ANALYSIS – ICE: From the Shield Forged in the Ashes of 9/11 to the Weapon Democrats Are Trying to Strangle Through Blackmail

lediplomate.media — imprimé le 22/03/2026

***_{Photo site U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement}***

By Angélique Bouchard

Complete Anatomy of a Twenty-Three-Year Institutional Betrayal

On February 19, 2026, at 6 a.m. Eastern Time, Fox News lays out the raw truth: Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, are blocking Department of Homeland Security funding in order to impose ten radical operational demands on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

End of roving patrols, ban on masks for agents, mandatory visible identification. Two deadly shootings in Minneapolis serve as the emotional pretext.

For the agency’s former directors, this maneuver marks “the most direct congressional intervention in the agency’s operations” ever seen. Political analysis without concession: ICE, created after 9/11 precisely to close the immigration loopholes that enabled the attacks, was systematically weakened by a hostile internal culture and selective priorities under Obama.

Today, at the very moment Donald Trump finally restores its full legal legitimacy with $75 billion in shielded funding, Democrats choose partisan sabotage and take TSA, FEMA, and national security hostage. A cynical calculation that Senator John Fetterman, the only lucid Democrat, denounced as “party before country.”

Birth in the Absolute Urgency of 9/11: A “Statutory” Agency Designed for Operational Autonomy

The story begins in the security chaos of September 11, 2001. Sarah Saldaña, agency director from 2014 to 2017, sums it up with implacable clarity: “We’re statutory. We were created after Sept. 11 as a part of all that confusion with respect to intelligence regarding the visa overstays that ended up blowing up the World Trade Center.”

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 merges existing immigration functions into the new Department of Homeland Security: Border Patrol, detention and removal, intelligence, investigations and inspections. But the founding text contains no detailed operational framework and does not even mention the name “ICE.”

This deliberate absence of nitpicking rules is political: it gives the agency exceptional flexibility to respond rapidly to threats. As early as the 2004 spending legislation, Congress injects $2.1 billion and sets its first modest directives: $100,000 for public awareness of a child pornography tipline, $500,000 for reimbursing other federal agencies recovering smuggled illegal aliens, $3 million for enforcing laws against child labor.

ICE is therefore born with almost total operational autonomy — an asset designed for national security, but which would become, under less determined administrations, the vector of a drift.

The Original Fracture: A “Culture War” That Diverts ICE from Its Mission for Nearly Twenty Years

From the very first days, an ideological and cultural battle ravages the agency. John Sandweg, former acting director and former general counsel for DHS, explains: “There had been some congressional mandates, some of them through appropriations, some through authorizing statutes that compelled the creation of this system.” But Congress has always refused to manage day-to-day operations.

Jessica Vaughan, of the Center for Immigration Studies, exposes without varnish the dominant mindset of the former customs officials in charge: “They wanted to devote resources to child sex trafficking and counterfeit goods and gangs and things like that while not doing routine immigration enforcement. The ex-customs people in charge, they were like, ‘Yeah, we’re not doing this immigration stuff anymore.’ They wanted to do stuff that was not as politically sensitive.”

Sandweg describes this tension as a true “culture war” that lasts until the Obama years: “It was a bit of a culture war, right? Is it going to be more of this immigration-focused stuff, looking at worksite enforcement and employers who might be cheating? Or is it gonna be more investigating banks for not having adequate money laundering controls and things like that? That second culture took over, the customs culture.”

Sarah Saldaña nuances: “There’s always been a clear mandate.” But she immediately recognizes the central political mechanism: “Now, every administration has its own enforcement priorities, which it’s entitled to do. And so there will be memos, executive orders, et cetera, et cetera to shape the mission.”

Translation: autonomy allowed successive administrations to empty the immigration mission of its substance without ever legally eliminating it.

Under Obama: Systematic Dilution by Executive Memos and the Forced Response of Congress in 2009

As early as 2009, bipartisan frustration rises. Congress imposes a minimum quota of 34,000 detention beds: “Frustrated with the lack of enforcement, lawmakers began filling in some of the blanks.” Legislators were worried the agency was releasing too many people. This measure, the first quantified congressional intervention in operations, proves that even Democrats at the time recognized the danger of institutionalized laxity.

Then come the Morton memos (2010-2011): tightened priorities on serious criminals, abandonment of large interior raids in favor of employer audits, list of 31 criteria of prosecutorial discretion. Sarah Saldaña would later explain: “Now, every administration has its own enforcement priorities, which it’s entitled to do. And so there will be memos, executive orders, et cetera, et cetera to shape the mission.”

• June 30, 2010: First memo on civil enforcement priorities. The agency only has resources to remove about 400,000 people per year (less than 4% of the estimated undocumented population). Absolute priority: threats to national security and public safety. Large worksite raids (Bush practice) are officially abandoned in favor of employer audits.

• March 2, 2011: Memo “Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.” Three hierarchical levels:

• Priority 1 (highest): danger to national security or risk to public safety (terrorists, spies, serious criminals).

• Priority 2: recent illegal entrants.

• Priority 3: fugitives and others.

• June 17, 2011: Supplemental memo on prosecutorial discretion. It lists 31 factors to consider in order not to pursue (family ties, length of time in the United States, etc.).

Politically, these texts officially sanction the dilution: ICE, created to close the immigration loopholes of 9/11, becomes an agency that sorts cases rather than uniformly enforcing the law. The numbers speak: criminal removals increase 80% between 2008 and 2010, but interior enforcement against non-criminals collapses. The “customs culture” triumphs, as Sandweg had predicted.

Climax in 2014 with the Johnson memo. On November 20, 2014, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson publishes the definitive memo: “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” It replaces and cancels all previous ones. Three even tighter priorities:

• Priority 1: threats to national security, border security, and public safety (terrorism/gang suspects, those convicted of felonies or aggravated felonies, recent border entrants).

• Priority 2: repeat minor offenders (3+ misdemeanors or one “significant misdemeanor” such as domestic violence, DUI, etc.) and new immigration violators (entered or re-entered illegally after January 1, 2014).

• Priority 3: other violations (final removal orders after January 1, 2014).

The memo estimates these priorities cover only about 13% of the estimated 11.3 million undocumented population. It replaces Secure Communities with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP): local detentions are no longer automatic but subject to notification and the new hierarchy. Prosecutorial discretion is strengthened; detention is limited to priorities except in “extraordinary circumstances.”

Quantified consequence: interior removals fall from 224,000 in 2011 to 65,000 in 2016. Global removal records (more than 3 million over two terms) mask the reality: ICE focuses almost exclusively on serious criminals and the border, leaving the interior largely untouched. Sarah Saldaña, then in office, maintains that there was “always been a clear mandate” — but the mandate is now filtered by memos.

Politically, the Obama era demonstrated the limits of “smart enforcement”: record numbers for show, but real dilution of the original mission. Democrats created ICE after 9/11 to protect America from immigration loopholes. They then bridled it with memos.

Trump: The 2017 Break and the Historic Restoration of 2025

The contrast is striking and assumed by the players themselves. Jessica Vaughan formulates the historical verdict: “There has never been a president before Donald Trump who openly valued the immigration enforcement mission as much as he does. There’s no question that ICE has been allowed to do its job the way Congress wrote the laws for them to be able to do it. And they have not had that kind of support and backing before.”

On January 25, 2017, five days after his inauguration, President Trump signs Executive Order 13768 “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” This text explicitly breaks with the Obama doctrine. It expands enforcement priorities to virtually all removable aliens: any criminal conviction or charge (even minor), administrative fraud, abuse of public benefits, failure to comply with a final removal order, or any risk judged to public or national security. The DHS implementation memorandum of February 20, 2017, is even clearer: “Classes or categories of removable aliens are no longer exempt from potential enforcement.” No more “smart enforcement” à la Obama; prosecutorial discretion can no longer create collective exemptions.

Politically, this is the direct response to the “culture war” described by John Sandweg in the corpus: the customs culture that fled “politically sensitive” immigration is brought to heel. ICE moves from an agency that sorted cases (Priority 1-2-3 under Obama) to a force that enforces the law without filter. Quantified result as early as FY 2017: 143,470 administrative arrests (three-year record), 92% involving individuals with convictions, pending charges, fugitive status or reinstated orders. Detentions increase 65% (142,356 detainers). Interior removals surge; the proportion of removals linked to ICE arrests rises from 27% to 36%. Trump thus restores fidelity to the rule of law that Congress had demanded in 2002.

Upon his return to the White House, Trump shifts into high gear. In July 2025, he signs the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which injects $75 billion into ICE over four years — an unprecedented multi-year amount.

The corpus is explicit: “ICE itself, which received $75 billion in funding when Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law in July, is continuing operations in the midst of the government shutdown.” This colossal funding (30 billion for operations + 45 billion for detention according to complementary details) allows the hiring of thousands of additional agents, the expansion of detention capacity to more than 100,000 beds, and the launch of the largest removal operation in history.

Politically, this is the ultimate realization of Vaughan’s vision: Trump is the first president to give ICE the resources and political backing to accomplish “its job the way Congress wrote the laws.” Thanks to this shielding, the agency runs at full capacity during the February 2026 shutdown — unlike TSA or FEMA taken hostage by Democrats. The promised “crackdown” becomes reality: mass arrests, expanded interior operations, record removals. Operational autonomy, which had allowed the agency to “wander from its focus” under other administrations, finally becomes the weapon of uncompromising enforcement.

Faced with this historic restoration, Democrats today demand ten operational guardrails (end of roving patrols, ban on masks, visible identification).

The Democratic Blackmail of February 2026: Asymmetric Shutdown and Unprecedented Interference

On February 12, 2026, Democrats block full DHS funding and a two-week extension. Consequence: partial shutdown at midnight Friday, the third of this Congress. Their demand: the ten tactical reforms.

John Thune: “The Democrats… really don’t want the solution. They don’t want the answer. They want the political issue.” Schumer: “The administration doesn’t actually want to reform ICE… That is why we are fighting for legislation to rein in ICE and stop the violence.”

Senator John Fetterman, the only Democrat to vote with Republicans, exposes the truth: “This shutdown literally has zero impact on ICE functionality.” The Trump $75 billion protects the agency. In contrast, TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard are paralyzed. On X: “Country over party is refusing to hit the entire Department of Homeland Security.”

While lawmakers flee to the Munich security conference, Brian Schatz hopes the recess will “wake up” Republicans. Mistake: Americans see clearly.

The two chambers left Washington for a week of recess. Many senators fly directly to the Munich security conference. Thune left a door open: return in 24 hours if agreement. But negotiations are at a standstill.

A Democratic senator, Brian Schatz (Hawaii), sums up their calculation: “I still think the Republicans are in a bubble and do not understand the depth of the anger out there in the world. And maybe this break will allow them to go home and get yelled at, not just by people who are progressive, but everybody who thinks that this agency is out of control and needs to be reined in.”

It is the same scenario as during the longest government shutdown in American history: Thune tries to break the Schumer bloc, in vain. Democrats demand to dictate ICE field tactics — what former Democratic director Sarah Saldaña calls unprecedented interference: “Congress has a legitimate role in oversight in the expenditure of any taxpayer funds… It has nothing to do with dictating specific operations or tactics. But Congress doesn’t operate anything. They pass statutes.”

This shutdown is not a negotiation. It is a desperate attempt to retake by force what Democrats themselves abandoned for eight years under Obama. They created ICE after 9/11, bridled it with memos, and today, facing Trump who liberates it, they demand to dictate masks, patrols, and badges — “the most hands-on congressional mandates agency has ever received.”

Meanwhile, travelers, disaster victims, and security agents pay the price. Fetterman, the only Democrat to vote with Republicans, said it clearly: “Country over party.”

Democracy demands a way forward to reform without damaging critical agencies. Schumer and Schatz choose the opposite: party before country.

Prospective Conclusion: Toward an Untouchable ICE or the Breaking Point of a Security State at War with Itself?

At the end of this February 2026 arm-wrestling match, one certainty stands out: ICE will never be what it was again. Shielded by the $75 billion of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, protected by multi-year funding that makes it impervious to shutdowns, the agency born in the “confusion” of 9/11 has become, under Trump, the most powerful and most autonomous instrument in the American security arsenal. Democrats, who created it to close the immigration loopholes that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, who then bridled it with selective memos, and who today try to muzzle it with ten unprecedented tactical demands, have lost the institutional battle. They have left it only one way out: to radicalize even further.

Prospectively, two scenarios emerge, as clear as they are brutal. First scenario: negotiations fail durably. The shutdown drags on or repeats. ICE, financially untouchable, accelerates its “crackdown” without restraint — roving patrols maintained, masks kept, visible identification refused in the name of operational security. Democrats, accused of having sacrificed TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard on the altar of their agenda, will pay the electoral price in 2026 and 2028. Trump, for his part, will have demonstrated that the executive can bypass Congress when it turns into a partisan obstacle. ICE will then become the symbol of an assumed imperial presidency, the weapon of an exceptional immigration policy that no longer depends on annual budgets or Senate whims.

Second scenario, darker for Democrats: a compromise is extracted under public pressure. A few symbolic guardrails are conceded — visible badges in cities, limitation of roving patrols in urban areas. But the operational core remains intact thanks to the $75 billion already locked in. ICE emerges strengthened, legitimized by the very fact of having survived the greatest parliamentary interference attempt in its history. Democrats, by wanting to operate in its place, will have proven they no longer understand the institutions they themselves created after 9/11.

Politically, the verdict is without appeal. What is at stake here far exceeds the fate of one agency. It is the final transformation of the post-9/11 Leviathan: from a bipartisan tool of national defense to a partisan weapon that only a Trump presidency dares to fully deploy. Democrats, after diluting the mission for eight years, after letting the “customs culture” triumph, today discover that the operational autonomy they tolerated is turning against them. They cry violence, “out-of-control agency.” But the control, they abandoned it long ago. Trump, for his part, is simply taking back what Congress wrote in 2002: enforce existing laws, without excuses, without selective priorities, without excuses.

The future is therefore written in the marble of the $75 billion. ICE will not back down. It will anchor itself even more deeply into the American security landscape, becoming the pillar of an immigration policy that no longer negotiates.

The Democrats can continue to block, to leave for Munich, to hope that the “anger of the world” will save them. They are wrong. America has already chosen: country over party, as John Fetterman hammered. And ICE, it continues. Stronger, more autonomous, more faithful than ever to the mission Congress entrusted to it in the ashes of the World Trade Center. The rest is theater. The country, it moves forward. And ICE stands guard.

#ICE,#ImmigrationPolicy,#USPolitics,#BorderSecurity,#HomelandSecurity,#TrumpPolicy,#Democrats,#SenateCrisis,#GovernmentShutdown,#NationalSecurity,#ImmigrationDebate,#PoliticalAnalysis,#ICECrackdown,#USLaw,#FederalAgencies,#TSA,#FEMA,#ChuckSchumer,#JohnFetterman,#ExecutivePower,#DeepState,#PolicyShift,#ObamaLegacy,#SecurityState,#AmericaFirst,#ImmigrationEnforcement,#PoliticalConflict,#CongressionalBattle,#ICEFunding,#BorderCrisis,#USGovernment,#LawAndOrder,#PublicSafety,#FederalPower,#PolicyWar,#SecurityStrategy,#USNews,#Geopolitics,#PowerStruggle,#InstitutionalCrisis