Mamdani takes aim at ICE and calls for its outright abolition

A Direct Confrontation with the Trump Administration

Mamdani’s statement is part of an increasingly open confrontation with President Donald Trump’s administration. Since taking office on January 1, 2026, the young mayor of New York has consistently criticized federal immigration policy, but his recent statements mark a significant escalation in this conflict. Trump, who has made the fight against undocumented immigration one of the pillars of his policy, has already threatened on several occasions to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities like New York that refuse to fully cooperate with ICE operations.

Relations between the two men have been particularly strained since their meeting at the White House following Mamdani’s election. Although that meeting was portrayed as cordial, it highlighted irreconcilable differences on the issue of immigration. Trump maintained his position that ICE focuses on “the worst of the worst,” asserting that federal agents target only dangerous offenders. However, daily media reports contradict this claim, documenting the arrests of workers, students, people with disabilities, and individuals on their way to official appointments at courts or government agencies.

What revolts me about this story is the blatant hypocrisy. On the one hand, Trump and his allies tell us that ICE targets only dangerous criminals, that it’s a matter of public safety. On the other hand, the facts are there, overwhelmingly true: families torn from their homes, mothers separated from their children, honest workers hunted down like fugitives. How can we accept this disconnect between the official narrative and the reality experienced by millions of people? It is this duplicity that is unbearable—this state-sanctioned lie that sows fear and division for purely political reasons.

The Threat of the Insurrection Act and the Militarization of the Conflict

The situation reached a new level of gravity when Trump threatened to send federal troops to Minneapolis to suppress the protests against ICE, invoking the Insurrection Act. This rarely used law allows the president to deploy the U.S. military or federalize the National Guard to enforce public order against the will of state governors. Trump told reporters: “It’s been used many times, and if I needed to, I would use it. I don’t think there’s any reason to use it now, but if I needed to, I would use it. It’s very powerful.”

This threat has sparked deep concern among civil rights advocates, who see it as a dangerous precedent for the militarization of domestic law enforcement. The Insurrection Act has been invoked only a few times in American history, most recently in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush to quell the Los Angeles riots, at the request of local authorities. This time, the prospect of a military deployment against peaceful protests raises fundamental questions about the balance of powers and the constitutional rights of American citizens.

When I hear Trump threaten to send the military against peaceful protesters, it sends a chill down my spine. It’s as if we’re witnessing firsthand the authoritarian drift of a great democracy. How can anyone even consider militarizing social conflict to this extent? It’s frightening—truly frightening. Because it shows just how far some people are willing to go to impose their vision, even at the cost of military repression against their own people. This is no longer politics; it’s a war against the citizens.

A Radical but Calculated Stance

Mamdani’s stance in favor of abolishing ICE is unprecedented for a mayor of a major U.S. city. Until now, Democratic politicians—even the most progressive ones—had generally refrained from explicitly calling for the agency’s abolition, contenting themselves with criticizing its methods or calling for reforms. Mamdani is breaking this taboo with a determination that has surprised many political observers. This decision, however, is no accident: it is part of a political strategy clearly embraced by the young mayor, who built his election campaign around protecting immigrants and resisting Trump’s policies.

Polls indicate that this stance risks dividing American public opinion. While it resonates favorably with progressive voters and immigrant communities, it could also alienate a portion of the moderate electorate that views the abolition of ICE as an unrealistic—or even dangerous—proposal. Mamdani is fully aware of this risk, but he seems to have decided that upholding principles takes precedence over short-term political calculations. His statement also aims to galvanize the Democratic base ahead of the upcoming midterm elections by positioning New York as a bastion of resistance to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

What impresses me about Mamdani is his political courage. He knows full well that his position will draw the wrath of his opponents, that he will be accused of being radical, irresponsible, and dangerous. And yet, he stands by it. He takes a stand because he believes it is the right thing to do, not because it is politically expedient. Such political integrity is rare in these times of constant calculation and compromise. Perhaps that is precisely what we need: leaders who dare to speak the truth, even when it is uncomfortable, even when it comes at a political cost.

Mixed Reactions Within the Democratic Party

Mamdani’s statement immediately sparked mixed reactions within the Democratic Party. Some progressive lawmakers praised his courage and clarity, seeing his statement as a necessary call for a fundamental overhaul of U.S. immigration policy. Others, more moderate in their views, expressed reservations, fearing that the call to abolish ICE would only further divide the country and provide the Trump administration with ammunition to delegitimize legitimate criticism of the agency’s methods.

This division within the party reflects the broader debate sweeping American society on the issue of immigration. On one side are those who believe the current system is fundamentally flawed and requires a complete overhaul, including the abolition of ICE. On the other, there are those who advocate for gradual and pragmatic reforms, arguing that abolishing ICE would be politically impossible and counterproductive. Mamdani, through his radical stance, has forced his fellow Democrats to clarify their own positions on a subject that many prefer to avoid.

This division among Democrats fascinates me, even as it annoys me. On one side are those who applaud Mamdani for his courage and clarity. On the other are those who criticize him for being too radical, for sowing division, and for giving ammunition to the opposition. But deep down, isn’t that precisely what we expect from our political representatives? That they take a stand, that they make a decision, that they show us the way? Or do we prefer this policy of constant evasion, this refusal to choose out of fear of displeasing others? Mamdani has chosen. And perhaps that is what true leadership is all about.

Renewed Hope for ICE Victims

For immigrant communities in New York and across the country, Mamdani’s statement represents a moment of unexpected hope. For months, these communities have been living in constant fear of ICE raids—a sword of Damocles hanging over every immigrant family, whether they are in the country legally or not. There are growing numbers of accounts from people who have stopped sending their children to school, who avoid hospitals for fear of encountering federal agents there, and who are holed up in their homes awaiting the next operation.

As mayor of New York, Mamdani wields considerable moral and political authority. His public stance in favor of abolishing ICE sends a powerful message to these communities: they are not alone, their voices are being heard, and their suffering is not being ignored. Several immigrant rights organizations have welcomed this statement, seeing it as official recognition of their demands and validation of their struggle. For many, this is the first time an elected official of this rank has dared to go so far in criticizing ICE and proposing a radical alternative to the status quo.

When I think of these families living in fear day after day, it breaks my heart. Imagine not knowing whether, when you send your children to school in the morning, you’ll see them again in the evening. Not daring to see a doctor when you’re sick, for fear of being arrested. Living in this constant terror is unimaginable for most of us, but it’s the daily reality for millions of people. And now, finally, a mayor has dared to say loud and clear that this is unacceptable, that it must not continue. It’s a ray of hope in this darkness.

The Risks of Increased Repression

However, some fear that Mamdani’s statement will provoke an even harsher crackdown by the Trump administration. History shows that when local authorities openly defy the federal government on sensitive issues like immigration, the reaction is usually swift. Already, Trump’s threats to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities are taking on a more concrete form, with legislative proposals aimed at financially penalizing municipalities that refuse to cooperate with ICE.

There is also a risk that ICE agents will step up their operations in New York in response to the mayor’s provocation, turning the city into a symbolic battleground in the struggle between local and federal policies. This prospect worries many New Yorkers, who fear their city will become the scene of violent clashes between federal agents and immigrant communities, further exacerbating the already high social tensions in the metropolis.

This fear of repression haunts me. Because we all know how it works: when we resist, when we dare to say no, things often get even harder. But that, too, is what resistance is all about: knowing that the price to pay will be high, but choosing to pay that price anyway. Because the alternative is the silent acceptance of the unacceptable. Mamdani knows what he’s risking. Immigrant communities know what they’re risking. And yet, they choose to fight. It’s this resilience that gives me hope, despite everything.

The Need to Completely Rethink Immigration Policy

Mamdani’s proposal to abolish ICE raises the crucial question of what might replace it. Proponents of this abolition are not suggesting an institutional vacuum, but rather a complete overhaul of the U.S. approach to immigration. Several models already exist in other countries, where immigration issues are handled by specialized agencies with a clearer mandate and more humane methods. The idea is not to eliminate all border controls, but to create a system that is fairer, more effective, and more respectful of fundamental rights.

Critics of ICE point out that the agency suffers from deep-seated structural problems that cannot be resolved by superficial reforms. The lack of adequate oversight, the culture of impunity that prevails within the agency, and the absence of accountability mechanisms have created an environment where abuses become systemic rather than exceptional. Abolishing ICE would therefore allow us to start afresh, with a new agency equipped with a different mandate, a different culture, and more rigorous oversight mechanisms.

What fascinates me about this proposal for abolition is that it forces us to imagine another possibility. We’re so used to the status quo—to this bureaucratic machine that crushes lives—that we forget things could be different. Yes, abolishing ICE is radical. But it’s also courageous and visionary. Because it says: we refuse to accept the unacceptable as normal; we refuse to get used to the inhumane. We want something else; we believe another world is possible. And that is precisely what frightens the defenders of the status quo.

The Practical Challenges of Abolition

However, abolishing ICE poses considerable practical challenges that cannot be ignored. The agency employs thousands of agents and manages complex operations across the country. Its elimination would require a massive and carefully planned transition to avoid the security vacuum that its opponents fear. Supporters of abolition recognize that this transition must be accompanied by protective measures for current ICE employees who are not involved in abuses, as well as reform programs for those who are.

There is also a risk that abolishing ICE could be perceived as a signal of openness to irregular immigration, which could fuel criticism from the Trump administration and its supporters. Supporters of abolition must therefore clearly articulate their vision of a fair but strictly regulated immigration system that protects the borders while respecting the rights of migrants. This delicate balance is essential to convincing the public that abolishing ICE does not mean anarchy, but rather a more humane and effective system.

I understand these practical concerns—I really do. You can’t just decide to eliminate a government agency like that, overnight, without thinking about the consequences. It’s complex, it’s delicate, and it requires meticulous planning. But should this complexity prevent us from taking action? Should practical challenges make us forget the moral imperative? I don’t think so. History shows us that major changes are always difficult, always complex, but that they are necessary when the status quo becomes unbearable.

A risky but potentially rewarding political gamble

Mamdani’s statement in favor of abolishing ICE represents a major political gamble for New York’s young mayor. At 34, he is one of the youngest mayors in the city’s history, and his political career is still in its early stages. This radical stance could either position him as a leading progressive figure on the national stage or isolate him politically and limit his future prospects.

Political analysts note that Mamdani appears to be taking a long-term view, counting on the support of immigrant communities and progressive voters to build a solid political base. His strategy appears to be one of leadership through conviction: taking bold and clear stances—even if they are controversial—in order to distinguish himself from the masses of politicians who seek above all to avoid controversy. If this gamble pays off, Mamdani could emerge as the figurehead of a new generation of Democratic leaders ready to challenge the status quo on issues of social justice.

I am absolutely fascinated by Mamdani’s political gamble. He has everything to lose, but he also has everything to gain. It is this calculated risk-taking that strikes me as so rare in politics today. Most politicians avoid controversy like the plague, seeking the lowest common denominator so as not to upset anyone. But Mamdani has chosen a different path: that of conviction, of speaking out loud and clear about what he believes, even if it costs him politically. It’s courageous, it’s bold, and it may be just what we need.

The Question of Re-election and National Ambitions

Mamdani’s reelection in 2030 will depend largely on his ability to reconcile his progressive positions with the pragmatic realities of municipal governance. New York voters are known for holding their mayors to high standards, and they will have little tolerance for disastrous municipal management, even if it is accompanied by courageous stances on national issues. Mamdani will therefore need to demonstrate his administrative effectiveness while maintaining his progressive political profile.

In the longer term, many are wondering about Mamdani’s national ambitions. Given his youth, charisma, and strong stances, it is only natural that speculation about his political future beyond the New York City mayor’s office is growing. Some already see him as a potential candidate for the vice presidency or even the presidency in the years to come. However, these national ambitions will depend largely on his ability to translate his rhetorical radicalism into concrete results for New Yorkers.

When I look at Mamdani, I can’t help but think about the future. He has everything it takes to be a great leader: youth, charisma, conviction. But will that be enough? Can politics—even the most courageous kind—survive the test of day-to-day power? It is this tension that fascinates me: between the idealism of the campaign and the realism of governing. Mamdani stands at this crossroads today. What he does in the coming years will determine not only his political future, but perhaps also the future of the Democratic Party.

Historical Precedents for the Abolition of Government Agencies

The idea of abolishing a government agency is not without precedent in American history. Several agencies have been created, then dissolved or transformed over the decades, in response to the nation’s changing needs and shifts in political thought. The abolition of ICE would fit into this tradition of institutional reform, although it would be particularly radical given the agency’s size and importance.

Proponents of abolition often cite the example of the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), which has been the target of calls for its elimination by some conservative lawmakers, or the transformation of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) in 2003, which led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. These examples show that government structures are not set in stone and can be reformed or abolished when public opinion demands it.

What fascinates me about this historical perspective is that it reminds us that nothing is permanent. The institutions we consider intangible, natural, and eternal are in fact human creations, subject to change, transformation, or abolition. The ICE has not always existed. It does not have to exist forever. It is this awareness of historical contingency that gives the proposal for abolition its strength: it reminds us that we have the power to change things, to rethink our institutions, and to create a better world.

International Comparisons

Mamdani’s critique of ICE also fits into an international context where immigration management is the subject of intense debate. Many European countries have implemented immigration systems that differ radically from the American model, with approaches that reform advocates describe as more humane and effective. These international comparisons provide additional arguments in favor of a complete overhaul of the American approach.

However, ICE advocates point out that the United States faces unique challenges regarding immigration, particularly due to its shared border with Mexico and its distinct history as a nation of immigrants. They argue that comparisons with other countries are therefore imperfect and that ICE plays an essential role in managing these specifically American challenges. This debate over the relevance of international models illustrates the complexity of the immigration issue and the difficulty of finding solutions that are both fair and effective.

I’m always torn when it comes to international comparisons. On the one hand, it’s essential to look at what’s being done elsewhere and learn from other countries’ experiences. On the other hand, every country is unique, with its own history, geography, and culture. We can’t simply import solutions like that. But what these comparisons show us is that there are other ways of doing things, other possible models. And this awareness of alternatives is invaluable when we’re seeking to transform the status quo.

The Importance of This Debate for the Nation’s Future

Mamdani’s statement in favor of abolishing ICE represents more than just a political stance on a specific government agency. It symbolizes a pivotal moment in American history, a moment when the nation is forced to confront its deepest contradictions regarding immigration, social justice, and the role of the state. The debate now unfolding goes far beyond the case of ICE to touch on the very foundations of American democracy.

It is a debate about the kind of society Americans want to build: a society based on fear and exclusion, or one founded on compassion and inclusion? A society that militarizes its response to migration challenges, or one that addresses them with humanity and intelligence? Mamdani, through his radical stance, has forced this debate into the public arena, compelling Americans to answer these fundamental questions.

When I look at what is happening in America today, I am both frightened and inspired. Frightened by the rise of intolerance, by this politics of fear that divides and destroys. Inspired by those voices that are speaking out, like Mamdani’s, to say no to this dangerous drift. This is a decisive moment, not only for America, but for all of us. Because what is at stake there is also our shared future. America is not perfect—far from it—but it remains a laboratory where the ideas that will shape tomorrow’s world are tested. And Mamdani, with his radical proposal, reminds us that another world is possible, if only we have the courage to imagine it and build it.