Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), created in 2002 under President George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11 attacks as a pillar of U.S. homeland security, has seen its mission expand over the years to become a central instrument in the fight against illegal immigration. This fight responds to a real national concern: protecting borders, combating criminal trafficking, and reducing the presence of people in irregular situations who, according to some officials, are involved in illegal activities or create unregulated competition in the labor market. This mission of migration control is legitimate for a sovereign state: no country can renounce defining and enforcing its own rules of entry and residence.
Yet what was meant to be a law-enforcement agency has become a symbol of political polarization since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025. In recent weeks, several ICE operations have spiraled out of control, leading to deaths and a surge in public opposition across the country. In Minneapolis, the epicenter of the most intense tensions, two U.S. citizens, Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, were killed by federal agents during a large-scale immigration enforcement operation known as Operation Metro Surge, under disputed circumstances that triggered mass protests. Good was shot by an agent during an immigration raid while sitting in her car, raising doubts and criticism of the official account. Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse, was killed in another confrontation with agents during a similar operation; witnesses and videos shared online suggest he was unarmed. These two cases fueled nationwide outrage and demands for accountability.
These deaths were not isolated. Other operations, such as Operation Midway Blitz carried out in Chicago in 2025, also involved lethal use of force against civilians, including the case of Silverio Villegas González in Illinois. Several people have also died in ICE detention, including Geraldo Lunas Campos, whose death was ruled a homicide by asphyxiation in a Texas detention center, raising serious questions about detention conditions.
A Real Mission, a Trump-Era Surge… and Contested Methods
ICE was not created by Trump, but its mandate has been deeply transformed under his second presidency. Faced with major migration flows, especially along the southern border with Mexico, the administration launched a series of large-scale operations, mobilizing thousands of agents and massive logistical resources. The agency’s budget, including congressional appropriations through the Department of Homeland Security, now exceeds tens of billions of dollars per year, with more than 40 billion dollars included in recent funding bills despite opposition from some Democrats.
This sharp increase in operations was accompanied by rapid staff expansion, with generous recruitment bonuses (up to $50,000 according to some sources) to attract new agents. While this allowed ICE to expand its reach, it also sparked criticism over training quality. Many agents are former military personnel or people simply seeking stable, well-paid employment, but observers argue that accelerated training programs are often insufficient to handle complex urban situations involving unarmed civilians, protests, and families. This has contributed to misjudgments and disproportionate uses of force in encounters with civilian populations.
The Risks of an Exclusively Security-Driven Strategy That Could Backfire on Trump
There is no denying that the United States needs to regulate illegal immigration. This is part of normal sovereign governance, and law-enforcement authorities must be able to act when clear violations occur. In many operations, individuals wanted for serious crimes have been apprehended, and the state has a duty to protect public safety.
But the line between necessary security and excessive zeal is thin. The empowerment of an agency like ICE, operating with broad authority in a highly polarized political climate, can produce dangerous excesses. Recent deaths have already triggered widespread mobilization: protests have taken place in major cities including New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Washington, D.C., with calls to abolish ICE or fundamentally reform it. Some members of Congress, including Democrats who voted to partially fund the agency, have expressed concern over the lack of strict oversight mechanisms such as body cameras or clear limits on the use of force, which were excluded from the latest budget legislation.
The debate also highlights a deeper criticism: treating migration primarily as a military or police problem, especially when it involves families, non-criminal migrants, or people without serious criminal records, can be ineffective in the long run and generate deep resentment that undermines social cohesion. Critics denounce not only the violence but also the lack of transparency, detention conditions, and the absence of fair legal remedies for those arrested.
Toward Adjustment or Political Rupture?
Let us be clear: this is dirty, thankless work that inevitably produces human tragedies. As tensions rise, some state governors affected by these operations have called for federal agents to withdraw from their cities, and in some cases the National Guard has been deployed to contain protests and prevent further abuses. This shows how far the situation has moved beyond routine law enforcement into a matter of domestic security and political legitimacy.
The future of this policy will depend on whether political leaders can strike a balance between border enforcement and respect for fundamental rights. It is in Trump’s own interest to adjust course, especially as many Americans, including some of his supporters, are also questioning his recent stances on Greenland and the excesses of ICE. While intensified enforcement responds to voter concerns about security, the perception of barbaric or disproportionate methods could ultimately backfire on those who promoted them. The issue is no longer just the effectiveness of an agency, but whether an exclusively security-driven approach is compatible with the values of a country that claims to be both sovereign and respectful of human rights.
