Do you approve or disapprove of how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducts enforcement operations?

Background

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has undergone a historic expansion under the Trump administration's second term, becoming one of the most debated federal agencies in the country. According to the Department of Homeland Security's budget documents, the FY 2026 budget includes $11.3 billion and over 21,000 positions for ICE. The agency announced a 120 percent increase in its workforce in January 2026, adding more than 12,000 officers. The administration ended ICE's prior sensitive-locations policy, resumed large-scale workplace raids, and expanded community-based enforcement operations, including the high-profile Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis. Those operations resulted in the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, by federal agents in January 2026, sparking nationwide protests and multiple legal challenges. A February 2026 PBS News/NPR/Marist poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans said ICE had gone too far, while a YouGov poll found that 57 percent of Americans disapproved of how ICE was handling its job. Views are sharply polarized by party: according to the same PBS/NPR/Marist poll, 73 percent of Republicans approve of the agency's work, while 91 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents disapprove.

Supporters of expanded enforcement argue that ICE is fulfilling its statutory mandate to enforce federal immigration law, protect national security, and remove individuals who pose public safety risks, including those with criminal convictions and outstanding removal orders. The administration has framed the operations as necessary to address a backlog of millions of unresolved immigration cases and to deter future unauthorized entry. However, opponents raise serious concerns about the scope and methods of enforcement. Research from UC Berkeley analyzing ICE arrests through October 2025 found that only about 30 percent of those arrested had any criminal conviction, including low-level misdemeanors, suggesting enforcement has expanded well beyond those with serious criminal records. Critics, including the American Immigration Council, point to overcrowded detention facilities, the elimination of protections at schools, hospitals, and courthouses, and a reported 2,450 percent increase in the detention of people with no criminal record. Peer-reviewed research published in early 2026 also found that aggressive immigration enforcement can reduce crime reporting among Hispanic communities, potentially undermining rather than enhancing public safety.

The debate over ICE operations touches nearly every corner of American civic life. Industries reliant on immigrant labor, including agriculture, construction, and hospitality, face workforce disruptions, while immigrant communities report declining participation in schools, medical appointments, and courthouses out of fear of enforcement. According to Brookings, declining public support for ICE could also have significant political consequences, with control of the Senate now seen as more competitive partly because of the issue. Bipartisan majorities support reforms such as requiring body cameras and de-escalation training for ICE agents, according to Navigator Research. Whether the country moves toward scaled-back enforcement, structural reforms, or continued expansion will shape not only immigration policy but also broader questions about federal power, civil liberties, and the relationship between local communities and law enforcement for years to come.