[[link removed]]

THE ICEMEN COMETH  
[[link removed]]


 

Jonathan M. Winer
July 24, 2025
Washington Examiner
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Our democracy isn’t on autopilot. The machinery will not repair
itself. Judges, executives, university presidents, media and tech
leaders, donors, lawyers—those with some power—must join the work
of defending the legal frameworks that protect us all. _

ICE agents in Los Angeles, June 10, 2025, photo: Matt Gush

 

On July 9, 2025, the House of Representatives passed a sweeping
legislative package
[[link removed]] that
dramatically expanded the operational scope and funding of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), making it the largest
domestic policing agency in the country. After months of escalating
detentions [[link removed]?], politically
motivated efforts to arrest, detain and deport lawful permanent
residents based on their protected speech
[[link removed]],
and ICE’s growing use of contractors
[[link removed]] operating
without warrants or identification, this moment marks not the
beginning of authoritarianism—but its consolidation.

The Trump Administration’s second term represents a break with
constitutional norms—not a continuation of a bipartisan trend. While
presidents from both parties have struggled to manage immigration, it
was not until 2025 that federal officials began openly violating
court orders
[[link removed]].
Once constrained by long-standing constitutional guardrails, detention
and deportation now proceed with minimal legal accountability. This
breakdown is aided by a compliant Congress—dominated by Republican
majorities beholden to Trump—and by a Supreme Court which in
overturning precedent and issuing unsigned opinions has not merely
supported but actively enabled Trump’s executive overreach.

Unmarked Vans, Unchecked Power

ICE’s operational methods under Trump are already borrowing from the
tactics of long-established authoritarian regimes. Tactics routinely
include early-morning raids without warrants, indefinite detention
without formal charges, and transfers across state lines to block
access to habeas corpus. Masked operatives seize targets from the
streets
[[link removed]] and
force them into unmarked vehicles
[[link removed]] _en
route_ to contractor-run facilities in other states. Some are
deported to countries where they have no personal ties and no access
to counsel
[[link removed]].

Though ostensibly targeting undocumented immigrants, these tactics
have also ensnared permanent residents and, in several cases, U.S.
citizens
[[link removed]].
A graduate student in Los Angeles was tackled and detained during a
Home Depot raid; another citizen’s car window was smashed as he
tried to record the scene; others were grabbed and placed in unmarked
vehicles. None had engaged in unlawful conduct
[[link removed]].
In one high-profile case, ICE acknowledged it arrested permanent
resident Mahmoud Khalil without a judicial warrant
[[link removed]].
Private contractors have summoned individuals to routine ICE
appointments
[[link removed]]—only
to have them detained upon arrival, often by plainclothes
[[link removed]] agents
who have failed to identify themselves
[[link removed]].

Three recent cases—BI Inc.’s check‑in dragnets
[[link removed]] in
Manhattan, the contractor-facilitated deportation of a family
in Metairie, Louisiana
[[link removed]],
and detentions by G4S teams at an immigration court in San Antonio
[[link removed]]—show
ICE operating through private firms to seize targets without public
accountability or judicial oversight.

These are not isolated cases of rogue ICE agents overstepping. They
represent a deliberate rupture from American policing norms. State and
local police are barred from concealing their identities. Federal
agents must identify themselves, follow lawful arrest protocols, and
inform suspects of their rights. ICE’s institutional design
circumvents these protections by deploying private contractors and
“special teams” operating in legal grey zones to shield unlawful
actions from scrutiny.

Funding the Repressive State

ICE funding under President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” tripled
detention capacity and made it the most heavily funded domestic
enforcement agency. Its $11.3 billion
[[link removed]] annual
budget now surpasses the FBI’s. The new law includes $45 billion for
detention expansion, $29 billion for operations, and funding to hire
10,000 new agents. Retrofitted federal prisons and former military
bases are being converted into enforcement facilities.

ICE’s reliance on contractors is evident in no-bid transportation
contracts for $100 million or more with firms like CSI Aviation
[[link removed]].
Former ICE leadership and investigative reporting underscore that
outsourcing of enforcement duties—including arrests and
detentions—is both notable and, according to a former acting ICE
director, “plainly unlawful
[[link removed]].”

Among the largest contractor deals, GEO Group secured a 15-year, $1
billion contract
[[link removed]] to
operate one major ICE center in New Jersey, while CoreCivic
receives $4.2 million per month
[[link removed]] to
manage another one in Leavenworth, Kansas—illustrating the scale of
ICE’s privatized detention infrastructure. But we still do not know
who is physically grabbing ICE targets off the street. The legal
ambiguity surrounding these contractors creates a built-in shield of
deniability. The intentional opacity provides a model for scalable
repression.

ICE, created as a specialized agency for immigration enforcement, is
now primed to become a general-purpose domestic security force. The
question arises: what will those 10,000 new agents and an unknown
number of contractors actually do? One answer: shift from
immigration-cleansing to election-cleansing.

From Border Patrol to Ballot Patrol

It may seem implausible that ICE would interfere in elections. But
that view underestimates both its transformation and the political
logic of authoritarian systems. ICE does not need jurisdiction over
elections. It can bring force, fear, and deniability for those who
want to shape their outcomes.

Recently, the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi
sent formal letters to at least nine states
[[link removed]],
demanding voter rolls, voting system data, and internal
communications. Framed as protecting election integrity, these
requests are widely understood as a pretext to chill election
administration and to lay the groundwork for post-election challenges.
But subpoenas alone don’t intimidate. The threat is that
noncompliance could trigger federal enforcement.

That’s where ICE comes in. It has the agents and contractors in
place to turn legal pressure into lived fear. If DOJ declares a
jurisdiction noncompliant, ICE can appear—not necessarily with a
warrant, but in tactical gear. The visit might be described as a
review of contractor records or inquiries into ‘procedural
irregularities.’ In practice, it reminds state and local officials
that federal scrutiny comes with force behind it – starting with the
threat that they may be personally targeted if they fail to comply
with any ICE request.

ICE also now has vast databases. The “Big Beautiful Bill”
allocated $6 billion for surveillance, including a $30 million
Palantir contract to build “ImmigrationOS
[[link removed]],”
integrating sensitive data from DHS, IRS, SSA, DMVs, and beyond. This
infrastructure can flag communities of recent immigrants, or
foreign-sounding names. These flagged zones could quietly be passed to
DOJ for audits, used to justify purges, or exploited for claims of
fraud.

That same fraud narrative was tested and discredited in 2020: more
than 60 court challenges failed, Republican-led audits in key states
confirmed the results. Trump’s own attorney general, along with
state-level Republican officials, publicly affirmed that no widespread
fraud had occurred. But the persistence of that falsehood –
sometimes referred to as Trump’s “big lie”— now gives ICE and
DOJ a pretext to revive it. This time, not to relitigate the last
election, but to shape the next one through targeted scrutiny,
intimidation, and selective enforcement.

Private contractors further extend ICE’s reach. Firms can monitor
online speech, geolocate immigrant neighborhoods, or conduct
background checks under vague pretenses – tools easily redirected
beyond suspected illegal immigrants toward activist networks,
politically disfavored precincts, or for that matter any sources of
dissent, opposition or voices that are simply critical.

In rural areas, ICE’s authority to deputize local officials under
287(g) agreements, now in place in 41 states
[[link removed]], can blur into
election-related enforcement – especially where officials are
aligned with Trump or militia groups. ICE cooperation with
“patriot” observers near polling stations would give federal cover
to otherwise prohibited tactics.

On Election Day itself, ICE agents could be deployed to precincts
under the pretext of apprehending “illegal voters.” They need not
arrest anyone. They need only be seen. A single agent loitering near a
drop box could chill turnout from vulnerable communities. Even rumors
of ICE presence could suppress votes.

Raids during early voting, detentions of organizers’ families, and
public warnings about “noncitizen voting” could all depress
participation and provide an excuse for intensified governmental
oversight. Retroactive prosecutions—however specious—for alleged
election violations could target political enemies, such as those
working to counter voter suppression.

None of this requires new legal mandates – only political direction.
That direction has already been given in principle.

On March 25, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14149, “Preserving
and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections
[[link removed]]”—a
sweeping and constitutionally dubious directive that reimagines
federal oversight of elections. While framed as protecting against
foreign interference and voter fraud, the order effectively creates a
nationalized framework for election policing. It directs DHS and DOJ
to scour state voter rolls using immigration and Social Security
databases; to audit voting systems for “foreign access;” to demand
documentary proof of citizenship from voters; and to withhold funding
from states that fail to comply with new federal mandates on voter ID,
mail-in ballots, and Election Day deadlines.

ICE is not named explicitly, but the order’s reliance on DHS
systems, interagency “verification,” and enforcement of
immigration-related voting prohibitions leaves open a clear role for
ICE involvement. In effect, the order creates a legal pretext for
extending federal surveillance—especially immigration
enforcement—into every phase of the election process, from
registration to vote-counting. Its effect is to fuse the machinery of
immigration control with that of electoral control. These actions are
not intended and will not be carried out neutrally. Their goal is to
suppress the votes of whomever Trump directs ICE to target.

Intimidating the Powerful

Even before ICE expands its force, the Trump Administration has
escalated targeted intimidation of political and judicial
figures—sending a message to those who might otherwise resist.

At a press event, California Senator Alex Padilla was tackled and
handcuffed
[[link removed]] after
attempting to question DHS. Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested
in her courtroom and then indicted
[[link removed]] for
alleged interference with ICE. New Jersey Congresswoman LaMonica
McIver faces three felony charges for “obstructing federal
personnel
[[link removed]]”
in seeking oversight of a New Jersey ICE site.

All three are Democrats—underscoring the partisan selectivity of
these actions.

Trump’s efforts to intimidate universities, media organizations, and
major law firms, through meritless lawsuits, asset freezes,
politicized investigations and extortionist financial demands are
aimed at forcing settlement or silence. These moves follow a familiar
authoritarian pattern to target not only the marginalized, but
symbolically selected elites.

The logic is mafialike: cooperate, or be destroyed. By punishing
inquiry, the administration signals that scrutiny will not be
tolerated.

Death Threats as a Tool of State

Trump’s consolidation of power in 2025 has also relied on death
threats and harassment—networked intimidation as a mode of political
enforcement.

After Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger refused Trump’s
direct request to “find” more Trump votes in the 2020 election,
Raffensperger and his wife received death threats. One read: “We
plan for the death of you and your family every day.
[[link removed]]”

Other election officials—especially in Michigan, Arizona,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—have faced a sustained barrage of
threats. Their offices have reinforced walls, installed bullet‑proof
glass, and strengthened security protocols. In Michigan, the threats
included “violent and graphic” phone calls warning “Your family,
your life.
[[link removed]?]”
Arizona’s Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes, altered his routines
and travel in response to threats directed at his children.
[[link removed]]

Judges, too, have come under fire. Nearly 200 judges received threats
between March and May 2025, according to the U.S. Marshals
[[link removed]],
an intensification of the attacks on judges presiding over criminal
cases involving Trump that took place in 2023 and 2024. Members of
Congress have faced similar pressures, as reflected in Senator Lisa
Murkowski’s statement that “we are all afraid
[[link removed]]”
of the political retribution Trump can unleash.

The threats function as signals. The state rarely issues them—but
neither does it disavow them. Instead, it amplifies the narratives
that inspire them: talk of “traitors,” “rigged elections,” and
“enemies within.” By echoing these themes, the state aligns itself
with those issuing the threats, creating a shared language of
menace—and paving the way for politically-motivated targeted
violence, as recently demonstrated in Wisconsin
[[link removed]],
where a Democratic lawmaker and her spouse were killed and another
Democratic lawmaker and his spouse critically injured.

With new ICE surveillance capability, these signals can be
operationalized. For an already-threatened election official, a visit
from ICE—no matter how pretextual—sends the unmistakable message
that the only safe action is the one favored by the President.

This is how fear becomes systemic: a convergence of signals—online
hate, rhetorical targeting, and federal force moving in synchrony.

Law at the Edge of the Republic

District courts have repeatedly ruled against the Trump
Administration’s immigration policies—blocking raids, transfers,
and deportations. But those rulings are increasingly failing to
restrain executive behavior.

In _Trump v. CASA_
[[link removed]], issued
June 27, 2025, the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority sharply
curtailed the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions,
limiting their power to check presidential overreach. A year earlier,
in _Trump v. United States_
[[link removed]], the
same justices granted the President presumptive immunity from
prosecution for acts undertaken within the “outer perimeter” of
official duties—effectively shielding almost any executive behavior
from legal accountability.

Such rulings form a jurisprudence of impunity. Executive acts are
reframed as sovereign and unreviewable. This is a modern iteration of
Weimar-era German legal theorist Carl Schmitt’s doctrine of “state
of exception.”

Schmitt’s 1922 treatise Political Theology
[[link removed]] shaped
the thinking of German legal and political elites who helped dismantle
parliamentary democracy and replace it with authoritarian one-party
rule. Schmitt argued that the “sovereign is he who decides on the
exception”—that is, the moment when the regular order of law is
suspended. In Schmitt’s framework, legality is subordinate to order:
the ruler determines when national security requires the abandonment
of normal legal constraints. Once a state of exception is declared,
the head of government is empowered to override all other authorities
and apply the law—or disregard it—according to his own judgment.

A century later, the U.S. constitution is being reinterpreted in a
similar fashion. The President declares a threat. Extraordinary powers
follow. Contractors are deployed. Detainees vanish. Oversight is
punished. Constitutional norms are ignored and discarded. Courts
resist, but the Supreme Court declines to uphold their rulings. What
remains is not rule-of-law but governance by emergency decree.

From the Margins, Resistance

Resistance persists – but mostly beyond the elites.
In California’s Central Valley
[[link removed]],
immigrant-led networks monitor raids and shield families. In Los
Angeles and Chicago
[[link removed]],
teachers, clergy, and cultural workers stage sit-ins and sanctuary
actions. The 50501 movement
[[link removed]]—named
for the emergency detention code on DHS forms—has sparked school
walkouts, work stoppages, and courthouse protests across 44 states.

Churches once again provide refuge. In Detroit
[[link removed]],
congregants marched from Most Holy Trinity Parish to the ICE field
office. In Austin [[link removed]], the
Austin Sanctuary Network continues to harbor individuals for the
months or years that deportation proceedings remain pending. Some
congregations have retreated due to fear of enforcement action. But
others have filed lawsuits
[[link removed]] to
protect their religious spaces.

A few figures of national status have spoken. Judge
J. Michael Luttig has described Trump as a “tyrannical wannabe
king.
[[link removed]]”
Legal scholars at Harvard
[[link removed]] and Stanford
[[link removed]] have
condemned the erosion of legal norms, and helped law firms targeted by
President Trump fight back against unconstitutional executive
orders. Bar associations 
[[link removed]]are
mobilizing. Former President Obama has urged
[[link removed]] institutions
to resist intimidation.

Some universities and state coalitions have begun anticipatory
noncompliance
[[link removed]],
refusing to act on directives before they take effect. But these are
exceptions. Many remain silent. And a growing list—including Iowa,
Michigan, Ohio State, Penn, UVA, Columbia, and Arizona’s public
universities—have acquiesced under regulatory or financial pressure.

Trump’s strategy of intimidation has worked. Resistance, including
protests involving hundreds of thousands or even millions has had
little effect. Law firms have largely gone quiet. University
presidents hedge. Trial court victories are routinely undone once the
Supreme Court steps in—often through emergency rulings issued in
silence
[[link removed]],
without even the courtesy of a public explanation.

Metastasizing Power

The infrastructure for removing undocumented immigrants is now in
place. But power built for one purpose rarely stays confined.

What begins with raids in immigrant neighborhoods has already
proceeded seamlessly to threats to election officials, judges, and
members of Congress. What begins with ignoring injunctions ends with
something more dangerous still: reinterpreting the Constitution to
suppress opposition and convert political preferences into
unreviewable dictates.

The window for meaningful institutional resistance remains open—but
it is narrowing. Public protest alone is not enough. Those with power
must act.

That begins with lifting the curtain on ICE. No agency with this much
power should operate in darkness. Transparency is the first step
[[link removed]] towards
restoring democratic controls.

Our democracy isn’t on autopilot. The machinery will not repair
itself. Judges, executives, university presidents, media and tech
leaders, donors, lawyers—those with some power, even now—must join
the work of defending the legal frameworks that protect us all.

When the structure collapses, no one escapes the ruin.

_Jonathan M. Winer, a former senior State Department official, is a
member of The Steady State._ _The Steady State is a nonpartisan
organization of more than 280 former senior national security
professionals from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of
Defense and Department of Homeland Security which advocates for
constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of
America’s national security institutions._

The _Washington Examiner_ [[link removed]] brings
the best in breaking news and analysis on politics. With in-depth news
coverage, diligent investigative reporting and thoughtful commentary,
we’ll make sure you’re always in the know about Washington’s
latest exploits.

At _Washington Examiner_ we are committed to creating a safe and
professional workplace in which all staff members and contractors are
treated fairly and with respect. We are determined to be a company
that reflects the enlightened views we express in our commentary
articles. In this way, our actions will match our words and we will
appropriately serve the millions of readers with whom we have built a
relationship founded on trust. Our purpose is to join in creating a
just and principled

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement
[[link removed]]
* authoritarian regimes
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]