News Aggregation

President Donald Trump got a bit feisty with a reporter who asked if he was prepared to use “force” to “acquire” Greenland, as he has been pushing for. The female reporter told Trump at the White House on Wednesday, “It sounds like you would potentially acquire Greenland by force. That would be a NATO country.” Trump was not thrilled with the question. “No, you’re saying that. I didn’t say it,” Trump said. “You’re telling me that that’s what I’m going to do — you don’t know what I’m going to do. Your network doesn’t know, either.” The reporter pointed out Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen visited the White House earlier on Wednesday and said his country had a “fundamental disagreement” with the U.S. over Greenland. Rasmussen added Greenlanders and Danes both feel Trump’s plan is “totally unacceptable.” The reporter then asked, “Are you willing to leave the NATO alliance in order to get what you want? What are the options right now?” Trump said he was “not going to give up options” and was not about to share his plans with the reporter. He reiterated his argument that Greenland is vital to the U.S. for national security purposes, before saying Denmark was weak and incapable of defending the island. “The problem is, there’s not a thing Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland,” Trump said. “But there’s everything we can do.” He pointed to the military’s recent capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro as proof the U.S. was not to be messed with. “I can’t rely on Denmark to fend themselves off, you know they were talking about putting an extra dog — and they were serious about this — put an extra dogsled there last month,” Trump continued. “They added a second dogsled. That’s not gonna do the trick.” The reporter then started to tell him “Denmark fought alongside the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq—” before the president cut her off. “Thank you for telling me that, I appreciate it,” Trump said sarcastically. He added “something will work out” on the whole Greenland thing. The president’s latest comments come after he has been unwavering in his push for Greenland recently. He said earlier this month “We need it” for national security purposes. And he reiterated his stance on Wednesday, posting on Truth Social, “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Watch above via Fox News. The post Trump Gets Snippy With Reporter Asking About a Military Incursion Into Greenland: ‘You Don’t Know What I’m Going To Do’ first appeared on Mediaite.

President Donald Trump got a bit feisty with a reporter who asked if he was prepared to use “force” to “acquire” Greenland, as he has been pushing for. The female reporter told Trump at the White House on Wednesday, “It sounds like you would potentially acquire Greenland by force. That would be a NATO country.” Trump was not thrilled with the question. “No, you’re saying that. I didn’t say it,” Trump said. “You’re telling me that that’s what I’m going to do — you don’t know what I’m going to do. Your network doesn’t know, either.” The reporter pointed out Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen visited the White House earlier on Wednesday and said his country had a “fundamental disagreement” with the U.S. over Greenland. Rasmussen added Greenlanders and Danes both feel Trump’s plan is “totally unacceptable.” The reporter then asked, “Are you willing to leave the NATO alliance in order to get what you want? What are the options right now?” Trump said he was “not going to give up options” and was not about to share his plans with the reporter. He reiterated his argument that Greenland is vital to the U.S. for national security purposes, before saying Denmark was weak and incapable of defending the island. “The problem is, there’s not a thing Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland,” Trump said. “But there’s everything we can do.” He pointed to the military’s recent capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro as proof the U.S. was not to be messed with. “I can’t rely on Denmark to fend themselves off, you know they were talking about putting an extra dog — and they were serious about this — put an extra dogsled there last month,” Trump continued. “They added a second dogsled. That’s not gonna do the trick.” The reporter then started to tell him “Denmark fought alongside the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq—” before the president cut her off. “Thank you for telling me that, I appreciate it,” Trump said sarcastically. He added “something will work out” on the whole Greenland thing. The president’s latest comments come after he has been unwavering in his push for Greenland recently. He said earlier this month “We need it” for national security purposes. And he reiterated his stance on Wednesday, posting on Truth Social, “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Watch above via Fox News. The post Trump Gets Snippy With Reporter Asking About a Military Incursion Into Greenland: ‘You Don’t Know What I’m Going To Do’ first appeared on Mediaite.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said President Donald Trump’s push to “acquire” Greenland remains “totally unacceptable” to both Danes and Greenlanders following a meeting at the White House on Wednesday. Rasmussen told reporters that he and Greenland Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt had a “frank but also constructive” conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.  He said Denmark was “eager to work with the U.S.” and other NATO allies to ensure the “long-term” security of the massive island. But he said both Danes and Greenlanders have no desire to get bought — or conquered — by the U.S. “The president has made his view clear, and we have a different position,” Rasmussen said. He continued: Ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. But we also agree to disagree, and therefore we will continue to talk. The meeting comes after the Trump administration told Reuters last week that it was keeping all of its options open to acquire Greenland from Denmark, including military intervention. And Trump has been unwavering in his push for Greenland recently, saying, “We need it” for national security purposes. He reiterated his stance on Wednesday, saying, “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Not every Republican loves the Greenland plan, though. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) complained about it last weekend, telling ABC’s Martha Raddatz the president was “angering and denigrating” Greenlanders with his comments. Watch above via CNN. The post Denmark Fumes Trump’s Greenland Goal Is ‘Totally Unacceptable’ After Short White House Meeting first appeared on Mediaite.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said President Donald Trump’s push to “acquire” Greenland remains “totally unacceptable” to both Danes and Greenlanders following a meeting at the White House on Wednesday. Rasmussen told reporters that he and Greenland Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt had a “frank but also constructive” conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.  He said Denmark was “eager to work with the U.S.” and other NATO allies to ensure the “long-term” security of the massive island. But he said both Danes and Greenlanders have no desire to get bought — or conquered — by the U.S. “The president has made his view clear, and we have a different position,” Rasmussen said. He continued: Ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. But we also agree to disagree, and therefore we will continue to talk. The meeting comes after the Trump administration told Reuters last week that it was keeping all of its options open to acquire Greenland from Denmark, including military intervention. And Trump has been unwavering in his push for Greenland recently, saying, “We need it” for national security purposes. He reiterated his stance on Wednesday, saying, “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Not every Republican loves the Greenland plan, though. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) complained about it last weekend, telling ABC’s Martha Raddatz the president was “angering and denigrating” Greenlanders with his comments. Watch above via CNN. The post Denmark Fumes Trump’s Greenland Goal Is ‘Totally Unacceptable’ After Short White House Meeting first appeared on Mediaite.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said President Donald Trump’s push to “acquire” Greenland remains “totally unacceptable” to both Danes and Greenlanders following a meeting at the White House on Wednesday. Rasmussen told reporters that he and Greenland Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt had a “frank but also constructive” conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.  He said Denmark was “eager to work with the U.S.” and other NATO allies to ensure the “long-term” security of the massive island. But he said both Danes and Greenlanders have no desire to get bought — or conquered — by the U.S. “The president has made his view clear, and we have a different position,” Rasmussen said. He continued: Ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. But we also agree to disagree, and therefore we will continue to talk. The meeting comes after the Trump administration told Reuters last week that it was keeping all of its options open to acquire Greenland from Denmark, including military intervention. And Trump has been unwavering in his push for Greenland recently, saying, “We need it” for national security purposes. He reiterated his stance on Wednesday, saying, “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Not every Republican loves the Greenland plan, though. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) complained about it last weekend, telling ABC’s Martha Raddatz the president was “angering and denigrating” Greenlanders with his comments. Watch above via CNN. The post Denmark Fumes Trump’s Greenland Goal Is ‘Totally Unacceptable’ After Short White House Meeting first appeared on Mediaite.

A week after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fatally shot a Minneapolis woman, half of American women are in favor of abolishing the law enforcement agency altogether, according to one new poll.  Dismantling ICE was a policy embraced by a number of Democratic politicians under President Donald Trump’s first administration, particularly the progressive Squad made up largely of women of color legislators. But whether to double down on a renewed push to abolish the agency is a divisive issue within the party.  Congress is gearing up for another spending battle this month, and Democrats have limited leverage ahead of a complex midterm landscape, especially within the Senate — so the bulk of messaging on abolishing the department has fallen on House lawmakers, including an already vocal contingent of women. “I want everybody to understand: the cuts to your health care are what’s paying for this. All of that extra money … was taken out and given to ICE,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters this week. “You get screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face.” Democrats who spoke with The 19th all highlighted the urgency to do something to limit ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 37-year-old Renee Good was shot by an officer on camera while in her car. They said the video was an alarming reminder that the agency needs more restrictions, though there is still internal disagreement about how far Congress should go. Polling out this week from YouGov and The Economist found that for the first time, more Americans support than oppose abolishing the agency. Support is higher among women, with 50 percent backing abolishment, up from just 28 percent in June. This and other recent survey results represent a significant turn for the public, which historically has not backed ICE’s elimination even when approval for its actions has been lower. Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez, long a vocal opponent of Trump’s mass deportation plans, referenced the new polling that showed a plurality or majority of respondents specifically calling for abolishing the agency: “Not defund [or] take some money from them — completely get rid of ICE as an organization. It now requires members of Congress to reckon with, what does that mean?” Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Reps. Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, and Maxwell Frost, conduct a news conference on funding and accountability for the Department of Homeland Security, with an image of Renee Good, in the Capitol Visitor Center on January 13, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images) Democrats have put forward a number of proposals to rein in ICE. In addition to an upcoming proposal to eliminate the agency coming from Michigan Rep. Shri Thanedar, lawmakers have also suggested curbing “excessive force” from federal immigration officers and requiring officers to be more easily identifiable. The Congressional Progressive Caucus nearly unanimously voted to oppose new DHS funding without reforms, while Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly and over 50 colleagues filed articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday. But the appetite for a full defunding or dismantling of the agency is still low among most Democrats, much less the Republicans who currently control Congress and the White House. Abolishing ICE became a central campaign issue for progressive congressional candidates in 2018, which solidified following Trump’s family separation policies during his first administration. Ocasio-Cortez became one of the most vocal proponents of eliminating the agency, and some presidential hopefuls joined calls to seriously reconsider ICE’s role within immigration enforcement ahead of launching their national campaigns.  Much has changed politically since the House last officially took up the issue in 2018, when more than 130 Democrats voted “present” to avoid publicly opening themselves up to more criticism during a contentious midterms year — in which they won dozens of seats and turned the House blue. Since then, the party has struggled to unify around messaging as anti-immigrant sentiment grew leading up to the 2024 election, but the administration’s aggressive enforcement techniques have renewed a sense of urgency to address the agency’s role.  House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly faced defections within his caucus on votes, and his already slim majority has shrunk further, so Democrats might get closer margins on reforms than they previously anticipated. But Republicans still are the majority in Congress and the White House, and the GOP already appropriated a historic $178 billion for DHS funding last year. On the Senate side, Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, has proposed additional restrictions on ICE and has also been trying to build a coalition for voting leverage down the line. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others are unlikely to hold up government negotiations again this year when they need to flip key GOP seats to remain competitive.  The party’s more centrist wing is warning against speaking in extreme terms about dismantling the department on the campaign trail, with center-left think tank Third Way calling the position “politically lethal” and “emotional” in a memo on Tuesday.  Some Democrats are making clear that they don’t want to get rid of immigration enforcement itself, and that discussions should avoid getting swept up in pithy slogans in the wider momentum of anger toward DHS. Even Ocasio-Cortez was noncommittal about any widespread use of the phrase “Abolish ICE” across her colleagues’ 2026 campaigns, saying, “It’s really about who you are and what you’re running for.” Over the last week, Democratic messaging has focused on Good’s status as an American citizen, reinforced that ICE has existed since just 2003, and stressed that immigration enforcement can be accomplished by other means. But Ramirez and other members said outside of phrasing semantics, Congress needs to address the growing discontent with ICE in some way or another. “People keep arguing, ‘Is it a bad hashtag? Is it going to lose elections? Is it going to kill us in 2026?’” Ramirez told The 19th. “People, regardless of whatever you call

A week after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fatally shot a Minneapolis woman, half of American women are in favor of abolishing the law enforcement agency altogether, according to one new poll.  Dismantling ICE was a policy embraced by a number of Democratic politicians under President Donald Trump’s first administration, particularly the progressive Squad made up largely of women of color legislators. But whether to double down on a renewed push to abolish the agency is a divisive issue within the party.  Congress is gearing up for another spending battle this month, and Democrats have limited leverage ahead of a complex midterm landscape, especially within the Senate — so the bulk of messaging on abolishing the department has fallen on House lawmakers, including an already vocal contingent of women. “I want everybody to understand: the cuts to your health care are what’s paying for this. All of that extra money … was taken out and given to ICE,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters this week. “You get screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face.” Democrats who spoke with The 19th all highlighted the urgency to do something to limit ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 37-year-old Renee Good was shot by an officer on camera while in her car. They said the video was an alarming reminder that the agency needs more restrictions, though there is still internal disagreement about how far Congress should go. Polling out this week from YouGov and The Economist found that for the first time, more Americans support than oppose abolishing the agency. Support is higher among women, with 50 percent backing abolishment, up from just 28 percent in June. This and other recent survey results represent a significant turn for the public, which historically has not backed ICE’s elimination even when approval for its actions has been lower. Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez, long a vocal opponent of Trump’s mass deportation plans, referenced the new polling that showed a plurality or majority of respondents specifically calling for abolishing the agency: “Not defund [or] take some money from them — completely get rid of ICE as an organization. It now requires members of Congress to reckon with, what does that mean?” Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Reps. Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, and Maxwell Frost, conduct a news conference on funding and accountability for the Department of Homeland Security, with an image of Renee Good, in the Capitol Visitor Center on January 13, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images) Democrats have put forward a number of proposals to rein in ICE. In addition to an upcoming proposal to eliminate the agency coming from Michigan Rep. Shri Thanedar, lawmakers have also suggested curbing “excessive force” from federal immigration officers and requiring officers to be more easily identifiable. The Congressional Progressive Caucus nearly unanimously voted to oppose new DHS funding without reforms, while Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly and over 50 colleagues filed articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday. But the appetite for a full defunding or dismantling of the agency is still low among most Democrats, much less the Republicans who currently control Congress and the White House. Abolishing ICE became a central campaign issue for progressive congressional candidates in 2018, which solidified following Trump’s family separation policies during his first administration. Ocasio-Cortez became one of the most vocal proponents of eliminating the agency, and some presidential hopefuls joined calls to seriously reconsider ICE’s role within immigration enforcement ahead of launching their national campaigns.  Much has changed politically since the House last officially took up the issue in 2018, when more than 130 Democrats voted “present” to avoid publicly opening themselves up to more criticism during a contentious midterms year — in which they won dozens of seats and turned the House blue. Since then, the party has struggled to unify around messaging as anti-immigrant sentiment grew leading up to the 2024 election, but the administration’s aggressive enforcement techniques have renewed a sense of urgency to address the agency’s role.  House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly faced defections within his caucus on votes, and his already slim majority has shrunk further, so Democrats might get closer margins on reforms than they previously anticipated. But Republicans still are the majority in Congress and the White House, and the GOP already appropriated a historic $178 billion for DHS funding last year. On the Senate side, Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, has proposed additional restrictions on ICE and has also been trying to build a coalition for voting leverage down the line. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others are unlikely to hold up government negotiations again this year when they need to flip key GOP seats to remain competitive.  The party’s more centrist wing is warning against speaking in extreme terms about dismantling the department on the campaign trail, with center-left think tank Third Way calling the position “politically lethal” and “emotional” in a memo on Tuesday.  Some Democrats are making clear that they don’t want to get rid of immigration enforcement itself, and that discussions should avoid getting swept up in pithy slogans in the wider momentum of anger toward DHS. Even Ocasio-Cortez was noncommittal about any widespread use of the phrase “Abolish ICE” across her colleagues’ 2026 campaigns, saying, “It’s really about who you are and what you’re running for.” Over the last week, Democratic messaging has focused on Good’s status as an American citizen, reinforced that ICE has existed since just 2003, and stressed that immigration enforcement can be accomplished by other means. But Ramirez and other members said outside of phrasing semantics, Congress needs to address the growing discontent with ICE in some way or another. “People keep arguing, ‘Is it a bad hashtag? Is it going to lose elections? Is it going to kill us in 2026?’” Ramirez told The 19th. “People, regardless of whatever you call

A week after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fatally shot a Minneapolis woman, half of American women are in favor of abolishing the law enforcement agency altogether, according to one new poll.  Dismantling ICE was a policy embraced by a number of Democratic politicians under President Donald Trump’s first administration, particularly the progressive Squad made up largely of women of color legislators. But whether to double down on a renewed push to abolish the agency is a divisive issue within the party.  Congress is gearing up for another spending battle this month, and Democrats have limited leverage ahead of a complex midterm landscape, especially within the Senate — so the bulk of messaging on abolishing the department has fallen on House lawmakers, including an already vocal contingent of women. “I want everybody to understand: the cuts to your health care are what’s paying for this. All of that extra money … was taken out and given to ICE,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters this week. “You get screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face.” Democrats who spoke with The 19th all highlighted the urgency to do something to limit ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 37-year-old Renee Good was shot by an officer on camera while in her car. They said the video was an alarming reminder that the agency needs more restrictions, though there is still internal disagreement about how far Congress should go. Polling out this week from YouGov and The Economist found that for the first time, more Americans support than oppose abolishing the agency. Support is higher among women, with 50 percent backing abolishment, up from just 28 percent in June. This and other recent survey results represent a significant turn for the public, which historically has not backed ICE’s elimination even when approval for its actions has been lower. Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez, long a vocal opponent of Trump’s mass deportation plans, referenced the new polling that showed a plurality or majority of respondents specifically calling for abolishing the agency: “Not defund [or] take some money from them — completely get rid of ICE as an organization. It now requires members of Congress to reckon with, what does that mean?” Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Reps. Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, and Maxwell Frost, conduct a news conference on funding and accountability for the Department of Homeland Security, with an image of Renee Good, in the Capitol Visitor Center on January 13, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images) Democrats have put forward a number of proposals to rein in ICE. In addition to an upcoming proposal to eliminate the agency coming from Michigan Rep. Shri Thanedar, lawmakers have also suggested curbing “excessive force” from federal immigration officers and requiring officers to be more easily identifiable. The Congressional Progressive Caucus nearly unanimously voted to oppose new DHS funding without reforms, while Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly and over 50 colleagues filed articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday. But the appetite for a full defunding or dismantling of the agency is still low among most Democrats, much less the Republicans who currently control Congress and the White House. Abolishing ICE became a central campaign issue for progressive congressional candidates in 2018, which solidified following Trump’s family separation policies during his first administration. Ocasio-Cortez became one of the most vocal proponents of eliminating the agency, and some presidential hopefuls joined calls to seriously reconsider ICE’s role within immigration enforcement ahead of launching their national campaigns.  Much has changed politically since the House last officially took up the issue in 2018, when more than 130 Democrats voted “present” to avoid publicly opening themselves up to more criticism during a contentious midterms year — in which they won dozens of seats and turned the House blue. Since then, the party has struggled to unify around messaging as anti-immigrant sentiment grew leading up to the 2024 election, but the administration’s aggressive enforcement techniques have renewed a sense of urgency to address the agency’s role.  House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly faced defections within his caucus on votes, and his already slim majority has shrunk further, so Democrats might get closer margins on reforms than they previously anticipated. But Republicans still are the majority in Congress and the White House, and the GOP already appropriated a historic $178 billion for DHS funding last year. On the Senate side, Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, has proposed additional restrictions on ICE and has also been trying to build a coalition for voting leverage down the line. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others are unlikely to hold up government negotiations again this year when they need to flip key GOP seats to remain competitive.  The party’s more centrist wing is warning against speaking in extreme terms about dismantling the department on the campaign trail, with center-left think tank Third Way calling the position “politically lethal” and “emotional” in a memo on Tuesday.  Some Democrats are making clear that they don’t want to get rid of immigration enforcement itself, and that discussions should avoid getting swept up in pithy slogans in the wider momentum of anger toward DHS. Even Ocasio-Cortez was noncommittal about any widespread use of the phrase “Abolish ICE” across her colleagues’ 2026 campaigns, saying, “It’s really about who you are and what you’re running for.” Over the last week, Democratic messaging has focused on Good’s status as an American citizen, reinforced that ICE has existed since just 2003, and stressed that immigration enforcement can be accomplished by other means. But Ramirez and other members said outside of phrasing semantics, Congress needs to address the growing discontent with ICE in some way or another. “People keep arguing, ‘Is it a bad hashtag? Is it going to lose elections? Is it going to kill us in 2026?’” Ramirez told The 19th. “People, regardless of whatever you call

A week after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fatally shot a Minneapolis woman, half of American women are in favor of abolishing the law enforcement agency altogether, according to one new poll.  Dismantling ICE was a policy embraced by a number of Democratic politicians under President Donald Trump’s first administration, particularly the progressive Squad made up largely of women of color legislators. But whether to double down on a renewed push to abolish the agency is a divisive issue within the party.  Congress is gearing up for another spending battle this month, and Democrats have limited leverage ahead of a complex midterm landscape, especially within the Senate — so the bulk of messaging on abolishing the department has fallen on House lawmakers, including an already vocal contingent of women. “I want everybody to understand: the cuts to your health care are what’s paying for this. All of that extra money … was taken out and given to ICE,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters this week. “You get screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face.” Democrats who spoke with The 19th all highlighted the urgency to do something to limit ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 37-year-old Renee Good was shot by an officer on camera while in her car. They said the video was an alarming reminder that the agency needs more restrictions, though there is still internal disagreement about how far Congress should go. Polling out this week from YouGov and The Economist found that for the first time, more Americans support than oppose abolishing the agency. Support is higher among women, with 50 percent backing abolishment, up from just 28 percent in June. This and other recent survey results represent a significant turn for the public, which historically has not backed ICE’s elimination even when approval for its actions has been lower. Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez, long a vocal opponent of Trump’s mass deportation plans, referenced the new polling that showed a plurality or majority of respondents specifically calling for abolishing the agency: “Not defund [or] take some money from them — completely get rid of ICE as an organization. It now requires members of Congress to reckon with, what does that mean?” Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Reps. Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, and Maxwell Frost, conduct a news conference on funding and accountability for the Department of Homeland Security, with an image of Renee Good, in the Capitol Visitor Center on January 13, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images) Democrats have put forward a number of proposals to rein in ICE. In addition to an upcoming proposal to eliminate the agency coming from Michigan Rep. Shri Thanedar, lawmakers have also suggested curbing “excessive force” from federal immigration officers and requiring officers to be more easily identifiable. The Congressional Progressive Caucus nearly unanimously voted to oppose new DHS funding without reforms, while Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly and over 50 colleagues filed articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday. But the appetite for a full defunding or dismantling of the agency is still low among most Democrats, much less the Republicans who currently control Congress and the White House. Abolishing ICE became a central campaign issue for progressive congressional candidates in 2018, which solidified following Trump’s family separation policies during his first administration. Ocasio-Cortez became one of the most vocal proponents of eliminating the agency, and some presidential hopefuls joined calls to seriously reconsider ICE’s role within immigration enforcement ahead of launching their national campaigns.  Much has changed politically since the House last officially took up the issue in 2018, when more than 130 Democrats voted “present” to avoid publicly opening themselves up to more criticism during a contentious midterms year — in which they won dozens of seats and turned the House blue. Since then, the party has struggled to unify around messaging as anti-immigrant sentiment grew leading up to the 2024 election, but the administration’s aggressive enforcement techniques have renewed a sense of urgency to address the agency’s role.  House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly faced defections within his caucus on votes, and his already slim majority has shrunk further, so Democrats might get closer margins on reforms than they previously anticipated. But Republicans still are the majority in Congress and the White House, and the GOP already appropriated a historic $178 billion for DHS funding last year. On the Senate side, Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, has proposed additional restrictions on ICE and has also been trying to build a coalition for voting leverage down the line. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others are unlikely to hold up government negotiations again this year when they need to flip key GOP seats to remain competitive.  The party’s more centrist wing is warning against speaking in extreme terms about dismantling the department on the campaign trail, with center-left think tank Third Way calling the position “politically lethal” and “emotional” in a memo on Tuesday.  Some Democrats are making clear that they don’t want to get rid of immigration enforcement itself, and that discussions should avoid getting swept up in pithy slogans in the wider momentum of anger toward DHS. Even Ocasio-Cortez was noncommittal about any widespread use of the phrase “Abolish ICE” across her colleagues’ 2026 campaigns, saying, “It’s really about who you are and what you’re running for.” Over the last week, Democratic messaging has focused on Good’s status as an American citizen, reinforced that ICE has existed since just 2003, and stressed that immigration enforcement can be accomplished by other means. But Ramirez and other members said outside of phrasing semantics, Congress needs to address the growing discontent with ICE in some way or another. “People keep arguing, ‘Is it a bad hashtag? Is it going to lose elections? Is it going to kill us in 2026?’” Ramirez told The 19th. “People, regardless of whatever you call

A week after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fatally shot a Minneapolis woman, half of American women are in favor of abolishing the law enforcement agency altogether, according to one new poll.  Dismantling ICE was a policy embraced by a number of Democratic politicians under President Donald Trump’s first administration, particularly the progressive Squad made up largely of women of color legislators. But whether to double down on a renewed push to abolish the agency is a divisive issue within the party.  Congress is gearing up for another spending battle this month, and Democrats have limited leverage ahead of a complex midterm landscape, especially within the Senate — so the bulk of messaging on abolishing the department has fallen on House lawmakers, including an already vocal contingent of women. “I want everybody to understand: the cuts to your health care are what’s paying for this. All of that extra money … was taken out and given to ICE,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters this week. “You get screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face.” Democrats who spoke with The 19th all highlighted the urgency to do something to limit ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 37-year-old Renee Good was shot by an officer on camera while in her car. They said the video was an alarming reminder that the agency needs more restrictions, though there is still internal disagreement about how far Congress should go. Polling out this week from YouGov and The Economist found that for the first time, more Americans support than oppose abolishing the agency. Support is higher among women, with 50 percent backing abolishment, up from just 28 percent in June. This and other recent survey results represent a significant turn for the public, which historically has not backed ICE’s elimination even when approval for its actions has been lower. Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez, long a vocal opponent of Trump’s mass deportation plans, referenced the new polling that showed a plurality or majority of respondents specifically calling for abolishing the agency: “Not defund [or] take some money from them — completely get rid of ICE as an organization. It now requires members of Congress to reckon with, what does that mean?” Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Reps. Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, and Maxwell Frost, conduct a news conference on funding and accountability for the Department of Homeland Security, with an image of Renee Good, in the Capitol Visitor Center on January 13, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images) Democrats have put forward a number of proposals to rein in ICE. In addition to an upcoming proposal to eliminate the agency coming from Michigan Rep. Shri Thanedar, lawmakers have also suggested curbing “excessive force” from federal immigration officers and requiring officers to be more easily identifiable. The Congressional Progressive Caucus nearly unanimously voted to oppose new DHS funding without reforms, while Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly and over 50 colleagues filed articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday. But the appetite for a full defunding or dismantling of the agency is still low among most Democrats, much less the Republicans who currently control Congress and the White House. Abolishing ICE became a central campaign issue for progressive congressional candidates in 2018, which solidified following Trump’s family separation policies during his first administration. Ocasio-Cortez became one of the most vocal proponents of eliminating the agency, and some presidential hopefuls joined calls to seriously reconsider ICE’s role within immigration enforcement ahead of launching their national campaigns.  Much has changed politically since the House last officially took up the issue in 2018, when more than 130 Democrats voted “present” to avoid publicly opening themselves up to more criticism during a contentious midterms year — in which they won dozens of seats and turned the House blue. Since then, the party has struggled to unify around messaging as anti-immigrant sentiment grew leading up to the 2024 election, but the administration’s aggressive enforcement techniques have renewed a sense of urgency to address the agency’s role.  House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly faced defections within his caucus on votes, and his already slim majority has shrunk further, so Democrats might get closer margins on reforms than they previously anticipated. But Republicans still are the majority in Congress and the White House, and the GOP already appropriated a historic $178 billion for DHS funding last year. On the Senate side, Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, has proposed additional restrictions on ICE and has also been trying to build a coalition for voting leverage down the line. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others are unlikely to hold up government negotiations again this year when they need to flip key GOP seats to remain competitive.  The party’s more centrist wing is warning against speaking in extreme terms about dismantling the department on the campaign trail, with center-left think tank Third Way calling the position “politically lethal” and “emotional” in a memo on Tuesday.  Some Democrats are making clear that they don’t want to get rid of immigration enforcement itself, and that discussions should avoid getting swept up in pithy slogans in the wider momentum of anger toward DHS. Even Ocasio-Cortez was noncommittal about any widespread use of the phrase “Abolish ICE” across her colleagues’ 2026 campaigns, saying, “It’s really about who you are and what you’re running for.” Over the last week, Democratic messaging has focused on Good’s status as an American citizen, reinforced that ICE has existed since just 2003, and stressed that immigration enforcement can be accomplished by other means. But Ramirez and other members said outside of phrasing semantics, Congress needs to address the growing discontent with ICE in some way or another. “People keep arguing, ‘Is it a bad hashtag? Is it going to lose elections? Is it going to kill us in 2026?’” Ramirez told The 19th. “People, regardless of whatever you call