room for any future president to turn “security” into internal policing.
And that’s why I don’t buy the “it just needs reform” line. Once you create a bureaucracy designed to expand in crisis, it will keep expanding—until it’s being used on the public. Bush built the club. Trump just started swinging it openly.
Thank you. People tend to enshrine government agencies like they were with us since the beginning of time, laid out with the Magna Carta. ICE is a fruit of a poisonous tree and should be viewed in that light. The entire DHS needs to go.
I recall Thanksgiving 2003, DH and I were sitting at a table full of Republicans, most to the harder right, the rest country club GOPers when a pot stirring guest asked what we all thought about the Homeland Security Act (which was still topical) and also likely because my husband and I were working air traffic controllers, the DOT split with that Act, the FAA barely missed being rounded up as well.
My husband gave me the look that said, Oh no.... So I drew breath and said, "We will live to regret giving up so much of our freedoms for the passage of the Patriot Act as well as this reactionary bill in the name of safety." I added. "The name "Homeland" suspiciously smells tyrannical, TSA is Kabuki Theater and I'd rather fly naked (I'm FAMOUSLY modest.) than have done this." The table was so quiet you could have heard a mouse squeak in the yard, then one of the country clubbers said, "Well anyway, how about those Broncos?" and that was that. I stand by those words 22+ years later.
This was always going to happen especially in the hands of an unconstrained authoritarian and here we are. Regrettably.
Cathy — thank you. You’re dead right about how people talk about these agencies like they descended from the heavens alongside the Magna Carta. ICE didn’t “go bad.” It’s fruit of a poisonous tree, and DHS is the soil it’s been growing in.
Also: you called it in 2003 at that table. The fact that your husband gave you the “oh no…” look tells me you already knew what time it was. And your point about the DOT split and the FAA almost getting rounded up in the Homeland Security reshuffle? That’s exactly how these “security” mega-bureaucracies metastasize: they keep expanding the definition of “threat” until ordinary public infrastructure starts getting treated like it belongs inside a national security cage.
Your line about the Patriot Act + the reactionary “safety” bill is the whole story. We gave up freedoms in exchange for a promise that wasn’t even kept—and then we normalized the machinery that made it easier to surveil, detain, and intimidate. And yes: the name “Homeland” has always had that authoritarian stink on it. TSA as Kabuki Theater is perfect—a performance of control that conditions the public to accept intrusion as “just how things are.” (Also, “I’d rather fly naked” being said by someone famously modest is elite-level table silence. No notes.)
On Bush: he may have had more humanity than Trump in his tone, but that is a low bar you step over without lifting your foot. Bush had no problem launching a forever-war posture and turning Middle Easterners into boogeymen for political oxygen. That era built the cultural permission slip for profiling, suspicion-as-policy, and “security” as a blank check. Trump didn’t invent this monster—he just stopped pretending it needed manners.
And your last line is the hardest truth: this was always where an unconstrained authoritarian could take it. DHS created the club. ICE became the cudgel. All it needed was a president willing to swing it at the public and call it “order.”
Regrettably, here we are. And you were right to say it out loud—even when the room tried to “Broncos” its way out of accountability.
You were right, and a lot farther along the curve than I was in 2003. As a librarian, I was worried about government agents prying into the records of what materials library patrons were reading. How quaint that seems now. I couldn't picture a personal goon squad, taking orders and given free reign, by former TV game show host that Americans had elected twice as president. All of this makes me sick.
We moved to DC in 1968 right after the riots and the Democratic Convention to handle protests with better policing...... NOT LIKE ICE killing people. My husband worked with Patrick Murphy who was police commissioner of DC. Then he worked for the Conference of Mayors as a consultant for improving the police departments. Little did we see the Corporations with Lobbyists doing the work for elected Congress people. Time to shut down their businesses like the FIFA World Cup, the Saudi paid for competition to the PGA, the security for the Super Bowl and other sporting events that support Gambling Wall Street investors that don't pass taxes and don't want to help with the US residents be able to pay their bills and enjoy supporting the economy by going to the doctor or buying their medicine. Stop our taxes from supporting these corporations that STEAL letting #47 sell his MERCH and hide the money and support WARS with making World War III so his family can DEVELOP and live in gated places.
Calindman — I hear you. You’re talking about an era where the response to unrest was supposed to be smarter policing, clearer rules, and public accountability — not a federally empowered enforcement machine that treats American cities like occupied territory and human beings like targets.
And your point about corporations and lobbyists doing the work for elected officials is dead on. A lot of what we call “policy” now is really just profit with a badge: contractors, private detention money, security theater, and a whole ecosystem of vendors who get paid when fear stays high. That same logic shows up everywhere you named — FIFA-style spectacles, Saudi cash laundering legitimacy through sports, Super Bowl-style “security” budgets, Wall Street gambling upside with the public eating the downside.
Also: the #47 merch point is exactly why this moment feels so poisonous. Trump doesn’t just govern — he monetizes the catastrophe. I can totally see him selling WWIII merch the minute the first headline drops. Hell, I can see him selling Rapture merch for the folks who think he’ll be “left behind” — “limited edition,” “patriot bundle,” “buy two, save America” nonsense — while real people are paying in blood and stress and lost family members.
You’re not wrong to connect the dots: this isn’t just bad tactics. It’s a system that rewards chaos, cashes checks off cruelty, and dares the public to call it what it is.
Angie — YES. And the problem is we keep treating Miller like he’s just “another advisor” instead of what he is: the guy writing the cruelty into policy, then marketing it like strength. He’s not a side character in this story — he’s one of the authors.
People can argue borders all day. Fine. But this—the raids, the intimidation, the shootings, the separations, the casual “mistakes” language after bodies hit the ground—this is a choice. A strategy. A political product.
I think you ought to say "lethal" mistakes! There is a difference between just a mistake and one where people die through a series of "flukes". Why oh why would someone disarm someone and then shoot him numerous times. This isn't just a mistake it's a "lethal" one. And dead men tell no tales. The same can be said about the bombing of the boats in Venezuela. If everyone dies there is no one to explain what happens except for the ones that pull the trigger and they truly aren't going to rat on themselves.
PJ, you’re 100% right on the language. “Mistake” is the PR version of a killing. If we’re talking about an armed federal agent using lethal force, then call it what it is: a lethal act—with consequences that don’t get softened by a press release.
And your point about “flukes” matters too. When the public hears “mistake,” they picture a chaotic accident. But if someone is disarmed and then shot multiple times, that’s not a “whoops.” That’s force being used after the threat is supposedly neutralized, which is exactly why the footage, the bodycam, the command decisions, and the post-incident reporting all have to be on the table. No spin. No “trust us.” Just the facts, in full.
“Dead men tell no tales” is the darkest part of this whole dynamic, because it’s also the quiet incentive structure behind a lot of official narratives: if the victim can’t speak, the government’s version gets a head start unless the video makes it impossible. That’s why transparency isn’t some optional “accountability conversation” for later—it’s the baseline. Independent investigation, full release of relevant footage, and consequences when agencies try to launder reality through euphemisms.
And zooming out from this specific case, your broader point holds: when state violence happens in places or moments where cameras aren’t there, the public is expected to accept a story that conveniently can’t be contradicted. That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work.
TRUTH! Yep that's why the Venezuela film was kind of accepted except for the fact that they killed the 2 final guys that survived. I'm tired and angry that this administration uses excuses every time they do something or the lay the blame elsewhere. That is NOT culpability nor is it responsibility and I'm tired of the excuses!
ICE needs to go. Period. But what about DHS itself? What justifies its continued existence? Because I’m not seeing it. That word “Homeland” is a big clue. Smells of blood and soil.
Peter, you’re not wrong—once you put “Homeland” in the title, you’ve already told on the mentality. DHS might have been sold as coordination after 9/11, but it quickly became a sprawling security bureaucracy with vague mandates, weak oversight, and a built-in incentive to treat entire communities like “threat environments.” ICE is the ugliest symptom, but the disease is the architecture: “security” as a blank check, secrecy as default, and accountability as an afterthought.
Exactly! I’m okay with a small group tasked with coordinating the disparate organizations involved in protecting against threats. DHS is not that and never was.
Thank you for this essay. I've posted before on some threads (so apologies for repeating myself) that in February, 2025, I sent a letter to my senator, Tammy Baldwin, stating that I didn't want to be in the streets someday when a guy in a uniform has to decide whether or not to shoot an American citizen. Even then, a lot of us could see where this was heading. But also, I was being naive, thinking that this future scenario would involve a moral dilemma for some federal agent who had to make a decision. In reality, ICE is just a goon squad; there's no dilemma for these creeps on whether or not to pull the trigger. Please keep contacting your representatives in Congress, demanding action, because I have the sinking feeling that Schumer and Jefferies will cave yet again. Reform ICE? The hell with that. I want this gang of un-American thugs eliminated as a govenment agency forever.
Stephen — I appreciate you saying this, and that letter to Tammy Baldwin reads like a warning flare. A lot of us assumed if it ever got to “agent vs. citizen,” there’d be some moral friction, some hesitation, some line they wouldn’t cross. But that assumption only works if the agency is built around restraint, accountability, and a culture that treats the public like the public—not like enemy territory.
What makes this even harder to swallow is the part a lot of Democrats still don’t want to say out loud: ICE didn’t just fall out of the sky fully formed as a Republican fever dream. The post-9/11 DHS/ICE architecture was built with bipartisan votes, and some of the same people still in Congress helped normalize it. That’s a brutal political and moral debt to face, so you get the “reform” language instead—because “abolish” sounds like admitting the original decision was a mistake.
On Schumer/Jeffries: your worry is valid. Jeffries, especially, reads the room and waits for public opinion to harden before he moves, because he’s trying to hold a coalition together in an era where one “wrong” move gets weaponized for months. That doesn’t excuse paralysis, but it does explain it.
Either way, “reform ICE” is fantasy at this point. The institution is the problem. Keep pushing your reps. Keep making them answer, specifically, what “reform” even means when bodies keep hitting the ground.
Related to this general theme, the kind of family rift often attributed to Trump happened for me 20 years ago. My brother stormed out of my home with a colorful line about what I could do to myself, prompted by my refusal to support Bush's Iraq adventurism, thereby betraying "our boys" sent to wage that war. We have been largely estranged ever since. Given he was that emotional over disagreeing with Bush policy, try to imagine where his head is in the era of MAGA.
💙❤️💙❤️ Nancee — I feel this so much. That kind of family rupture didn’t start with Trump; he just poured gasoline on something that was already smoldering. The “betraying our boys” line is such a perfect snapshot of how dissent gets treated like treason in certain households—like you’re not allowed to disagree with policy, you’re only allowed to cheer for it. And when someone is already wired to take disagreement as a personal insult, MAGA doesn’t just shape their politics — it gives them permission to turn their anger into a whole identity.
What gets me is how fast that emotional jump happens: you weren’t attacking your brother, you weren’t wishing harm on anyone, you were criticizing a war. But in that mindset, critique becomes “disloyalty,” and then “disloyalty” becomes “you’re my enemy.” That’s not normal political disagreement — that’s a worldview that can’t tolerate a shared reality unless it’s wrapped in nationalism and force.
And you’re right: if he was that heated about Bush-era Iraq, MAGA is basically the deluxe edition of that same posture — louder, crueler, and more personal. I’m sorry you’ve had to carry that for twenty years. That’s not just “politics,” that’s grief.
Now let me tell you about my son, my only surviving child. He is a product of the exclusively right wing media he consumes. While he denies being a Trump supporter - they're all the same, you know- his perspective on every issue reflects his trusted sources, like the Epoch Times. That cuts me deeply!
I remember when the phrase Homeland Security first came up. It shot red flags into my soul. But I shoved it aside, and went back to raising my kids and writing humor related to our everyday lives. Still do write about that.
So I am so happy for your thorough recap of the horrendous history of ICE. And for our elected Democrats still having an irresponsible time playing hard HARDBALL with Republicans.
Yes. Dismantle ICE. Find another way. In the meantime I say to those who will weep and wail that we’re opening the floodgate to mounds and mounds of criminal immigrants…no. View dismantling the stinking, rotting, out of control thing that is ICE as like cutting out a fatal cancer in the US.
Ruth — I felt that “Homeland Security” line in my bones. The name alone was a warning label: take normal government functions, slap a post-9/11 panic sticker on them, then dare anyone to question it without getting accused of “not caring about safety.” 
And you’re dead-on about why I keep going back to origins any time someone tries to sell me the “ICE can be redeemed” pitch. ICE wasn’t a longstanding institution that went off the rails. It was built in the post-9/11 reorganization—created under the Homeland Security Act, folded into DHS, and designed around a “homeland security” mandate from day one.  That origin story matters because it explains the personality of the agency: broad discretion, permanent urgency, and a built-in incentive to expand its footprint in the name of “security.” That’s not a bug. That’s the product.
So when people tell me “just restructure it,” I hear: keep the same incentive structure, keep the same culture, just change the brochure. That’s like trying to “reform” a wasp nest by appointing a nicer head wasp.
Also: you’re right about Democrats playing hardball like it’s a game of chicken they keep losing. They act like the GOP is still operating under the old rules—good faith, shared reality, mutual restraint—when the entire point of the modern right-wing ecosystem is to punish restraint and reward escalation. That’s how you get trapped defending the indefensible instead of drawing a bright moral line and holding it.
On the “floodgates” crowd: they always pretend the only two options are ICE or an apocalyptic stampede. That’s fear marketing. Dismantling ICE doesn’t mean “no immigration system.” It means rebuilding one that isn’t organized around permanent suspicion and performative cruelty—separating legitimate cross-border crime investigations from mass interior enforcement that treats human beings like a quota. ICE’s own structure makes clear how much of it is enforcement-and-removal machinery, not some sacred national-security necessity. 
Your cancer metaphor is right: you don’t “restructure” the tumor. You remove it — and you build a healthier system in its place.
Kristoffer, thank you for your reply.
Thank you for the article, it seems that our government has been giving away our taxpayer dollars like we drinking water. I hope Senator Schumer sticks to his word instead of enabling the GOP. I am sick and tired of ice killing people , I hope the ice agents are charged with state crimes , I understand why Governor Walz is very concerned and careful with this matter.
Linda — you’re not wrong. From what we’ve seen and what’s been reported, this looks like an unjustified killing, period. If an ordinary civilian shot someone like that, we wouldn’t be doing this polite little dance with “administrative leave” and “internal review.” We’d be talking about charges.
And you nailed the bigger point: we keep dumping taxpayer money into agencies that behave like they’re exempt from consequences, then we’re told to accept it as “security.” That’s not security — that’s a license.
Schumer sticking to his word is the very least he can do. Anything less is him helping normalize the idea that ICE can kill people and the political class will shrug as long as the right headline gets written.
As for Walz: being careful is fine, but careful can’t mean timid. If this happened the way it appears to have happened, the state needs to treat it like what it is — a killing that demands real accountability, not a PR rinse cycle.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said: He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither.
Kevin — that Franklin line is exactly the trap we’ve been living in since 9/11. “Security” becomes the blank check, and the bill always comes due in somebody’s blood and somebody else’s rights. ICE is Exhibit A: a post-9/11 agency that keeps expanding its power while accountability keeps shrinking. That’s not safety — that’s permission.
Even Jerome Powell Is Warning Investors
A word to the wise If the Fed chairman is warning investors(https://bit.ly/4t4vGGb) about an overbought/overvalued equity/stock market, buyer beware should be a clear signal
Powell also understands but won’t make a public statement about the purchasing power of the dollar with respect to gold Measured in what the dollar was in 1971 in terms of gold the dollar’s current purchasing power is almost zero
It’s not that the price of gold is going up but that the purchasing power of the dollar is zilch Over the last year the dollar has dropped 20 basis points and some financial news outlets are telling investors to get into hard assets such as gold, silver, and real estate Troubling times are ahead and people should be protecting their lifetime savings
Yes, right! Thank you, Kristoffer.
Thank, you, Amy
Your article took be back to 9/11 days, The Patriot Act, and Pres. George W. Bush. In my household we saw the The Patriot Act for what it was: An infringement on civil liberties because it expanded surveillance and law enforcement powers of the U, S, government. And here we are today with ICE. ICE is just questionable, needing reform, is a lazy "A" remark from fence sitters. ICE needs to be abolished for the lawless group it is. I am only sorry that over the years I or we as country didn't really pay attention to this. We knew and stored the Patriot Act in our memory jungle where the memory was tangled in our everyday lives--lives that are now threatened by the goons in power. Your article opens the path through that jungle. Come on Senate---don't fund ICE like its normal and just needs a tweak, it needs closing down, and from top to bottom the agents need to face their lawlessness. What has been happening is murder, not bad mistakes. (That "mistakes happen" statement is galling. Trump and goons know no shame.)
Renee Nicole Good and Alex Jeffery Pretti, we will remember your bravery and dedication to protecting and helping others. May our voices and actions help stop this madness.
Thank you, Kristoffer.
Maxine — you nailed it. The Patriot Act wasn’t just a “policy moment,” it was a civil-liberties demolition that normalized surveillance, secrecy, and the idea that the government can expand its power first and ask questions never. And ICE is one of the ugliest downstream consequences of that whole post-9/11 panic architecture.
And I can tell you this personally: I was 19 when Bush’s term began and 27 when it ended. I remember those years vividly. I also remember when Obama got elected and friends telling me, “It could never get worse than W. Bush.” And I said, with my full chest, it can always get worse. Never underestimate this country’s capacity for evil—especially when fear gets dressed up as “security” and cruelty gets marketed as “common sense.”
You’re also right about the fence-sitter language. “Reform” becomes a comfort word when people don’t want to say the actual truth out loud: the lawlessness isn’t a glitch, it’s the culture. And once an agency gets comfortable operating like a goon squad—protected by political cover, vague mandates, and accountability theatre—“major reform” starts sounding like a polite way of saying “keep it, but please stop embarrassing us.”
The “mistakes happen” line is galling for exactly the reason you said: what’s happening is murder, and the administration is trying to launder it into a tragic oopsie. That’s not leadership. That’s propaganda. And you’re dead on that these people don’t do shame.
I also really appreciate what you said about “opening a path through the jungle.” That means a lot, because a huge part of the fight is getting people to stop treating this as disconnected headlines and start seeing the system—the throughline from the Patriot Act mentality to DHS to ICE to the current blood-on-the-sidewalk reality.
And thank you for saying their names the way you did. Renée Nicole Good. Alex Jeffrey Pretti. They deserved better than this country gave them, and they deserve more than a news cycle’s worth of attention.
Let us never forget but for the fascists in black robes who stopped the recount in Florida, GWB never would have been president.
Jeff — you’re not wrong. If the recount in Florida plays out differently, we’re probably not living in the same post-9/11 timeline at all: no Bush administration building DHS, no Patriot Act as we came to know it, no Iraq War fever-dream, and no ICE as the institutional “answer” to national trauma.
And that’s what people keep missing when they try to treat ICE like it’s some normal agency that just needs a tune-up. It was born out of that exact political moment—fear, overreach, and a Supreme Court willing to bless it—and we’ve been paying the price ever since.
Trump is the natural conclusion to the "Reagan Revolution". Reagan was every bit as dumb and racist as Trump, but Reagan knew better how to "message" his beliefs. Is it any wonder so many of us distrust government to do what is best for the majority of us?
I admit I didn't know much about DHS when it was formed. My only belief at the time was that it was a redundant department - the FBI actually knew something was up in early 2001 and alerted Bush's administration to what was going on in pilot training areas around the country. I believed that DHS was created to make the public think our government was committed to protecting us. I didn't believe it then and naturally don't believe it today. And, I won't even get into the word "Homeland" in the name - a silly, yet racist dog whistle of a word.
But why was ICE created within DHS? We already had a border security department. Why couldn't we simply improve that? In retrospect, I think you're correct, Prof. Ealy, in that it WAS created to target minorities. Cruelty was always the point. I've wanted ICE (and DHS) dissolved for years, but I don't expect the milquetoast Democrats in Washington, and certainly not the Republicans, to do anything that "extreme".
So, where does that leave us? As I've felt for a while, we need a huge change in this country, an ANTI-Reagan revolution. Perhaps everything that has happened over the past year of Trump's 2nd Term will help others to feel that way, too.
Koko — I’m with you on Reagan being dumb. “As dumb as Trump” might be a bridge too far for me 😂 but your overall point is absolutely taken: Reagan, for all his stupidity and evil, had far better political instincts than Trump—and he knew how to wrap the cruelty in something that sounded like optimism and patriotism.
And you’re right about DHS feeling redundant even at the time. A lot of it was designed to signal “we’re doing something” after 9/11, and that signaling became its own justification. The word “Homeland” was never neutral either—it’s the kind of language that’s supposed to make you feel protected while quietly training you to accept a bigger surveillance-and-enforcement state. When people start talking about “homeland,” it’s usually because they want you thinking in tribe terms, not rights terms.
Your question about why ICE had to be created inside DHS is the key one. We already had immigration enforcement infrastructure. What DHS + ICE did was fuse immigration into the post-9/11 “security” mindset—so immigration stops being treated as civil enforcement and starts getting treated like an enemy-management project. And once you build an agency around that identity—“we’re the thin line protecting the homeland”—cruelty becomes a feature, not a bug. In retrospect, you’re right: it was built to target marginalized communities, and it’s why the mission statement never matches the lived reality of the people who get put in its crosshairs.
And on where it leaves us: I agree that a real “anti-Reagan revolution” is basically the only honest answer here. Not just electorally, but philosophically—undoing the idea that government’s main job is to police, punish, and protect wealth while calling it “freedom.” Because ICE/DHS is what you get when you take decades of that worldview, add a national trauma, and then institutionalize panic.
Also: your point about Democrats—“milktoast” (accurate) and cautious—lands. They’re terrified of being labeled “extreme,” even when the “moderate” position is tolerating a federal agency that keeps producing the same abuses in different cities, different years, different administrations. That fear is part of why we’re stuck: they keep trying to manage the optics while the machinery keeps grinding.
Appreciate you laying it out like this. You’re not wrong—Trump is the natural endpoint of a long political project, and DHS/ICE is one of the clearest receipts.
Thanks for all that background. I hate making pronouncements on things without more than a little knowledge about it. As to Reagan's stupidity, we'll have to agree to disagree :D. There's George W., though. Come to think of it, the only smart Republican POTUS we've had since Reagan was George H. W. Bush. That says a lot right there.
The handwriting was on the wall when George W Bush established DHS. Sooner or later some President was going to pick up this club for internal management of the US: built in armies, no need for DoD, and room to run on policing policy.
James — exactly. DHS was built like a domestic “just-in-case” army: huge mandate, weak guardrails, and plenty of room for any future president to turn “security” into internal policing.
And that’s why I don’t buy the “it just needs reform” line. Once you create a bureaucracy designed to expand in crisis, it will keep expanding—until it’s being used on the public. Bush built the club. Trump just started swinging it openly.
Thank you. People tend to enshrine government agencies like they were with us since the beginning of time, laid out with the Magna Carta. ICE is a fruit of a poisonous tree and should be viewed in that light. The entire DHS needs to go.
I recall Thanksgiving 2003, DH and I were sitting at a table full of Republicans, most to the harder right, the rest country club GOPers when a pot stirring guest asked what we all thought about the Homeland Security Act (which was still topical) and also likely because my husband and I were working air traffic controllers, the DOT split with that Act, the FAA barely missed being rounded up as well.
My husband gave me the look that said, Oh no.... So I drew breath and said, "We will live to regret giving up so much of our freedoms for the passage of the Patriot Act as well as this reactionary bill in the name of safety." I added. "The name "Homeland" suspiciously smells tyrannical, TSA is Kabuki Theater and I'd rather fly naked (I'm FAMOUSLY modest.) than have done this." The table was so quiet you could have heard a mouse squeak in the yard, then one of the country clubbers said, "Well anyway, how about those Broncos?" and that was that. I stand by those words 22+ years later.
This was always going to happen especially in the hands of an unconstrained authoritarian and here we are. Regrettably.
Cathy — thank you. You’re dead right about how people talk about these agencies like they descended from the heavens alongside the Magna Carta. ICE didn’t “go bad.” It’s fruit of a poisonous tree, and DHS is the soil it’s been growing in.
Also: you called it in 2003 at that table. The fact that your husband gave you the “oh no…” look tells me you already knew what time it was. And your point about the DOT split and the FAA almost getting rounded up in the Homeland Security reshuffle? That’s exactly how these “security” mega-bureaucracies metastasize: they keep expanding the definition of “threat” until ordinary public infrastructure starts getting treated like it belongs inside a national security cage.
Your line about the Patriot Act + the reactionary “safety” bill is the whole story. We gave up freedoms in exchange for a promise that wasn’t even kept—and then we normalized the machinery that made it easier to surveil, detain, and intimidate. And yes: the name “Homeland” has always had that authoritarian stink on it. TSA as Kabuki Theater is perfect—a performance of control that conditions the public to accept intrusion as “just how things are.” (Also, “I’d rather fly naked” being said by someone famously modest is elite-level table silence. No notes.)
On Bush: he may have had more humanity than Trump in his tone, but that is a low bar you step over without lifting your foot. Bush had no problem launching a forever-war posture and turning Middle Easterners into boogeymen for political oxygen. That era built the cultural permission slip for profiling, suspicion-as-policy, and “security” as a blank check. Trump didn’t invent this monster—he just stopped pretending it needed manners.
And your last line is the hardest truth: this was always where an unconstrained authoritarian could take it. DHS created the club. ICE became the cudgel. All it needed was a president willing to swing it at the public and call it “order.”
Regrettably, here we are. And you were right to say it out loud—even when the room tried to “Broncos” its way out of accountability.
"On Bush: he may have had more humanity than Trump in his tone, but that is a low bar you step over without lifting your foot."
I note that Bush hasn't said doodly squat about the horrors in Minneapolis so that speaks volumes. He, like trump, was unworthy of the office.
You were right, and a lot farther along the curve than I was in 2003. As a librarian, I was worried about government agents prying into the records of what materials library patrons were reading. How quaint that seems now. I couldn't picture a personal goon squad, taking orders and given free reign, by former TV game show host that Americans had elected twice as president. All of this makes me sick.
We moved to DC in 1968 right after the riots and the Democratic Convention to handle protests with better policing...... NOT LIKE ICE killing people. My husband worked with Patrick Murphy who was police commissioner of DC. Then he worked for the Conference of Mayors as a consultant for improving the police departments. Little did we see the Corporations with Lobbyists doing the work for elected Congress people. Time to shut down their businesses like the FIFA World Cup, the Saudi paid for competition to the PGA, the security for the Super Bowl and other sporting events that support Gambling Wall Street investors that don't pass taxes and don't want to help with the US residents be able to pay their bills and enjoy supporting the economy by going to the doctor or buying their medicine. Stop our taxes from supporting these corporations that STEAL letting #47 sell his MERCH and hide the money and support WARS with making World War III so his family can DEVELOP and live in gated places.
Calindman — I hear you. You’re talking about an era where the response to unrest was supposed to be smarter policing, clearer rules, and public accountability — not a federally empowered enforcement machine that treats American cities like occupied territory and human beings like targets.
And your point about corporations and lobbyists doing the work for elected officials is dead on. A lot of what we call “policy” now is really just profit with a badge: contractors, private detention money, security theater, and a whole ecosystem of vendors who get paid when fear stays high. That same logic shows up everywhere you named — FIFA-style spectacles, Saudi cash laundering legitimacy through sports, Super Bowl-style “security” budgets, Wall Street gambling upside with the public eating the downside.
Also: the #47 merch point is exactly why this moment feels so poisonous. Trump doesn’t just govern — he monetizes the catastrophe. I can totally see him selling WWIII merch the minute the first headline drops. Hell, I can see him selling Rapture merch for the folks who think he’ll be “left behind” — “limited edition,” “patriot bundle,” “buy two, save America” nonsense — while real people are paying in blood and stress and lost family members.
You’re not wrong to connect the dots: this isn’t just bad tactics. It’s a system that rewards chaos, cashes checks off cruelty, and dares the public to call it what it is.
Something needs to be done about Miller. Now. Not in months or years, but right fucking now.
Angie — YES. And the problem is we keep treating Miller like he’s just “another advisor” instead of what he is: the guy writing the cruelty into policy, then marketing it like strength. He’s not a side character in this story — he’s one of the authors.
People can argue borders all day. Fine. But this—the raids, the intimidation, the shootings, the separations, the casual “mistakes” language after bodies hit the ground—this is a choice. A strategy. A political product.
So yeah: not months. Not years. Now.
I think you ought to say "lethal" mistakes! There is a difference between just a mistake and one where people die through a series of "flukes". Why oh why would someone disarm someone and then shoot him numerous times. This isn't just a mistake it's a "lethal" one. And dead men tell no tales. The same can be said about the bombing of the boats in Venezuela. If everyone dies there is no one to explain what happens except for the ones that pull the trigger and they truly aren't going to rat on themselves.
PJ, you’re 100% right on the language. “Mistake” is the PR version of a killing. If we’re talking about an armed federal agent using lethal force, then call it what it is: a lethal act—with consequences that don’t get softened by a press release.
And your point about “flukes” matters too. When the public hears “mistake,” they picture a chaotic accident. But if someone is disarmed and then shot multiple times, that’s not a “whoops.” That’s force being used after the threat is supposedly neutralized, which is exactly why the footage, the bodycam, the command decisions, and the post-incident reporting all have to be on the table. No spin. No “trust us.” Just the facts, in full.
“Dead men tell no tales” is the darkest part of this whole dynamic, because it’s also the quiet incentive structure behind a lot of official narratives: if the victim can’t speak, the government’s version gets a head start unless the video makes it impossible. That’s why transparency isn’t some optional “accountability conversation” for later—it’s the baseline. Independent investigation, full release of relevant footage, and consequences when agencies try to launder reality through euphemisms.
And zooming out from this specific case, your broader point holds: when state violence happens in places or moments where cameras aren’t there, the public is expected to accept a story that conveniently can’t be contradicted. That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work.
TRUTH! Yep that's why the Venezuela film was kind of accepted except for the fact that they killed the 2 final guys that survived. I'm tired and angry that this administration uses excuses every time they do something or the lay the blame elsewhere. That is NOT culpability nor is it responsibility and I'm tired of the excuses!
ICE needs to go. Period. But what about DHS itself? What justifies its continued existence? Because I’m not seeing it. That word “Homeland” is a big clue. Smells of blood and soil.
Peter, you’re not wrong—once you put “Homeland” in the title, you’ve already told on the mentality. DHS might have been sold as coordination after 9/11, but it quickly became a sprawling security bureaucracy with vague mandates, weak oversight, and a built-in incentive to treat entire communities like “threat environments.” ICE is the ugliest symptom, but the disease is the architecture: “security” as a blank check, secrecy as default, and accountability as an afterthought.
Exactly! I’m okay with a small group tasked with coordinating the disparate organizations involved in protecting against threats. DHS is not that and never was.
Thank you for this essay. I've posted before on some threads (so apologies for repeating myself) that in February, 2025, I sent a letter to my senator, Tammy Baldwin, stating that I didn't want to be in the streets someday when a guy in a uniform has to decide whether or not to shoot an American citizen. Even then, a lot of us could see where this was heading. But also, I was being naive, thinking that this future scenario would involve a moral dilemma for some federal agent who had to make a decision. In reality, ICE is just a goon squad; there's no dilemma for these creeps on whether or not to pull the trigger. Please keep contacting your representatives in Congress, demanding action, because I have the sinking feeling that Schumer and Jefferies will cave yet again. Reform ICE? The hell with that. I want this gang of un-American thugs eliminated as a govenment agency forever.
Stephen — I appreciate you saying this, and that letter to Tammy Baldwin reads like a warning flare. A lot of us assumed if it ever got to “agent vs. citizen,” there’d be some moral friction, some hesitation, some line they wouldn’t cross. But that assumption only works if the agency is built around restraint, accountability, and a culture that treats the public like the public—not like enemy territory.
What makes this even harder to swallow is the part a lot of Democrats still don’t want to say out loud: ICE didn’t just fall out of the sky fully formed as a Republican fever dream. The post-9/11 DHS/ICE architecture was built with bipartisan votes, and some of the same people still in Congress helped normalize it. That’s a brutal political and moral debt to face, so you get the “reform” language instead—because “abolish” sounds like admitting the original decision was a mistake.
On Schumer/Jeffries: your worry is valid. Jeffries, especially, reads the room and waits for public opinion to harden before he moves, because he’s trying to hold a coalition together in an era where one “wrong” move gets weaponized for months. That doesn’t excuse paralysis, but it does explain it.
Either way, “reform ICE” is fantasy at this point. The institution is the problem. Keep pushing your reps. Keep making them answer, specifically, what “reform” even means when bodies keep hitting the ground.