Opinion | ICE fatal shootings raise fear over Trump’s use of federal authority

America has endured intense political polarisation before. What it has not faced is a presidency that has transformed a federal law-enforcement agency into a potential instrument of political power. During Donald Trump’s second term as president, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) risks becoming just that.

Created after 9/11 as a specialised arm of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE was meant to enforce immigration laws and combat transnational criminal networks. Its annual budget in the past few years hovered around US$9 billion, and oversight structures kept its power in check.

Today, it is something else entirely. Last year, Congress, as part of the “big beautiful bill”, approved a sweeping spending package committing roughly an additional US$150 billion to immigration and border enforcement through 2029 – of which US$75 billion was allocated to ICE, bumping its annual budget up to an average of about US$28 billion a year. These figures do not sit merely atop American law enforcement but eclipse the budgets of entire national militaries around the globe.

America has long struggled with illegal immigration, with estimates suggesting up to 14 million people living in the country without legal status. The issue was a top concern during the previous election. Trump ran on a promise to clean house, and it appealed to many Americans.

Even critics must admit that, at a macro level, Trump’s approach to illegal immigration has been a success. Illegal border crossings are at their lowest since the 1970s and about 540,000 people have been deported since Trump’s inauguration. But ICE agents – masked, militarised and deployed primarily deep inside Democratic‑run cities – are now conducting high‑intensity patrols in places where state and local authorities have refused cooperation, and the optics resemble occupation.

Trump’s promise of mass deportations required mass recruitment – in one year, the agency more than doubled its officers and agents from 10,000 to 22,000. More troubling still is how this force has been assembled. The tone of ICE’s recruitment materials is unmistakable: the language of wartime, the appeal to patriotism, the framing of enforcement as a civilisational struggle. Add to this a US$50,000 sign-on bonus as well as the quiet lowering of training standards. When the agency appears to be prioritising ill-advised eagerness over judgment, restraint or competence, the result is predictable.