Dem Rep Pushes To ABOLISH DHS and ICE

U.S. ICE document against American flag — Photo: danielfela / Shutterstock

A sitting member of Congress filed a bill to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security and abolish both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol—while keeping parts of the border system alive in a new shape.

Story Snapshot

The Reimagining Safety Act would dissolve Homeland Security and end Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol.
The plan shifts core functions into a new Department of Community Safety and preserves disaster, cyber, transportation, and customs roles.
Supporters cite documented allegations from a state probe of a federal operation in Chicago as a trigger for reform.
Opponents warn the bill would gut national security and drug interdiction during a dangerous time.

What the bill actually does, not just what it abolishes

Representative Delia Ramirez’s proposal lays out a rebuild, not just a teardown. The bill would end the Department of Homeland Security and replace it with a Department of Community Safety. It would abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, but it would keep the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Transportation Security Administration, and customs functions. It would also limit surveillance tools and shift civil immigration into a separate track.

The design echoes a past shake-up. In 2003, the government abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service and split its work among United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Border Patrol within the new Department of Homeland Security. Lawmakers said separating service and enforcement would improve focus and controls after September 11. The current bill argues a new split is needed again, for accountability and civil rights.

Why backers say the system broke trust

Illinois created a state commission to document what happened during a federal operation called Midway Blitz. The commission said it took sworn testimony, video, and records. Its final report referred cases to law enforcement and built a public record of alleged abuse by federal agents in the Chicago area. The report framed the events as part of a wider pattern of heavy-handed tactics that hurt community trust and public health. Supporters point to this record as the spark for sweeping federal reform.

Supporters also argue that moving civil immigration out of a police-first model would reduce harm and confusion. They say the new department would focus on safety across disasters, cyber threats, and transportation while putting immigration processing and community services on a separate, noncriminal path. They claim that ending dragnet surveillance and detention-heavy practices will lower abuse risks and lawsuits that cost taxpayers money.

The case against: security, drugs, and common sense

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the plan would rip out the backbone of a department of about 270,000 people who keep Americans safe. He cast the bill as part of a “defund” push and said it would not pass. A department spokesperson argued that agents remove dangerous offenders from communities and should be thanked, not dismantled. Those claims align with a basic conservative view: you do not scrap core security during high threat levels.

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) has introduced the Reimagining Safety Act, a bill that would eliminate the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

My colleague @AshleeMBanks and I take a closer look at the proposal and the…

— Sinead R. Hawkins (@SineadRHawkins1) October 14, 2026

Representative Brandon Gill tied the debate to real-world dangers on multiple fronts. He said dismantling Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Border Patrol is naive when the nation faces narcoterror groups, radical Islamist networks, and hostile regimes like China and North Korea. He warned that cutting the Border Patrol would weaken screening at ports of entry and open the door to more fentanyl flowing north, which would hit working families hardest. That argument rests on deterrence and steady enforcement.

The operational gap no slogan fixes

Homeland-security analyst Elizabeth Klein flagged the hard middle ground. She said even if Congress closes or moves agencies, someone must still do border screening, immigration enforcement, disaster response, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism. She also noted the bill would stop border wall work and end the Border Patrol’s surveillance tower program, which would pull down eyes and ears that agents use today. That raises a nuts-and-bolts test: who does what on day one after the switch flips?

History backs her caution. When Congress dissolved the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2003, key missions did not vanish; they moved and multiplied. The Government Accountability Office later detailed how Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services each took pieces and faced new management strain. Rewriting charts is easy; rebuilding capacity, rules, and culture is slow and messy.

The real question voters should press

Congress can reorganize. It has done so before. The case for this bill hinges on whether moving enforcement out of Homeland Security will change incentives and results, not just letterheads. The case against warns that stripping Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol will shrink the tools used to catch criminals and stop lethal drugs at legal crossings. Both claims cannot be true at once. The burden of proof sits with the authors to show security will not slip.