Congresswoman Introduces Bill To Abolish ICE And CBP

ICE badges on an American flag background — Photo: Shutterstock

A sitting member of Congress just proposed to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security and abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection—while redirecting at least $150 billion to local services.

Story Snapshot

The bill would replace the Department of Homeland Security with a new Department of Community Safety.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection would be abolished, with some functions reassigned.
At least $150 billion in funds would shift to health care, housing, and food assistance.
Backers say the plan curbs surveillance and militarized enforcement; critics call it dangerous.

What the proposal actually does

Representative Delia Ramirez announced a plan to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security and abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. Her office says the bill would build a Department of Community Safety and preserve agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration. The plan also claims it would begin a separate civil immigration system and limit data abuses and surveillance. Multiple outlets reported these same core features.

Ramirez’s statement frames the change as a response to the Department of Homeland Security’s post-September 11 origin. She argues the country should not answer past trauma with more militarized enforcement today. Her release says the new system would “reinvest resources in our communities,” while keeping vital security functions that people use every day, like airport screening and disaster response. The proposal seeks to end the immigration police model, not to erase every federal security role.

Follow the money and the mechanics

The headline fiscal claim is big: at least $150 billion would shift from the Department of Homeland Security to services like health care, housing, and food aid. That number shows the proposal’s scale, but it does not come with a formal budget score. Without a Congressional Budget Office estimate, the amount remains an assertion, not a certified savings figure. Still, the press and her office both cite the $150 billion target in describing the bill’s goals.

The mechanics raise practical questions. The press release says some operations, including customs, would continue, but it does not provide a full transition blueprint. Moving personnel, statutes, and data systems is not a weekend job. The media coverage confirms the bill’s direction but does not supply section-by-section text or timelines. Voters should expect a long runway for any change this large, with fights over authorities and appropriations at every step.

Supporters’ case versus security skeptics

Supporters argue the Department of Homeland Security has drifted from guarding against foreign threats to policing people inside the United States. They want to cut what they call “militarized enforcement” and shift to civil processes and community investment. They also promise to preserve key public-facing services, like the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration, to avoid chaos in emergencies and travel.

Critics answer that abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement would harm public safety. They warn it could weaken efforts to remove criminal noncitizens, disrupt cross-border crime cases, and slow work to find missing migrant children. The Department of Homeland Security has also warned that sharp anti-enforcement rhetoric can put officers at risk. These concerns reflect a common, conservative view: order first, reform with care, and do not break what guards the border and stops traffickers.

Political reality check

The plan landed in a polarized arena. The Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Markwayne Mullin, dismissed the idea and praised the department’s 270,000 personnel, saying it would never happen under current leadership. Illinois Republican Party chairman Bob Grogan questioned the timing near the September 11 anniversary and argued that funds are already strained by migrant needs. These responses preview the floor fight: security risk claims versus reform and reinvestment claims.

A prudent filter is simple: protect Americans while fixing what is broken. If Congress sees proof that a civil system can keep crime down, courts working, and borders controlled, then targeted restructuring has a case. If not, sweeping abolition will look reckless. The sponsor’s promise to keep disaster aid, airport checks, and cybersecurity intact helps, but voters need to see the hard map: who does what on day one, day ninety, and year two.