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

Countries are not doing enough to cut emissions that cause climate change, according to a new report from United Nations scientists. And the United States is a big part of the problem.

The U.S. sticks out as the only major economy where planet-warming pollution increased dramatically last year, the report notes.

Among the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, the U.S. was tied last year with Russia for the most emissions per capita. China emits significantly more total greenhouse gases each year than the U.S., but has more than four times the population.

Overall, global emissions were basically the same last year as they were the previous year.

U.S. emissions grew because of increased electricity demand, as well as Trump administration policies that support the burning of fossil fuels. The Trump administration has ordered coal-fired power plants in the U.S. to stay open longer than planned, rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and ended tax credits for solar and wind projects.

Those policies have made the U.S. an outlier when it comes to escalating greenhouse gas emissions, says Inger Andersen, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme.

"Right now, everybody is scrambling a little bit regarding energy security," Andersen says, pointing to global oil and gas disruptions stemming from the wars in Ukraine and Iran.

Despite the geopolitical upheaval, "several G20 members have shown sustained emissions reduction," she notes.

That includes the European Union, which has invested heavily in energy-efficient appliances and renewable electricity sources such as wind and solar, partly in reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The U.S. is pulling out of U.N. climate work

The Trump administration has withdrawn from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, and is working to remove the U.S. from all U.N. climate work, arguing the international system imposes unfair burdens on Americans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now says greenhouse gases do not pose a threat to human health and welfare, reversing its previous position.

The new report includes a statement from the U.S. government, saying the U.S. "does not endorse or agree with its analysis or conclusions, and has not provided comments to this report." The U.S. State Department did not respond to NPR's questions.

The new report, which is compiled annually by an international group of scientists, comes less than a month before global climate talks kick off in Turkey. World leaders will gather to discuss how to speed investments in clean energy and how to pay for the costs of dealing with climate change. The Trump administration will not participate in those talks.

Still, whether or not American leaders formally participate in international climate efforts, the effects of America's reliance on oil, gas and coal are being felt around the world, the U.N. warns. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping extra heat that warms the entire planet. The effects of all that pollution are felt globally.

The Earth is about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) warmer on average than it was in the mid-1800s, according to the World Meteorological Organization. That warming is driving widespread disasters, from deadly heat waves and floods to more intense storms and wildfires.

"All countries, especially the big emitters, must do more," says U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. "Every fraction of a degree matters."

The Earth is on track for 5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming this century

Right now, the planet is on track for upwards of 5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 degrees Celsius) of warming this century, which would cause catastrophic impacts, such as massive sea level rise and the mass extinction of plants and animals, the report warns.

The U.N. Paris Climate agreement sets a goal of limiting warming to well below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), in the hopes of avoiding such cataclysms.

This is the first year the annual report has acknowledged that even lower targets are now out of reach. However, it finds it is still possible to keep warming below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, if global greenhouse gas emissions fall by about 25% in the next decade.

But countries are currently lagging far behind that goal.

Under the Paris agreement, about two thirds of countries have submitted formal, up-to-date plans for cutting their greenhouse gas emissions. If they all follow through on those plans, it would reduce emissions by about 15% in the next decade — far less than the 25% needed.

Copyright 2026 NPR

At Chopin Noodle House in Monterey Park's Atlantic Times Square, the dining room is small. But there's still room for a baby grand piano.

If you’re lucky, you might catch owner Zi Yang playing for customers as they work through bowls of Lanzhou beef noodle soup. A few feet away, cooks pull a fresh batch of noodles by hand, made to each diner’s preferred thickness.

The traditional beef noodle soup at Chopin Noodle House in Monterey Park comes with clear broth, chili oil, sliced beef, leeks, and cilantro.

(

Gab Chabrán

/

LAist

)

Noodles are pulled by hand to order at Chopin Noodle House.

(

Gab Chabrán

/

LAist

)

Pianists turned chefs 

Yang and his wife, Mimi Song, are both former piano teachers who met through music.

After moving from China to the U.S., they hoped to make a living teaching piano, but it didn’t pay the bills. So they turned to another love: noodles.

Co-founders Mimi Song (left) and Zi Yang, both former piano teachers, have grown Chopin Noodle House to five locations.

(

Courtesy Chopin Noodle House

)

The couple opened the first Chopin Noodle House in Catonsville, Maryland, in 2023. They later expanded to Southern California, starting in Chino, and opened in Monterey Park in March. The chain now has five locations in Maryland, Virginia and Southern California.

When I visited, Yang stepped out from behind the counter, sat down at the baby grand and played Frédéric Chopin’s Waltz in C-sharp minor, its soft, rolling melody filling the small dining room. A group of diners in the corner looked up from their bowls of noodles, watched and cheered when he finished.

The restaurant name comes from the Polish composer. “We both love Chopin,” Yang said.

The Lanzhou connection

Yang is from Lanzhou, the capital of Gansu province in northwest China, and the birthplace of the signature beef noodle soup.

“I was born in Lanzhou, a city along China’s ancient Silk Road,” he writes on the restaurant’s website. “Every morning, the streets fill with the scent of beef broth and the rhythm of pulled noodles slapping the counter.”

“Maybe 80% of the people eat it for breakfast or lunch,” he told me.

Before opening the restaurant, he returned to China for a crash course in its creation.

“I went back to learn how to pull the noodles and how to make the very delicious beef noodle soup,” he said.

The piano started as a practical idea.

“We saw that restaurant life would be so boring, so we decided to put a piano in our restaurant. So sometimes if there’s no customer, we can practice the piano,” Yang said.

What’s in the bowl

The most popular order is the traditional beef noodle soup ($14.99). It's made from beef bones and beef shank.

Diners choose from eight noodle styles, from extra-thin to extra-wide, plus knife-sliced and gluten-free rice noodles. The bowl follows what the restaurant calls Lanzhou’s five signature elements: clear beef broth, white radish, red chili oil, green cilantro and leek, as well as golden hand-pulled noodles topped with thinly sliced beef.

For sipping alongside the noodles, order the eight treasures tea, known in Lanzhou as san pao tai. It’s served in a lidded bowl called a gaiwan and brewed with green tea, dried red dates, goji berries, longan, raisins, rose petals, chrysanthemum and rock sugar. You use the lid to keep the fruit and leaves in place as you drink. It’s naturally sweet, a nice counterpoint to the chili oil.

An open bench

Anyone who visits is welcome to play the piano. Yang said they’ve had everyone from kids learning to play to professional musicians, including members of the San Gabriel Valley Symphony.

Some of the players are so good that Yang admits he’s now a little shy about taking his turn.

“I’m afraid to play because they are so good,” he said.

Longer droughts, more extreme heat, greater wildfire risk and more beach erosion: A new state-commissioned report finds that climate change is likely to reshape the Southern California landscape and way of life.

The study, which comes as part of California’s fifth statewide climate change assessment, includes more detailed models than previous reports.

“What we want to highlight with this report is not how doom and gloom everything is, but just to look at climate change in the L.A. area as something that is inevitable, but which we can adapt to, and in particular, protect the most vulnerable,” said UCLA climate researcher Jesse Norris, the lead author of the report focused on Los Angeles.

Sea level rise and beach erosion

If the recent stories of beach and coastline erosion have you concerned, buckle up. The report notes local coastal erosion rates are expected to triple by 2050.

Citing past research, the authors also note that coastal flooding is expected to quickly intensify in the mid-2030s and become a yearly event by the mid-21st century.

Between one-third and two-thirds of the region’s beaches are expected to be lost in the next 75 years.

Researchers found that in L.A. County, about 1,700 housing units are at risk of being permanently inundated. But if sea levels rise by 3.3 feet — which is possible by 2100 — 9,000 units would be at risk of being permanently flooded.

And if sea levels rise by 6.6 feet, which researchers described as an “extreme” scenario, flooding could be widespread during a 100-year wave event. In this scenario, large swaths of urban L.A. and Orange counties could be flooded, though it’s important to note the projections don’t account for any future infrastructure that may be built.

Extreme heat

Temperatures are expected to rise 4 degrees Fahrenheit between 2041 and 2070 — adding to the 4 degrees of warming that have already happened since 1900.

Researchers say those effects are more pronounced in inland areas, which are also projected to see more days of extreme heat. The average hottest day of the year is expected to rise to 115 degrees by midcentury.

Microclimates play a role

Most of the hazards predicted in the report will be familiar to Southern Californians, even as the effects are expected to intensify and become more common during climate change.

“It was quite striking to see how much more vulnerable certain locations are than others to different climate hazards,” Norris said. “In particular, the more inland areas being far more vulnerable to the increase in extreme heat, mountain communities being far more vulnerable to the impacts of extreme rain and flooding as well as reduced snowpack, and coastal areas being obviously far more vulnerable to the impacts of rising seas.”

Planning

Norris stressed that planning for these effects can be undertaken now. One example: increasing tree cover to mitigate heat.

“A lot of inland cities are thinking very seriously about increasing their tree canopies, increasing the ability for people to have shade as they're going about their business,” Norris said.

Norris highlighted the importance of protecting the most vulnerable in these situations, including people experiencing homelessness and those who work outdoors, and ensuring access to air conditioning and cooling centers.

Norris also said continuing and improving initiatives like active wildfire management, water management and coastal adaptation will be vital in the years to come.

Two weeks from the midterm elections, Democratic Party leaders are suing in federal court to block President Donald Trump’s administration from usurping states’ authority to administer elections or trying to intimidate state and local election officials into complying with illegal demands.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Washington, seeks a court order barring the administration from purging legally registered voters from statewide voter registration lists or denying ballots to legally registered voters.

The plaintiffs, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, also ask for a ruling that the administration has illegally threatened state election officials with prosecution before the Nov. 3 election.

The lawsuit cites the Justice Department’s recent actions in California, where it sued to block state election officials from counting mail-in ballots cast by people whom the federal government has identified as “likely” noncitizens until their immigration status can be confirmed.

“For over a decade now, President Donald J. Trump has bombarded the American people with lies and misinformation about American elections and voter fraud,” the suit says. “While these lies have been debunked at every turn, that has never deterred the President from employing them as a pretext to seize control over elections, even as courts overwhelmingly reject that effort.”

The Justice Department said in a statement that election integrity is a top priority for the administration and the department’s actions on that front are grounded in law and under court litigation.

The Democratic leaders’ lawsuit was assigned to Chief Judge James Boasberg, who has been vilified by the White House for rulings against the Trump administration since the start of the Republican president’s second term.

The suit’s other plaintiffs are the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Governors Association. Its named defendants are Trump, the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department of Homeland Security and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.