Congress Seeks to Rein in ICE's Autonomy After Years of Unchecked Operations

Democrats demand new guardrails on the immigration enforcement agency as funding battle continues

Published on Feb. 24, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

As Democrats withhold funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), former agency leaders argue that Congress is seeking to impose the most direct intervention in ICE's operations since the agency was created in the aftermath of 9/11. The demands from Democrats include an end to roving patrols, a ban on mask use, and visible identification for agents, marking a shift from ICE's largely autonomous operations over the years.

Why it matters

ICE has operated with significant autonomy since its creation in 2003, allowing the agency to shift its focus over the years. This flexibility has also enabled the Trump administration to aggressively ramp up immigration enforcement. The current standoff between Congress and ICE reflects growing concerns over the agency's tactics and a desire for more oversight and accountability.

The details

ICE was created as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, but the agency and its operations were largely undefined, allowing it to evolve over time. In the early years, ICE officials wanted to focus on issues like child sex trafficking and counterfeit goods, rather than routine immigration enforcement. However, frustrated lawmakers began to intervene, mandating a minimum number of detention beds in 2009. Under the Trump administration, ICE has been empowered to pursue its original immigration enforcement mission more aggressively, leading to the current demands for new restrictions from Democrats.

  • ICE was created in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act passed after the 9/11 attacks.
  • In 2004, Congress provided ICE's first set of specific funding directives and instructions.
  • In 2009, Congress passed a mandate requiring ICE to accommodate no fewer than 34,000 detention beds.
  • In July 2026, President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' provided $75 billion in funding for ICE.
  • In February 2026, Democrats are withholding funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, until new restrictions are imposed on the agency.

The players

John Sandweg

A former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a former general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Sarah Saldaña

The former director of ICE from 2014 to 2017.

Jessica Vaughan

The director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative immigration policy group.

Donald Trump

The former president of the United States who openly valued the immigration enforcement mission of ICE more than previous administrations.

Democrats

Members of the Democratic party in Congress who are withholding funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes ICE, until new restrictions are imposed on the agency.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“There had been some congressional mandates, some of them through appropriations, some through authorizing statutes that compelled the creation of this system.”

— John Sandweg, Former acting director of ICE and former general counsel for DHS (1010wcsi.com)

“Congress has a legitimate role in oversight in the expenditure of any taxpayer funds, including ICE's expenditure, whether it's proper or not. It has nothing to do with dictating specific operations or tactics.”

— Sarah Saldaña, Former director of ICE from 2014 to 2017 (1010wcsi.com)

“There has never been a president before Donald Trump who openly valued the immigration enforcement mission as much as he does.”

— Jessica Vaughan, Director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (1010wcsi.com)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.