Bulwark Takes: Democratic Memo Warns That “Abolish ICE” Is Politically Toxic

Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Host: Sam Stein (The Bulwark)
Guest: Lauren Egan (Author of the Opposition newsletter)
Date: January 15, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode tackles the rift within the Democratic Party on the future of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) following the high-profile Renee Good shooting in Minneapolis, which triggered what host Sam Stein calls an "invasion" of the city by ICE agents. The discussion revolves around a memo from a new Democratic think tank, Searchlight, arguing that the slogan "Abolish ICE" is politically poisonous. Stein and Egan explore both the practical and political implications of different strategies for addressing ICE, the historical baggage of related slogans, and the tensions Democrats face as they balance grassroots demands with electoral viability.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Searchlight Memo: Reforms, Not Abolishment

• [02:34] Lauren Egan explains the memo's main message to lawmakers:

  • Avoid the “Abolish ICE” slogan; it plays into Republican hands, painting Democrats as lawless.
  • Instead, recommend specific reforms—rooting out problematic officers, improving training, etc.
  • Democrats must show seriousness by proposing real solutions, not empty slogans.

  “Their whole thing is, yeah, we need to get away from Abolish ICE, but then what?...We have to give our voters something to show that we're seriously trying to come up with solutions to this and acknowledge that this is a really tough problem.” — Lauren Egan [03:20]

• The memo references past backfires:

  • “Defund the Police” and “Abolish ICE” (2018-2020) cost Democrats electorally and still haunt the party.

2. Morality vs. Pragmatism in Democratic Messaging

• [04:28] Sam Stein pushes back:

  • The situation has escalated; ICE is acting with “flagrant violation of the law” and “terrorizing US cities.”
  • Asks: How can Democrats not take a hard, moral stance—especially when reforms will be implemented by the same administration accused of the abuses?
  • Suggests the current response may be inadequate.

  “If you don't have the moral clarity to say, this has to stop right now and use whatever limited leverage points you have, then what do you actually stand for?” — Sam Stein [04:44]

• [05:41] Lauren Egan responds:

  • The memo is about electoral messaging for 2026 and 2028—not immediate change.
  • Democrats feel their options are highly limited unless they win more elections.

3. Leverage Points: Funding Fights and Policy Proposals

• [06:03] Stein raises government funding as leverage:

  • Suggests withholding or redirecting ICE funding during upcoming budget negotiations, citing historical use of similar tactics (e.g., Obamacare subsidies).
  • Notes that polling suggests a real appetite for big ICE changes, even abolition.

• [06:59] Egan raises skepticism:

  • Democrats have not “shown a lot of skill or confidence” in persuasive immigration messaging.
  • She doubts a shutdown fight over ICE funding would benefit Democrats politically.

  “I don't know if that would go well for them and end in a good place.” — Lauren Egan [07:13]

4. Public Opinion: Is There Appetite for Abolishing ICE?

• [07:38] Stein shares poll data:

  • A majority find ICE’s recent actions inappropriate.
  • Opinion is shifting against Trump’s immigration crackdowns.
  • A slim majority of Americans (per YouGov) lean toward supporting ICE abolition (46% support, 43% oppose), with Independents favoring abolition 47% to 35%.

• Both agree public opinion is nuanced:

  • Many may support a slogan but balk at its real-world policy implications.
  • Support for “abolish ICE” dissipates when confronted with the prospect of no agency enforcing immigration laws.

  “Once you start talking to people like, 'Oh, but...do we need someone doing this job?' Like, people think that the answer is yes.” — Lauren Egan [09:07]

5. The Base vs. General Electorate Tension

• [09:39] Egan describes intense pressure from Democratic base voters:
  • Offices are “ringing off the hook” demanding a stronger stance.
  • Lawmakers feel “caught in between a rock and a hard place” due to past electoral wounds and a fired-up base.

6. Intra-Democratic Divisions and Primaries

• [10:28] Stein highlights division among Democratic candidates:
  • Minnesota Senate primary: Lt. Gov. Penny Flanagan attacks Rep. Angie Craig for past ICE-friendly votes. Craig counters by attacking Flanagan for state-level scandals.
  • Tensions are emerging between moderates and progressives, with this issue poised to become a wedge in multiple 2026 primaries, including in “spicy” contests in Texas and Maine.

7. Quirky, Incremental Reform Proposals

• Some Democrats are proposing reforms, if not outright abolition:

  • [12:42] Rep. Richie Torres calls for mandatory QR codes on ICE agents—widely mocked on the show.
  • States like California moving to unmask ICE agents—a small step that may gain traction at the state level, though facing legal hurdles.

  “I thought we all agree that QR codes suck.” — Lauren Egan [13:07]

8. The Overton Window and Funding Inertia

• [14:27] Stein reflects on the “big, beautiful bill” that increased ICE's budget:

  • Even the Searchlight memo seems to concede the new funding as untouchable.
  • “The Overton window has really shifted,” he notes, lamenting the lack of Democrats questioning whether ICE’s funding is simply too high.

  “Once that money level is set, you're never going to reduce it, and it certainly seems that way.” — Sam Stein [16:36]

• [16:05] Egan argues Democrats worry that advocating for cuts signals softness and exposes them to attack.

9. Precedent from Biden’s Campaign

• [16:05] Stein notes that avoiding abolitionist language worked for Biden:
  • He promised to fund police (not defund) and thereby neutralized Republican attacks, helping him win 2020—a possible model for the party’s stance on ICE.

Notable Quotes

• “All you do is communicate that you're not willing to enforce laws… Instead, (Democrats) should lean into proposing reforms.” — Lauren Egan [02:40]
• “This is not normal politics. …you have a quasi paramilitary force… If you don't have the moral clarity to say, this has to stop right now…then what do you actually stand for?” — Sam Stein [04:44]
• “There's almost an acknowledgment that there's not a ton they can do unless they win elections.” — Lauren Egan [05:42]
• “There's such a trust deficit on this issue within the party that…all it does is communicate to voters that you're still soft on immigration.” — Lauren Egan [15:41]
• “Once that money level is set, you're never going to reduce it, and it certainly seems that way.” — Sam Stein [16:36]
• “Grim stuff.” — Lauren Egan [16:54]

Segment Timestamps

• [01:21] Episode Set-Up: Framing the ICE Debate—Sam Stein introduces Lauren Egan and the Searchlight memo.
• [02:28 – 04:28] Egan summarizes the memo and historic mistakes with “abolish” slogans.
• [04:28 – 05:41] Moral imperative questions and practical limits for Democrats.
• [06:03 – 07:38] Government funding fights, past examples, polling data on ICE, and policy conversation framing.
• [09:39 – 10:28] Tensions between Democratic base pressure and general electorate caution.
• [10:28 – 12:42] Primaries and how ICE is shaping Democratic intra-party contests.
• [12:42 – 13:33] Quirky incremental reforms, State-level activism, and practical limits.
• [14:27 – 16:54] Deeper discussion about the Overton window, ICE funding, and lessons from Biden’s electoral strategy.

Memorable Moments

• Egan and Stein’s tongue-in-cheek annoyance with QR codes:

  “I thought we all agree that QR codes suck.” — Lauren Egan [13:07]

• Subtle exasperation about the seemingly immutable size of federal law enforcement budgets:

  “Once that money level is set, you're never going to reduce it, and it certainly seems that way.” — Sam Stein [16:36]

• Longstanding intra-party angst:

  “People feel really burned from the first Trump administration…and how they handled immigration in the past." — Lauren Egan [09:52]

Tone & Style

The episode balances analytical skepticism with humor and an open, sometimes weary mood. The discussion is candid about Democratic political constraints, occasionally irreverent (especially regarding proposed reforms), and underscores the tension between urgency on the left and wariness about political fallout.

Summary

In this episode, The Bulwark’s Sam Stein and Lauren Egan dissect why Democrats are urgently debating whether “Abolish ICE” is a winning—or disastrously toxic—political slogan, especially following a high-profile ICE-related incident. Centering on a new think tank memo, they navigate the chasm between activist demands for moral clarity and the electoral risks exposed by polling and past campaign missteps. Despite public anger and some surprising polling in favor of “abolish ICE,” party strategists advocate for reforms and cautious messaging, wary that Democrats who get too far ahead may once again pay at the ballot box. State-level action, modest reforms, and intra-party tussles loom on the horizon, against a backdrop of skepticism about whether Democrats—bound by precedent and power realities—can or will ever roll back ICE’s funding.