THE SENATE MUST NOT FUND ICE (w/Sonali Kolhatkar)
Voters are turning against ICE. The politicians must follow.
In this conversation I’m joined by Senior Correspondent Sonali Kolhatkar to unpack a story that is moving at “tragically high velocity.” We discuss her latest column at Other Words (“The Senate Must Not Fund ICE”) and the grim reality behind the ICE funding battle. Despite the heartbreaking killings in Minneapolis, the Democratic establishment has been afraid to lead.
The House passed a spending package that would lavish even more money on the cash-rich ICE agency. As of this writing, the latest news in this fast-breaking story is that the House bill was rejected in a Senate test vote, with several Republicans joining Democrats in voting against it. That, along the Dems’ tougher rhetoric, is a slight movement in the right direction. Based on past experience, however, headlines like “Schumer, Trump working on deal to avoid government shutdown” don’t inspire confidence.
ICE has become a violent runaway militia. It’s too powerful and unaccountable to be left in the hands of any president, Democratic or Republican—much less this one. Reining it in will require more effort from elected officials—and the rest of us.
All my posts are freely accessible, but this work is only possible thanks to reader support. If you find it worthwhile, please help out with a paid subscription through Substack (discounted here) or on Patreon. You can also make a one-time donation here. Many thanks.
SELECTED QUOTES:
“ICE is a supercharged, essentially lawless militia that’s going around killing people left, right and center.” — Sonali Kolhatkar
“We are seeing the math of a capitalist police state. Real safety comes from funding food stamps, housing, and education—not militias.” — Sonali Kolhatkar
“Democrats are running to the head of the parade and trying to pretend they’re leading it, but their voters have moved way ahead of them.” — Richard Eskow
“This isn’t just about immigration; it’s about the tattered shreds of democracy and the cold-blooded violence of a paramilitary force.” — Richard Eskow
TRANSCRIPT (lightly edited):
Richard Eskow: Your latest piece as we speak—and I should note in this world of rapid news cycles that we are speaking on Monday, January 26—is about a story that is moving at tragically high velocity. Your latest column for Other Words is headlined “The Senate Must Not Fund ICE.” The subhead is “The money fueling ICE’s abuses comes directly out of the pockets of working Americans who are already struggling.”
The funding deadline is January 30th. The program expires, I believe, a day or two after that. So, there may be some sort of resolution to that piece of it by the time this video goes public, but let’s talk in general about funding ICE and the sudden revival of interest. I’ll start with this: when I sent out an email when “Abolish ICE” was first a popular slogan on the left, I got chastised by people saying this was radical phrasing and ideology that would never enter the political mainstream.
Entering the political mainstream is not my primary goal in life, but at least in segments of the Democratic Party, it seems as if it’s beginning to, while other segments are resisting it. Is that fair? Because your column hints at that.
Sonali Kolhatkar: It absolutely is. It’s actually quite remarkable how stunning the turnaround is. It unfortunately speaks to the fact that the public is malleable to imagery and rhetoric. As recently as 2024, there was a thirst in the public because poll after poll showed that people wanted greater immigration enforcement because they were hearing that from candidate Trump, and Joe Biden as president was also echoing a lot of this rhetoric.
Now, given everything that ICE has been doing in cities around the country starting last year—when Los Angeles became the epicenter last June and even before that, moving city by city to places like Chicago—and of course, now the flashpoint in Minneapolis, we’ve seen a sharp change in how the public views immigration enforcement, particularly ICE. It has reached the point where more Americans now support completely abolishing ICE than those who support preserving it. It is not quite a majority; it is a plurality. But that, to me, is a remarkable thing: to entirely abolish a federal agency.
It shouldn’t be that shocking, because you and I would see ICE and police forces as the same thing and probably don’t see either one as being terribly radical to call for abolishing. However, ICE and its abolishment should be much more accessible than calling for the abolishment of all police because ICE has only been around since 2003. It was formed in the wake of the September 11th attacks; it is not an institution that has existed from time immemorial. It’s brand new and it has been given extra powers and the majority of its new funding from the so-called “big beautiful bill.”
It is a supercharged, essentially lawless militia that is going around killing people left, right and center, hurting and maiming people—whether they’re documented, undocumented, or citizens; whether they’re white men, white women, or people of color. Everybody who stands up to them is facing their wrath. The most recent victim, of course, being the 37-year-old ICU nurse who worked at the VA named Alex Pretti.
Richard Eskow: I’m really glad you brought this up, Sonali, because the phrase “Abolish ICE,” which a lot of centrist Democratic politicians and consultants were sure was going to hurt the party—and after a couple of election losses, they blamed that phrase even though Democrats didn’t use it. I think the worst that can be said about it is—and I’m not against the phrase by any means—that perhaps people didn’t fully understand that the immigration law enforcement people wanted in 2024 was happening before ICE was created.
The Department of Homeland Security is this monstrosity put together of 22 different agencies. You could have the open borders view that says we shouldn’t prevent anybody at any time from coming into the United States—”Abolish ICE” fits with that—but it also fits with people who think we shouldn’t have this supercharged paramilitary force doing what is essentially a law enforcement job for a relatively minor infraction, like coming into the country without the proper documentation. It’s not murder, it’s not robbery, and it’s not felony fraud of the type that bank executives commit with impunity, for example.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Or that Trump has committed.
Richard Eskow: Exactly. So, you can embrace a lot of schools of thought within that phrase. I think people are beginning to see now that ICE has become a private paramilitary force. I would argue a lot of things leading up to this made it almost inevitable. But whether you agree with me or not, it’s getting to the point where certainly a majority of the party in the House voted, in effect, to defund ICE or reduce ICE funding. Did I get that basically right?
Sonali Kolhatkar: So, let me explain a little bit. The majority of ICE’s brand-new, supercharged funding came from the so-called “big beautiful bill.” But what has come up now in the House appropriations bill to simply fund the government for another few months is this issue of giving ICE more money on top of what it is already getting. Not enough House Democrats stood firm. The majority did vote against it, but seven House Democrats gave Republicans the necessary numbers to pass it, including people like Henry Cuellar in Texas.
Up until Alex Pretti’s killing, it looked like very possibly the Senate was also going to pass this bill because you need 41 votes to block an appropriations bill. If 41 of 100 senators say no, it would get blocked. Now Democrats have 41 votes. Were Democrats going to whip themselves into shape to ensure that they block the bill until Alex Pretti was killed? That was not at all a done deal.
In fact, Hakeem Jeffries essentially did not whip the vote in the House. He said he was against the ICE appropriations, but he would not whip his party’s vote to get a unified front. The same thing was looking likely in the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer didn’t look like he was going to try to play both sides. Now, Chuck Schumer is saying that he will do so. It’s terrible that Alex Pretti had to be killed in order for Senate Democrats to see this.
If they vote to block this money, it just means that ICE doesn’t get the extra icing on the cake that it wanted. It doesn’t mean that ICE is defunded, but it should be a first step. For Democrats to take this step, given how milquetoast and spineless the party is, it would definitely be a victory. But there needs to be more. You see people like Zohran Mamdani very clearly saying ICE needs to be abolished; he’s in touch with the people. Then you see centrist Democrats like Gavin Newsom, who has his eye on the 2028 presidency, going on Ben Shapiro’s show and basically defending ICE agents, saying they have a hard job. Which leader is more likely to be echoing public opinion? I think it’s fairly obvious.
Richard Eskow: ICE has already had an astronomical series of budget increases. To add more was something the Democrats should have pushed back on more severely. For Chuck Schumer to be roused from his torpor to take action is really saying something. It’s tragic that it took the cold-blooded murders of two middle-class white people to raise this, but they are gratuitous examples of totalitarian violence. In this sense, the Democrats’ voters have moved way ahead of them, and once again they’re running to the head of the parade and trying to pretend that they’re leading it. You mentioned that a plurality of voters wants to abolish it.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Yes, a plurality wants to abolish it, which is remarkable.
Richard Eskow: And that’s nearly 50% of the public—46%, right?
Sonali Kolhatkar: This is the Economist/YouGov poll. 46% of respondents support abolishing ICE; 43% oppose it. That’s remarkable.
Richard Eskow: So we assume this 46% is primarily Democrats, but also some independents. Now ICE has to fight for its survival in the court of public opinion. But who’s going to lead this fight? Today, while we are speaking, people can let their senators know how they feel and demand they stop this funding. No matter how the Democrats vote, this is going to have to continue to be a people-led movement. I have the feeling the Democrats would cave on this as soon as they could.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Their instinct is to keep tacking. It’s not to say, “If this is what the Republicans want, we should want the opposite.” That would be the standard polarizing behavior, which is what Republicans do. With Democrats, it’s the other way around: “If that’s what the Republicans want, we should want that too so that their voters will like us better.” It’s a needy, thirsty, clingy approach to politics. Nobody finds that attractive. You are attracted to those who have values, who take a stand, and who have integrity. Where’s the integrity here?
Biden was the one over and over talking about borders and giving strong rhetoric, even if his actual policies were to the left of Trump. Those things have power. You see this party continuously failing its voters. You’re right that younger Democrats like Representative Delia Ramirez have introduced bills like the Melt ICE Act to abolish ICE, but not enough House Democrats rally behind them.
We’re in a midterm election year and Democrats are going to be saying, “Vote for us to stand up to Trump,” without actually trying to win over votes on policies. It would be so easy for them to win Congress if they took stands on bread-and-butter issues. There is a finite pot of money. When ICE gets endless resources, other programs have to be cut. This is the math of a capitalist police state. An abolitionist framework would say: defund ICE and fund the things that keep us safe—food stamps, housing, and education. That is a clear vision the Democrats could get behind if they really wanted voters to back them.
Richard Eskow: I can’t imagine that the “vote for us and we’ll stop Trump” tactics will work well because it’s based on saying “this guy is a fascist,” which they’ve been saying for 10 years.
Sonali Kolhatkar: They keep trying it, though. That’s all Newsom keeps offering.
Richard Eskow: Well, here is actual fascism. This has all the hallmarks of fascism, and they’re not doing anything about it. Then they’re going to say, “Vote for us so that we can stop Trump’s fascism,” while they didn’t do it when they could the last several times. To me, the primary issue is moral, then it’s about saving the tattered shreds of democracy, and thirdly: if you guys want to get re-elected, you’re going about it the wrong way.
Sonali Kolhatkar: If they wanted to, they could be laying the groundwork right now for the midterms by rallying behind what their base wants: taxing the rich, abolishing ICE, and addressing the cost of living. Just follow Zohran Mamdani’s playbook in New York City. He showed the way with universal childcare. He convinced the governor to make money available and applications are now open. He is coming through on his promises; it’s a beautiful model the whole party should mimic. But they’re all going to drop the ball because they want to play both sides and their true masters are the corporate paymasters.
Richard Eskow: And the other thing it takes to use that playbook is courage, which seems to be in short supply.
Sonali Kolhatkar: I read a piece in the LA Progressive about how Mamdani won an equal measure of men’s and women’s votes. It’s because he adopts “psychological androgyny”—the tough but tender politician. It’s authentic. He’s being himself, and people love that.
Richard Eskow: That’s fascinating. It reminds me of the old-school belief of what it takes to be a real man: “tough but tender.” You’ll fight to defend your family, but you love your kids and you’re good to animals.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Not that we’re calling for an old-school patriarchal model, but real strength lies in acting out of love.
Richard Eskow: Just to be clear, if you’re trying to appeal to voters who hold that view, it still works.
Sonali Kolhatkar: It still works. It’s the way many single moms run families. But yes, next week maybe we can talk about Gavin Newsom opposing a California billionaires’ wealth tax.
Richard Eskow: I was thinking about him as we talked—the phrase that comes to mind is “too clever by half.”
Sonali Kolhatkar: Oh, yeah.