Abolish ICE Act

Bill Number

H.R. 7123

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Immigration

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-01-16: Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability.

Last Updated

2026-05-16T08:07:19Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "Abolish ICE Act" (H.R. 7123) aims to eliminate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws and customs regulations. It argues that ICE's structure and actions prioritize aggressive enforcement over due process and that its functions could be handled better by other agencies.

Key Provisions

• Short Title: The bill is titled the "Abolish ICE Act."
• Findings Section: Congress lists 10 specific criticisms of ICE, including:
• Legal experts' views that ICE's mission favors enforcement over rights protection.
• Examples of raids, arrests, and deaths involving noncriminal immigrants, U.S. citizens, and others (e.g., a 2025 raid in California killing one worker, shootings during traffic stops and celebrations, a military-style operation in Chicago, and detention deaths due to poor conditions).
• Claims that ICE has detained U.S. citizens and instilled fear in communities, operating outside the rule of law and beyond reform.
• Abolishment Process:
• Immediately upon enactment, no federal funds can support ICE's functions, duties, or responsibilities under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 or other laws.
• Unobligated funds for ICE are rescinded (canceled), and any remaining assets or liabilities are transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
• ICE is fully abolished 90 days after enactment.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This bill would repeal funding and authority for ICE, an agency created in 2003 under the Homeland Security Act, effectively dismantling it without specifying how its core duties (e.g., immigration enforcement, deportations, and customs investigations) would be reassigned.
• It introduces a complete cutoff of resources, overriding prior appropriations and executive directives, which marks a radical shift from the current framework where ICE operates as a key component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: DHS would absorb ICE's assets and liabilities, potentially requiring rapid reassignment of over 20,000 employees and functions to other DHS components (like Customs and Border Protection) or agencies. This could disrupt federal immigration enforcement, border security, and anti-trafficking efforts nationwide.
• On Citizens: Immigrant communities, including noncitizens and U.S. citizens at risk of mistaken detention, may experience reduced fear from enforcement actions but face uncertainty in legal immigration processing and deportation proceedings. Local governments and law enforcement could see less federal interference in community policing.
• On International Relations: Abolishing ICE might weaken U.S. customs enforcement at ports of entry, affecting trade, smuggling prevention, and cooperation with foreign governments on migration and security issues. It could signal a policy shift toward less aggressive immigration control, influencing diplomatic ties with countries sending migrants.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Immigrants and Noncitizen Communities: Directly impacted by the end of ICE-led deportations and detentions, potentially benefiting from reduced enforcement but facing gaps in legal oversight.
• U.S. Citizens: Those wrongfully detained or affected by raids (as noted in findings) could gain protections, but broader enforcement changes might alter community safety dynamics.
• Federal Agencies and Employees: DHS and ICE personnel (agents, officers, and support staff) face job losses or reassignments; other agencies like the FBI or local police may inherit responsibilities.
• Local Governments and Law Enforcement: Cities and states opposing federal raids could see alignment with their policies, but might need to address resulting enforcement vacuums.
• Advocacy Groups: Immigrant rights organizations may support the bill, while border security and law enforcement advocates could oppose it.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: The bill's funding cutoff and abolition could face court challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (which governs agency changes) or for violating separation of powers, as Congress would unilaterally dismantle an executive agency without detailing successor mechanisms. "Rescission" of funds might require presidential approval under the Impoundment Control Act.
• Constitutional Implications: It raises questions about due process (Fifth Amendment) and equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment) in immigration enforcement, echoing the findings' emphasis on rights violations. Enforcing immigration laws is a federal plenary power, so abolition might necessitate new laws to avoid constitutional gaps in border control.
• Political Implications: As an introduced bill referred to multiple committees (Judiciary, Ways and Means, Homeland Security), it reflects deep partisan divides on immigration policy. Passage would require broad congressional support, likely sparking intense debate on national security versus civil liberties, and could influence future executive actions or elections.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13]

Recent Actions

• 2026-01-16: Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability.
• 2026-01-16: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
• 2026-01-15: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-01-15: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-01-15: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-01-15: Introduced in House
• 2026-01-15: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Abolish ICE Act — issued 2026-01-15 — PDF (5 pages)