Why Defunding ICE Undermines Our Constitutional Republic

In recent weeks, calls to defund or abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have surged, particularly amid operations in Minnesota. The left labels these efforts as overreach, demanding budget cuts and even fully defunding of agencies enforcing the law. This pattern repeats: when authorities assert statutory and constitutional powers, the response is a knee jerk reaction to defunding rather than reform. Such tactics erode law and order, allowing chaos to prevail. Instead, ICE funding should increase to ensure effective administration of immigration laws, as the agency operates within constitutional bounds. A constitutional republic thrives on rule of law, not unchecked mayhem.  It appears that the left uses the courts only when the courts agree but ignore them when it conflicts with their stated goal.

ICE's Constitutional Authority

The Constitution grants Congress exclusive power over immigration through Article I, Section 8, which empowers it "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”. This clause forms the basis for federal immigration enforcement, delegating authority to agencies like ICE under the Department of Homeland Security. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court affirmed federal supremacy in this area, striking down state laws that interfered with national policy while upholding ICE's role in removals and border security. The Court emphasized that immigration is a federal domain, where states cannot obstruct enforcement without violating the Supremacy Clause (Article VI). ICE's mandate, derived from statutes like the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.), aligns with this framework, focusing on deporting individuals who violate federal laws.

The Defunding Push: A Misguided Response

Recent events in Minnesota highlight this defunding impulse. Early in 2026, ICE launched Operation Metro Surge, deploying 2,000 – 3,000 agents to address fraud and undocumented immigration, leading to protests and two fatal shootings. Left wing activists and politicians responded by renewing demands to abolish ICE, with groups like Indivisible urging Congress to withhold Department of Homeland Security funding unless ICE is reined in. Democrats called on senators to defund the agency outright. Publications like The Intercept criticized Democrats for lacking a "real plan" to dismantle ICE after incidents involving Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Even as a potential government shutdown looms, with House votes on DHS appropriations, activists pushed for defunding via platforms like 5 Calls. Minnesota's Attorney General and cities sued to halt the surge, framing it as retaliation. These actions reflect a broader strategy: punish enforcers rather than address underlying issues.

Legal Precedents Supporting Enforcement

Courts have consistently upheld federal enforcement powers. In United States v. Comstock (2010), the Supreme Court recognized broad federal authority to execute laws, including those related to immigration. Defunding as retaliation undermines separation of powers, as Congress must fund executive functions under Article I, Section 9. Proposals to slash budgets ignore that ICE imperfections warrant oversight, not elimination. While we need to ensure that when law enforcement operates outside the law, or uses excessive force, we must hold those individuals responsible and accountable, we do not need to eliminate or defund law enforcement. The Appropriations Clause requires funding for lawful activities; withholding it to appease agitators violates this. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Court invalidated legislative vetoes over executive actions, reinforcing that Congress cannot micromanage enforcement through defunding threats. If ICE acts unlawfully, remedies exist via courts or internal reforms, as in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which ensured due process in detentions without dismantling agencies.

The Dangers of Mayhem Over Law

Defunding encourages disorder. In Minnesota, a general strike on January 23 shuttered businesses, and protests escalated into confrontations, echoing calls to "abolish ICE" that intensified national debates. Such resistance led to injuries for officers and deaths, like Pretti's armed approach to agents. This chaos stems from interference, not ICE overreach. A republic demands order; the Framers envisioned a system where laws govern, not mobs. As James Madison noted in Federalist No. 51, checks and balances prevent tyranny, but defunding disrupts this balance, allowing "spoiled brats on the left" to flout rules. Ensuring accountability and efficiency while deterring illegal activities without fostering anarchy will, in the end maintain proper balance.

Blaming and defunding ICE for enforcing laws is counterproductive. The agency upholds constitutional mandates; if flaws exist, fix them through legal channels and true accountability, NOT defunding. Our republic operates on law and order, not the whims of those causing destruction. By bolstering funding and rejecting defunding calls, we preserve the Constitution's integrity and protect society from mayhem.