In a pointed exchange on CNN, host Jake Tapper challenged Democratic Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego over his evolving stance on funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The confrontation unfolded Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” where Tapper pressed Gallego on his past votes to increase ICE funding, contrasting them with his current opposition to the agency’s actions. Gallego, newly elected as a senator in January 2025, faced scrutiny amid growing Democratic criticism of ICE following the Jan. 7 shooting of Renee Good during a vehicle-related confrontation. The discussion also touched on broader debates over a potential 2026 fiscal year budget for ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), currently under review in Congress.
The issue has sparked intense debate, with many questioning whether ICE’s mission aligns with public safety or oversteps into problematic enforcement. Critics of the agency, including Gallego and other Democrats like Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, argue that funding must come with strict oversight. This divide signals a deeper rift within the party over how to address border security and enforcement policies.
Looking back, Gallego’s record shows support for expanding ICE resources, a fact Tapper highlighted during the interview. Now, the senator insists that any additional funds must restrict the agency’s activities to focus on deporting criminals rather than broader, controversial operations, the Daily Caller reported.
Gallego didn’t mince words, accusing ICE of overreach in its current form. “What they’re doing right now is actually suppressing U.S. citizens, racially profiling in all parts of our country, bringing violence to areas that you don’t need,” he said. This claim paints a grim picture, but it’s worth asking if the agency’s missteps are systemic or isolated under specific leadership.
His frustration isn’t just with ICE’s actions but with the policies driving them. Gallego pointed to what he sees as misguided enforcement priorities tied to figures like Stephen Miller, suggesting a punitive agenda against certain communities. While policy disagreements are fair game, pinning the blame on one person risks oversimplifying a complex bureaucracy.
The backdrop to this clash is a proposed DHS budget aiming to boost detentions and operations, following supplemental funding in 2025 through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. After the Renee Good shooting, Democrats like Sen. Murphy have doubled down, with Murphy posting on X that his party cannot back a DHS budget without reining in ICE. Gallego and others have echoed this sentiment, signaling a tough road ahead for bipartisan agreement.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries added fuel to the fire, stating there’s “no bipartisan path forward” for DHS. This blunt assessment suggests Congress might be headed for a deadlock, leaving critical security funding in limbo. It’s a gamble that could backfire if public safety takes a hit.
Gallego himself is ready to play hardball, even if it means partial government disruption. “I can’t speak for everybody else, but if I have to shut down the portion of ICE — just to be clear, we’re not shutting down the rest of the government — the portion of ICE that is causing this kind of harm, racially profiling people, terrorizing our cities, I know the implications of that,” he declared. That’s a bold line in the sand, but it raises questions about what “partial” shutdowns really achieve.
At the same time, Gallego’s involvement in co-sponsoring the Laken Riley Act in January 2025 shows he’s not entirely against ICE’s role. Named after a murdered Georgia nursing student, the bill mandates detention of unauthorized migrants charged with specific crimes, though it doesn’t directly fund ICE. Still, its estimated costs could strain the agency’s budget, complicating the funding debate further.
The senator’s core argument is that ICE should prioritize serious threats over sweeping enforcement. It’s a reasonable stance on paper—focus on criminals, not families or workers—but the devil’s in the details of implementation. How do you redefine an agency’s mission without gutting its ability to act?
Democratic hesitance isn’t just about ICE; it’s about trust in DHS as a whole. With allegations of misconduct piling up, the call for constraints resonates with those wary of unchecked power. Yet, slashing funds or stalling budgets could weaken border security at a time when threats don’t pause for politics.
The shooting of Renee Good has become a flashpoint, amplifying calls for reform. While tragic, such incidents must be weighed against the broader data on ICE encounters, which often go unreported unless they turn violent. Context matters before rushing to defund or dismantle.
Congress now faces a tightrope walk: secure the border without endorsing overreach. Gallego’s willingness to risk political fallout for his stance might win points with some, but it could alienate others who see enforcement as non-negotiable. The 2026 budget debate will test whether principle or pragmatism prevails.
In the end, this CNN exchange laid bare a fractured Democratic approach to immigration enforcement. Tapper’s grilling of Gallego wasn’t just a gotcha moment; it was a window into a policy mess with no easy fix. Americans deserve a system that’s tough on crime but fair in execution—let’s hope Congress can deliver before the next crisis hits.
