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.
Why now: 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.
Midterm election: 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.
Read on... for how Democrats are split on the strategy.
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
David Wagner
covers housing in Southern California, a place where the lack of affordable housing contributes to homelessness.
Published June 23, 2026 6:09 PM
A for-sale sign hangs outside a $1.6 million house on L.A.’s Westside.
(
David Wagner
/
LAist
)
Topline:
The Los Angeles City Council decided Tuesday to put off the full effects of a major new state housing law by allowing low-rise apartment buildings in some neighborhoods where such housing has long been banned.
The details: All council members voted in favor of those plans except for Traci Park, who was absent from the meeting. California’s Senate Bill 79 is set to take effect July 1.
What is SB 79? The law overrides local limits on housing development by allowing apartment buildings between five and nine stories tall near train stations and rapid bus stops. However, cities are allowed to postpone those changes until 2030 by developing their own incremental plans for more housing. L.A. elected leaders have chosen to delay. They’re doing so through the city’s new Low-Rise Ordinance, which aims to allow buildings up to four stories tall in 57 neighborhoods near transit lines.
Why it matters: L.A. lawmakers have tried many approaches to bring down L.A.’s high rents. But they have consistently voted to stop apartment developers from encroaching on the nearly three-quarters of city residential land reserved for single-family homes. Pushed by state lawmakers, city leaders are now having to accept some changes in single-family neighborhoods located near public transit lines.
Read more... to learn whether new apartment buildings could be allowed in your neighborhood.
All council members voted in favor of those plans except for Traci Park, who was absent from the meeting.
California’s Senate Bill 79 is set to take effect July 1. The law overrides local limits on housing development by allowing apartment buildings between five and nine stories tall near train stations and rapid bus stops.
However, cities are allowed to postpone those changes until 2030 by developing their own incremental plans for more housing. L.A. elected leaders have chosen to delay. They’re doing so through the city’s new Low-Rise Ordinance, which aims to allow buildings up to four stories tall in 57 neighborhoods near transit lines.
Why it matters
L.A. lawmakers have tried many approaches to bring down L.A.’s high rents. But they have consistently voted to stop apartment developers from encroaching on the nearly three-quarters of city residential land reserved for single-family homes.
Pushed by state lawmakers, city leaders are now having to accept some changes in single-family neighborhoods located near public transit lines.
The reaction
Some local officials and homeowners have expressed frustration over new state limits on their ability to stop development in low-density zones. But advocates for more development said the council’s decision will help address high rents by allowing more housing in areas that have long been off-limits to new apartments.
“The City Council voted to open up high-resource single-family neighborhoods near transit stations,” said Scott Epstein, policy director with Abundant Housing L.A. “This reform is long overdue and will help build a future where Angelenos of all incomes can find homes in the neighborhoods of their choice.”
Where will the projects be allowed?
Officials with the city’s planning department said residents can see whether Low-Rise Ordinance projects will be allowed in their neighborhood by clicking on this interactive map and making two selections from the “layer list” menu: “Opportunity Station Sites Eligible for Low Rise” and “Sites Eligible for Low Rise Outside of Opportunity Station.”
The map shows that some of the areas eligible for new apartment buildings under this plan include Westside neighborhoods within a half-mile of the E Line’s Westwood/Rancho Park station, pockets of the San Fernando Valley near G Line stops, and parts of Eagle Rock along Colorado Boulevard’s planned North Hollywood to Pasadena rapid bus line.
Is this a done deal?
Both plans — the decision to delay full SB 79 implementation, and the new Low-Rise Ordinance — now go to Mayor Karen Bass for final approval. Council members are also considering some tweaks they say would help Low-Rise Ordinance projects get built.
Those changes would include letting developers build denser projects if they reserve more units for low-income renters, as well as rules that would let developers build ground-level parking instead of costlier underground parking. The council’s planning committee voted Tuesday to forward those suggestions to the full City Council for further debate.
A drone is on display at a Los Angeles Police Commission meeting earlier this year. You might spot one overhead this Fourth of July.
(
Martin Romero
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
SoCal is adopting a new form of surveillance to monitor illegal firework use: drones.
Why now: The devices are now an easier way to patrol local neighborhoods after a call to the police department has been made, allowing officers to determine if someone should be sent to the scene or a citation should be given.
Read on… for more information about this system.
There’s a new tool to fight illegal fireworks this Fourth of July: drones.
“A drone’s real-time aerial view can help officers assess situations faster, improve safety, support faster response times and ensure the right resources are sent where they’re needed most,” the Anaheim Police Department stated in an Instagram post.
Anaheim's department is the latest law enforcement agency using the technology to quickly identify illegal fireworks use. The Downey City Council is expected to vote Tuesday night on potential new fines and new rules that would allow local law enforcement to use drones to patrol neighborhoods for illegal fireworks usage.
How it works
Here's how the tech is put to use: Seconds after authorities receive a call reporting illegal fireworks activity, drones can take to the air, hovering above neighborhoods and businesses to find a specific location and an offender. The surveillance devices are equipped with night vision and zoom lenses that allow first responders to record high definition videos right from their Real Time Crime Center at the station.
Then, officers can determine whether to send out a patrol car or issue a citation for the incident.
Why it matters
The city’s drone usage comes as law enforcement agencies across Southern California brace for the annual flood of complaints about illegal firework use at this time of the year. Drones make the most effective use of time and resources, experts say.
“We'll typically see about 2,000 calls and about 300 related to fireworks,” Anaheim’s chief communications officer Mike Lyster explained about the Fourth of July. “It really is a better use of resources on what is always a very, very busy holiday for us.”
Drones allow officials to collect enough evidence to issue these citations. In Anaheim, the punishment starts at $1,000 and climbs to $3,000 by the third offense. But authorities say the goal is to curb illegal fireworks use altogether due to the risk of injury and wildfires.
Lyster hopes that people will think twice about using illegal fireworks this holiday — not just because of the fines — but because of its negative impact on local communities.
“The Palisades fire was ultimately started by illegal fireworks, and sadly, not in our city, but in our neighboring city, a young Anaheim girl died in an illegal fireworks incident last year,” Lyster said.
Where are drones already in use?
More cities are testing this method in order to crack down on illegal firework use. Sacramento, San Bernardino and Riverside are just a few of the other areas that have adopted this technology in recent years.
How do I know what's legal?
If you have any questions about what is legal or not in your community, a quick Google search can help.
Each county goes by different regulations for the types of fireworks you can use — if at all.
For example, parts of Anaheim allow “safe and sane” fireworks to be used only on the Fourth of July between 10 a.m and 10 p.m. This includes non-explosive, non-aerial devices like fountains, sparklers and smoke balls. State-approved fireworks will have a State Fire Marshal seal.
LAist staffer Anjanette Gile also contributed to this report.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
The LAist community engagement team spoke with Altadena residents outside Fair Oaks Burger in Altadena on January 17.
(
Nubia Perez
/
LAist
)
Topline:
Your neighborhood has a reporter. Have you met them yet? On Saturday, coffee shops across L.A. are turning into places where you can tell a journalist exactly what’s been bugging you about your block…while drink amazing coffee.
More details: From Boyle Heights to Silver Lake to Inglewood to Long Beach, local reporters will be set up at neighborhood coffee shops from from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — to hear what’s on your mind. Got a tip about a pothole that’s been eating tires for years? A landlord the city keeps ignoring? A community hero nobody’s written about? We want to hear it all!
Connect with us: LAist has been meeting community members in person through LAist Listens tabling events by popping up at local businesses.
Read on ... for more on where LAist and other local news outlets will be across L.A.
Your neighborhood has a reporter. Have you met them yet?
On Saturday, coffee shops across L.A. are turning into places where you can tell a journalist exactly what’s been bugging you about your block … while drinking amazing coffee.
From Boyle Heights to Silver Lake to Inglewood to Long Beach, local reporters will be set up at neighborhood coffee shops from from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — to hear what’s on your mind. Got a tip about a pothole that’s been eating tires for years? A landlord the city keeps ignoring? A community hero nobody’s written about? We want to hear it all!
It’s part of Local News Day LA, a pop-up series organized by The LA Local that connects you with your local reporter and give you a chance to become the source instead of just the reader.
LAist has been meeting community members in person through LAist Listens tabling events by popping up at local businesses.
See below for the full list of participating media outlets and coffee shops — The LA Local and our media partners hope you’ll join us:
LAist will be joining The LA Local and other local media partners for Local News Day LA on June 27.
(
The LA Local
)
Where to find a journalist
The LA Local – Koreatown, Pico Union, Westlake will be hosted by Open Market
The LA Local – Inglewood and South LA will be hosted by Asteroid Vinyl Cafe
Boyle Heights Beat will be hosted by Picaresca Cafe
CalMatters will be hosted by Yia Caffe
Calo News will be hosted by Cruzita’s Deli and Cafe
The Eastsider will be hosted by Rosebud Coffee (Highland Park location)
LAist will be hosted by Cafe Calle
Los Angeles Radio Collective will be hosted by Spoke Bicycle Cafe
LA Sentinel will be hosted by Patria Coffee
LA Taco will be hosted by Cafecito Organico (Silverlake location)
LA Public Press will be hosted by Holy Grounds Coffee & Tea
Long Beach Post will be hosted by Wrigley Coffee
Q Voice News will be hosted by Hot Java
USC Annenberg Media will be hosted by South LA Cafe (Western location)
Come enjoy a cup of coffee (or tea) with us while supplies last.
Bottles of Pantene conditioner are displayed at a Costco in San Diego.
(
Kevin Carter
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.
The backstory: The lawsuit, filed yesterday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down.
Why now: The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.
What California officials say: Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.
A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.
“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.
The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.
“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.
The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.
“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”
The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.
The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.
Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.
The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”
In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.
“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”
Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.
