Obama Strategist Issues Stark Warning Over 'Abolish ICE' Campaign Slogan
David Axelrod, the former chief strategist for Barack Obama, has delivered a blunt caution to Democratic candidates, warning that the party's embrace of the "abolish ICE" slogan risks repeating the catastrophic political mistakes of the "defund the police" movement. In a candid interview on CNN, Axelrod argued that while the sentiment reflects genuine anger, the branding could prove deeply damaging at the ballot box.
Parallels Drawn With The 'Defund The Police' Backlash
Axelrod explicitly compared the current push to dismantle Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with the widespread calls to defund police departments that followed the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. "I don't think most people who said [defund the police] believed that there should be no policing function in cities, but the implication was that there could be," he explained. He fears the "abolish ICE" mantra creates a similar vulnerability, allowing Republicans to paint Democrats as extreme on immigration and border security.
The veteran consultant highlighted that, in retrospect, the "defund the police" movement is widely seen as having reinforced a Republican narrative that Democrats are soft on crime. He suggested the same dynamic could unfold with immigration, where most voters seek reform and improved enforcement rather than abolition.
Public Opinion and Political Reality Clash
Axelrod's warning comes amid shifting public attitudes. Recent polling indicates that support for abolishing ICE has doubled since 2018, now standing at 36 percent among all voters. Among Democrats surveyed, a significant 59 percent back the measure. However, Axelrod stressed the nuance in these figures. "I think that people believe you should come to the country legally, and if you don't, you know, there should be some penalty for that," he told CNN's Boris Sanchez and Brianna Keilar. "They do believe that. But I don't think they want to abolish ICE."
He conceded that the ICE "brand" is deeply tarnished, with 59 percent of voters agreeing the agency is too aggressive—a ten-point increase since last July. Axelrod suggested rebranding or reforming the agency might be more palatable than outright abolition. "If it means getting rid of the name 'ICE,' which has become a very bad brand, that's one thing," he said. "[But] if it means that we're just gonna abandon immigration enforcement, I don't think Democrats or Republicans would support that in large numbers."
Progressive Champions Drive The Movement Forward
Despite Axelrod's caution, the movement to abolish ICE has gained powerful advocates within the Democratic Party. The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during confrontations with federal agents in Minneapolis have intensified calls for the agency's dismantling. In response, Congressman Shri Thanedar introduced the Abolish ICE Act on January 15, stating, "Americans are being terrorised. We must fundamentally change the way we approach immigration: it's time to abolish ICE."
High-profile figures like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar have become vocal proponents. Mamdani wrote on social media, "ICE murdered Renee Good in broad daylight. Less than three weeks later, they killed Alex Pretti... We can't allow ourselves to look away from this cruelty. Abolish ICE." Similarly, Omar has stated her continued push in Congress to replace ICE with an agency that upholds national security "without criminalising and brutalising vulnerable communities."
Funding Debates and Political Implications
The discussion unfolds against a tense political backdrop. The White House and Congressional Democrats have reportedly reached a deal to avoid a partial government shutdown, agreeing to separate Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding from broader legislation. DHS, which houses ICE, will receive a two-week funding extension as negotiations continue, with Democrats pushing for stricter oversight of the agency's operations.
Axelrod's intervention serves as a stark reminder of the electoral tightrope Democrats walk on immigration. While the party's progressive base demands radical action against an agency they view as cruel and unjust, the broader electorate may perceive calls for abolition as a step too far. As the 2024 election cycle approaches, the internal debate over how to channel public anger into viable policy—without alienating moderate voters—remains one of the party's most pressing challenges.
