The Brief

The killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis have renewed a long-running debate among Democrats over how best to address immigration enforcement, and whether advocating for "abolishing ICE" fits into a winning political playbook.

It is a debate that has taken on new urgency among Democrats against a backdrop of bipartisan backlash to the Trump administration's deportation efforts, led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Critics on both the left and the right say the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal officers last month show the administration has gone too far.

For Democrats, the events in Minneapolis have created an opening ahead of this year's midterm election to shift the conversation on immigration — a notable change after struggling to message on the issue in the 2024 election.

But internal divides over what to do about ICE could complicate the effort. Calls to "abolish ICE" have been particularly amplified by progressive candidates, especially among younger Democrats running for Congress and those challenging Democratic incumbents. On Capitol Hill, far fewer Democrats have re-upped support for abolishing the agency, despite many rallying around the issue during President Donald Trump's first term.

Instead, many elected Democrats have called for reforms at ICE, wary of appearing out of step with voters who want strong enforcement of immigration laws but who disagree with the administration's tactics.

"There is no question that the dynamic from '24 has flipped, [during] which immigration was a sure strength for Trump and a profound weakness for Democrats," said Jonathan Cowan, president and co-founder of the centrist think tank Third Way. But, he cautioned, if the party wants to be successful in November, they should keep the focus on the administration's missteps.

"The divide in the Democratic Party is not over rage, disgust and anger," Cowan said. "The divide is what are you going to do about it? How do you channel that rage in a way that actually changes policy? Both short and long run."

He warns the "abolish ICE" slogan may not be universally embraced among voters across the country. Democrats hoping to flip districts or win over swing voters, Cowan said, should lean into different language, such as calling for a "reform" or "overhaul" of ICE.

He likens the debate to when many Democrats coalesced around the "defund the police" movement in 2020, a decision that Cowan argues created an opening for Trump to paint Democrats as soft on crime.

"People embraced an emotionally satisfying slogan that in the long run proved to be politically toxic and a barrier to getting serious police reform in the country," Cowan said. "We are in grave danger of the same problem happening for those who are embracing abolish ICE."

A protester carries a sign that reads "Defund The Police" during a July 3, 2020 march in Richmond, Va. Many Democrats have been wary of calls to "abolish ICE," and point to how calls to "defund the police" hurt the party with voters in 2020 and 2024.

(

Eze Amos

/

Getty Images

)

That may already be happening. In response to calls to abolish the agency, many Republicans have attempted to link the movement with "defund the police." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed that in a post on X last week, asking, "Why do Democrats keep attacking the law enforcement agencies that hunt down criminals and protect innocent American citizens?"

Loudest calls come from progressives and new candidates

The debate is poised to be especially salient in Democratic primaries and in states that have faced increased enforcement, such as Minnesota, Illinois, California and New York. Democratic candidates have already faced off on the debate stage in Illinois with competing pitches to abolish and reform ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. In Minnesota, immigration enforcement has become a key issue in the race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Tina Smith.

Some of the loudest calls to abolish ICE have come from Gen Z and millennial candidates, many of whom have sought to frame their bids around a larger rejection of Democratic Party norms.

Darializa Avila Chevalier has embraced that message. The 32-year-old progressive organizer and Ph.D. student is running a primary challenge against Rep. Adriano Espaillat, 71, in New York's 13th congressional district, which includes upper Manhattan and part of the Bronx.

"From the very beginning, I've been adamant that I wanted the abolition of ICE to be central to what we're talking about," said Avila Chevalier.

"It's an institution that should have never existed to begin with," she added. "It's an institution that is younger than I am. And so I've lived in a world where ICE didn't exist, and we can all go back to a world where ICE doesn't exist and never exists again."

ICE agents look for someone at a home on Jan. 28 in Circle Pines, Minn. Protests continue around the Twin Cities area after the Trump administration sent thousands of immigration agents to the region to search for undocumented immigrants.

(

Scott Olson

/

Getty Images

)

Avila Chevalier says Democratic candidates need "to be bold" in their solutions to issues affecting voters right now, and that includes on immigration.

"If I could trust that the leadership we have was reflecting our values, was actually meeting this moment," she said, "I wouldn't be running."

Avila Chevalier is one of 10 candidates currently backed by Justice Democrats. The political group has supported a handful of progressives who have gone on to win seats in Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who delivered an upset primary win in 2018 and ran on a platform that included abolishing ICE, a stance she's reaffirmed in recent weeks.

For nearly a decade, Justice Democrats has rallied around anti-establishment candidates of all ages who often draw contrast to the Democrats they're challenging by rejecting donations from corporate PACs or pro-Israel lobbying groups. But in the wake of the fatal shootings in Minnesota, candidates the group supports are also drawing a line in the sand on immigration — pledging to abolish ICE.

"Every single one of these communities has an ICE story of their own. And it's up to us to listen to those communities … and show people what an opposition party, if in power, would actually do," said Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi. "That's what our slate of candidates exists to be."

Andrabi disagrees with the idea that "abolish ICE" creates more party divides than flips voters.

Protesters stage a march calling for an end to taxpayer spending on ICE and demanding a moratorium on evictions on Jan. 31 in Minneapolis.

(

John Moore

/

Getty Images

)

"The slogan is not the problem. ICE is the problem," he said.

Recent polling indicates there is some support for the issue among voters, though not overwhelming. A plurality of Americans, 46%, strongly support or somewhat support abolishing ICE, according to a YouGov poll conducted after the shootings in Minneapolis. Americans under 30 were most likely to oppose Trump's immigration agenda, according to the poll, and nearly 7 in 10 voice some level of support for getting rid of the agency.

It's a generational sentiment that may add important context when looking at the influx of younger candidates voicing support for the issue.

"I think that they are furious. They see it all over their news feeds. They see it in their communities. They also, I think, are less beholden to this idea of tradition or the way things have been done," said Amanda Litman, the founder of Run for Something, an organization that recruits and supports young people running for local office.

"I think that sense of the crisis and of the urgency of this moment … is something that young leaders really bring with them into their positions of power," she added. "And it is both their super strength and often their weakness because they're a little more radical in some ways."

Divides on Democratic messaging

Immigration enforcement has become a central issue in funding negotiations on Capitol Hill, where Democrats are lobbying for changes to the tactics used by immigration officers. Democrats want to narrow the type of warrants immigration officers can use to enter homes, require them to wear body cameras and prohibit the use of face masks.

While Democrats in Congress are united in what they see as the bare minimum needed to reform immigration enforcement, there is less consensus on how far to take the rhetoric. Though Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is pushing to "defund and abolish ICE," as are some House lawmakers, other Democrats have taken a different approach.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D–Mass., would not directly answer whether she supports calls to abolish ICE, telling NPR it needs to be "totally reorganized" and "torn down to the studs and rebuilt." She declined to say whether campaigning on abolishing ICE would benefit Democrats.

It's a debate that's also playing out in competitive midterm matchups, including in the Senate Democratic primary in Maine, where the state's governor, Janet Mills, and first-time progressive candidate Graham Platner are running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

Graham Platner is running against Gov. Janet Mills for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine. Platner has called for ICE to be "dismantled," characterizing it as "the moderate position."

(

Sophie Park

/

Getty Images

)

Mills has advocated for ICE reforms, calling for "measures" that would "prohibit ICE's lawless, dangerous conduct and their abuses of power." Platner has called for the agency to be "dismantled," characterizing it as "the moderate position" in a post on X.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills has not called for abolishing ICE, instead advocating for reforms at the agency.

(

Joseph Prezioso

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

The degree to which candidates choose to embrace — or reject — calls to abolish ICE could prove particularly decisive in swing districts.

Though many voters want the current situation to change, calls to abolish ICE may mean different things to different people, argues Cowan of Third Way.

"You can take the literal word, slogan, abolish ICE, and it will get a certain level of support," he said. "But the moment you start asking people specifically what they actually support, the concept of abolishing interior immigration enforcement is not popular."

Though nearly half of Americans say they have some support for abolishing ICE, according to the latest YouGov poll, far fewer, less than a third, support abolishing the U.S. Border Patrol. When respondents were asked if they support Trump moving forward with a smaller enforcement effort, "aimed at criminals, not at hotel maids and gardeners," 55% strongly or somewhat approved.

The lack of Democratic consensus on the issue isn't stopping some progressive congressional hopefuls from standing by the policy they believe is right.

Mai Vang was in high school in 2003 when ICE was created. Now, more than two decades later, the 40-year-old Sacramento City councilmember is campaigning on abolishing the agency as she challenges 81-year-old Democrat Doris Matsui in California's 7th Congressional District.

"What we've seen is this agency has inflicted harm on our communities, and you can't reform it. There is not enough training or even body cameras that would justify what they are doing," she said in an interview.

When asked if she considered shying away from using the slogan, Vang pushed back.

"Not really because people are being killed and murdered by ICE," she said. "It's not a radical position to say we don't want an entity harming our families and loved ones. I don't think it's radical to want to dismantle an agency that is killing citizens."
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story is no longer being actively updated. For the most up-to-date information about the fire you can check:

• LAFD incident page
• Latest evacuation map

Firefighters appeared to make quick progress against a brush fire the broke out Wednesday near the Getty Center.

As of 5 p.m., evacuation warnings had been issued for zones LFD-0895 and LF-0967, although the LAFD said no structures were immediately threatened as the water-dropping helicopters attacked the fire from above. Forward progress of the fire was reported stopped shortly after 6 p.m. at a little over 20 acres.

The fire broke out as Southern California endures high heat and record-breaking humidity.

The basics

• Acreage: 20+ acres as of Wednesday evening
• Containment: Forward progress stopped
• Structures destroyed: None reported
• Deaths: None
• Injuries: Unknown
• Personnel working on fire: Unknown

Listen to our Big Burn podcast

Fire resources and tips

Check out LAist's wildfire recovery guide

If you have to evacuate:

• Why fire officials don't want you to stay and defend your home
• How to get packed up
• How to leave your house
• What evacuation terms mean and how to sign up for alerts

Navigating fire conditions:

• How to drive in high winds and fire danger
• How to prep for power outages
• How to navigate poor air quality

How to help yourself and others:

• Resources for fire victims, evacuees and first responders
• If you want to help fire victims, resist the urge to volunteer
• How to help find lost pets

How to start the recovery process:

• What to do — and not do — when you get home after a wildfire
• How to make an insurance claim
• How to safely clean up wildfire ash

What to do for your kids:

• How to talk to children about wildfires and losing a home
• What parents should know about wildfire air quality

Prepare for the next disaster:

• Fire season is here. Make sure you're signed up for these alerts
• Every day is now fire season. Let's get you ready for the next wildfire
• Yes, wildfires are getting worse. The history that got us to this moment

A prominent attorney working on a low-level criminal case in Long Beach is alleging the Police Department there concealed an officer’s assault conviction for years — potentially calling into question the legitimacy of hundreds of cases.

Scott Sanders, who exposed the Orange County jailhouse snitch scandal, made the allegations in a series of motions filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court to force disclosure of police records and dismiss charges against Lonnie Jacobs, 47, his court-appointed client.

Jacobs is facing felony charges after Long Beach police said they found a small bag of cocaine tucked inside his sock while he was held at a jail following an arrest in March 2025. Jacobs has pleaded not guilty to the charge of bringing a controlled substance into a jail, which could carry a sentence of up to four years in prison.

At issue is the arrest that landed Jacobs in that cell in the first place — which Sanders argues in court filings was based on misrepresentations of now-former Long Beach police Officer Erik Suarez.

According to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Suarez resigned from the Long Beach Police Department in June.

In a filing made Sept. 8, the defense attorney said an investigator discovered that Suarez had been convicted of a misdemeanor in the beating of a man outside a Waffle House in Marietta, Georgia in 2019. He had initially been charged with felony assault.

At that time, Suarez had served on the Long Beach force for two years.

LAist attempted to contact Suarez by calling a phone number connected to him in public records. A man who answered said he was not Suarez, but asked what the story was about and said he would check with Suarez about contacting LAist.

In a recent court filing seeking more information about Suarez’s conduct, Jacobs’ defense asserts that the Long Beach Police Department knew about the conviction, but never disclosed this information to defendants or the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

That’s information Jacobs’ attorney argues was potentially exculpatory, and that withholding it amounts to a major violation of criminal defense laws. In the landmark 1963 case Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court established that law enforcement has a legal responsibility to disclose such information to defendants. In Jacobs’ case, for example, the Sept. 8 filing said information about Suarez’s arrest and subsequent conviction could have been used to impeach him as a witness, as well as in other cases Suarez touched as a police officer.

The Long Beach Police Department has not yet responded to LAist’s emailed questions.

“The actions of the LBPD demonstrate a complete disregard to the danger Officer Suarez presented to the community and to the due process rights of defendants,” according to the motion to force disclosure. “The concealment of Officer Suarez's arrest and prosecution enabled [LBPD] to hide mandated discovery related to Officer Suarez’s conduct from what have likely been hundreds of defendants during the nearly seven-year period between the time of Officer Suarez’s August 2019 arrest and June 2026.”

Jacobs’ attorney alleges in the filing that Long Beach has an “unwritten policy” to keep information that could be used to impeach its officers in personnel files protected from public disclosure.

“The potential systemic consequences are enormous,” the filing argues.

Summer Lacey, the criminal justice and police practices director at the ACLU of Southern California, called the circumstances outlined in the case “very problematic.”

“Not just to the individual,” she said, “but to the entire community.”

Lacey said the information about Suarez’s conviction should have been known to the prosecutors, so they could vet the reliability of the evidence presented by law enforcement, and turned over to the defense at the outset of the case.

A spokesperson for L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said in an emailed response to questions that they could not comment on what information they disclosed to Jacobs’ defense.

The District Attorney’s Office said it has a “collaborative relationship with the Long Beach Police Department,” and that the department does disclose material to prosecutors that is allowed under California law.

“Generally speaking, if our office had any such Brady material regarding an officer, we would have been legally obligated to turn that over to the defense.”

Lacey said if prosecutors did not have access to Suarez’s criminal record, the scope of people affected could be wide.

“We don't know how many cases are impacted by the potential unreliability of statements from the arresting law enforcement officer,” Lacey said. “This could impact people who have already pled guilty, who maybe are currently incarcerated, who are awaiting sentencing, or who are, like I said, incarcerated pretrial on other cases.”

In an interview with LAist, Sanders said the case raises three troubling issues: There’s the concealment of evidence leading to Jacobs' initial arrest, Suarez’s 2019 assault that was never disclosed, and the question of whether the Long Beach Police Department has concealed Brady material in other cases.

“If that's your modus operandi, we've got an enormous problem here,” Sanders said.

The underlying arrest that led to allegations about concealing an assault 

Long Beach police responded to the intersection of 52nd Street and Atlantic Boulevard after a man reported being held at gunpoint, with the robber driving away in the van he was repossessing.

(

Megan Garvey

/

LAist

)

Just after 7:45 p.m. on March 18, 2025, Suarez and his partner Dylan Kelley responded to a call reporting a person with a gun at the intersection of 52nd Street and Atlantic Boulevard in Long Beach.

The alleged victim, identified in the filing by his last name, Ochoa, told the officers that he was attempting to repossess a black Dodge Sprinter van when someone threatened him with a gun, took the keys and drove off with the van.

Police later tracked down the van and detained Lonnie Jacobs and his brother, Lamar Jacobs.

According to court records, at the scene officers only presented Lonnie Jacobs to Ochoa.

Before seeing him, Ochoa stated that the suspect had braids, and body camera footage detailed in the court filing shows him gesturing to show long hair around his shoulders.

While looking at photos of the suspects in the van, Ochoa identified Lamar Jacobs. “That’s him! With the dreads!,” Ochoa is recorded saying on body camera footage.

Body camera footage shows Suarez confirming this description. “You said he had dreads? Can you remember if he has dreads?,” Suarez asks. The footage shows Ochoa nodding to confirm.

But Ochoa then identified Lonnie Jacobs in person, telling officers he recognized Lonnie Jacobs’ chain and ripped jeans as matching the person who pulled a gun on him earlier that night.

Jacobs’ court filings state that body camera footage shows both he and his brother wore the exact same chain, and they both wore ripped jeans that night.

In an interview with a detective for the District Attorney’s Office in August 2026 that is included in court filings, Ochoa said he was positive he identified a man with braids during the show-up.

Lonnie Jacobs is bald.

Lonnie Jacobs in a still from a police body cam on the night of his arrest.

(

Long Beach Police Department

/

L.A. County Superior Court filing

)

Lamar Jacobs in a still from the night his brother was arrested. An officer is handing him a chain identical to one around his neck.

(

Long Beach Police Department

/

L.A. County Superior Court filing

)

His attorney argued this fact is inconsistent with the description and should have disqualified Jacobs as a suspect, or at least warranted more questioning. Furthermore, he alleges Suarez failed to correct another officer at the scene who questioned why Ochoa didn’t see the hairstyle of the man who allegedly pulled a gun on him.

By this point, Ochoa had already described the suspect as having braids to Suarez and Kelley, according to the body cam footage, but Suarez did not correct the other officer.

“He couldn’t tell by the haircut,” Suarez said, adding he said “everything happened too fast.”

Jacobs’ defense alleges Suarez’s response was “actively misleading his fellow officers.”

Furthermore, body camera footage also shows Suarez agreeing with another officer who expressed doubts that Lonnie Jacobs was the one who brandished the firearm.

A still of officers discussing the potential suspects on the night of Lonnie Jacobs' arrest. A court filing by his defense said officers, including Erik Suarez, expressed doubts that he was the correct person.

(

Long Beach Police Department

/

L.A. County Superior Court

)

“Yeah I think it was him, too,” Suarez said, referring to Lonnie’s brother Lamar. Lamar Jacobs was never charged in connection with the case.

In filings to the court, the District Attorney’s Office said the officers had probable cause to arrest Jacobs because he was in the van described by the witness and matched at least some of the characteristics of the suspect.

How that led to the Georgia case coming to light

Once Jacobs’ defense reviewed the body cam footage, they began attempting to depose Suarez in the case. Although Lonnie Jacobs was never charged with threatening Ochoa, the arrest led to the charges of bringing drugs into a jail. If the initial arrest was illegitimate, the drug case would go away.

The court scheduled a hearing earlier this year to discuss the evidence, but the Long Beach Police Department told Jacobs’ defense that Suarez was out of the country.

The defense subpoenaed Suarez through the Police Department again and on June 15, the department told the team that Suarez had resigned.

An investigator for Jacobs’ defense searched for his address to subpoena him at home. That search, according to the court filing, uncovered the assault charges in Georgia in 2019, two years after he joined the police force in Long Beach.

In the motion to dismiss the charges against Jacobs, his defense argues it is “plausible” that Suarez resigned from the police force out of concern he may have been questioned about his alleged misconduct that led to Jacobs’ arrest.

“However, it is also now apparent that Officer Suarez has been living with another secret that may also have propelled a decision to abandon his police officer position,” the defense wrote.

Through discovery, Jacobs’ attorney said in court filings they learned that Suarez had traveled to Georgia where he watched the Atlanta Braves beat the Los Angeles Dodgers 4-3 on Aug. 17, 2019.

According to an incident report attached to court filings, a witness saw Suarez wearing a Dodgers jersey in a Waffle House, “talking shit” and arguing with the victim.

“Suarez then walked up to the table where the victim was seated and began punching him in the face until the victim was left unconscious on the ground,” the filing describes. According to the incident report and other filings from that case, Suarez continued to punch the victim while he was unconscious.

The most recent filing from Jacobs’ defense says Suarez was arrested walking away from the restaurant.

According to a description of the crime by Barry Morgan, a Cobb County assistant solicitor general, Suarez “caused the victim significant injuries, including orbital fracture, fracture of the maxillary sinus, traumatic orbital hematoma, and concussion.”

A memo details injuries caused by Erik Suarez in a 2019 assault. A grand jury indicted him on two felony counts. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and served a year of probation.

(

Cobb County Superior Court

/

via L.A. County Superior Court filing

)

“Defendant beat the victim while the victim was on the ground, apparently unconscious,” the description explains. “This should be aggravated battery.”

On April 1, 2021, a grand jury indicted Suarez on two felony counts of aggravated battery, accusing him of “seriously disfiguring” the victim and rendering his right eye useless.

Right before trial, Suarez pleaded guilty in November 2022 to reduced misdemeanor charges of battery, was ordered to stay away from the victim and Cobb County, and was ordered to take anger management classes. He was sentenced to 12 months, which he was allowed to serve on probation.

According to Jacobs’ defense, “Suarez’s actions in Georgia triggered immediate reporting responsibilities related to his employment” with the Long Beach Police Department.

The court filing explains that the Long Beach police manual requires officers to inform their watch commander when they are arrested by another department or under a criminal investigation.

It’s not yet clear when the department learned about Suarez’s arrest. But Jacobs' defense argues that if the department learned of the arrest between 2019 and 2026, “this would have clearly triggered Brady responsibilities in this case and numerous others.”

That information is relevant to the case against Jacobs, the filing argues, because “it is entirely logical that the same officer who beat a victim into unconsciousness and then cavalierly walked from the scene would just as thoughtlessly arrest a man for whom no probable cause existed — concealing that the victim previously identified another suspect who possessed features irreconcilable with the defendant’s culpability.”

When does law enforcement need to disclose misconduct? 

While law enforcement has a legal requirement to proactively disclose Brady material that could help defendants build their case, California law exempts most police personnel records from disclosure, except under certain circumstances including findings of unnecessary use of force and misconduct while on the job.

Jacobs’ defense attorney, in the Sept. 8 filing, alleges Long Beach police purposefully placed evidence related to Suarez’s conviction in his personnel file, where it could be protected from disclosure.

He wrote this “enabled the agency to hide mandated discovery related to Officer Suarez’s conduct from what have likely been hundreds of defendants during the nearly seven-year period between the time of Officer Suarez’s August 2019 arrest and June 2026.”

Furthermore, the filing argues “there is every reason to believe that the hiding of Brady evidence extends far beyond Officer Suarez’s conduct and is the product of a long-established undisclosed policy designed to conceal Brady evidence.”

The filing points to a June 2021 news article wherein a spokesperson for the LBPD told reporters that it does not maintain a formal list of officers whose case involvement triggers Brady disclosures, but that it “continues to comply with its obligations to share such information.”

By that time, Suarez’s assault case was nearly two years old and, according to Jacobs’ defense, had never been disclosed.