Will ICE be used to intimidate voters? A new bill might make that possible.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Could new funding slated for ICE be used for a midterm election surprise? We’ll break down what might happen on this episode of our Capitol Hill Inequality Watch video React. Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome back to our Capitol Hill React show where we watch comment and analyze developments at the nation’s capital and beyond. It’s a show filtered through the prism of inequality and informed by the intellectual context of analyzing the imperative of raw power and exposing how it corrupts a political power that is supposed to serve we, the people. Now, to start the show, I want to introduce my reporting partner, Stephen Janis. Hello, Stephen. How are you?

Stephen Janis:

Hey, Taya, how are you doing? Good to be back here with you talking about power and politics.

Taya Graham:

Excellent. Well, we appreciate having you back. Now, today, we’re going to start with a comment from a single Congressman that will prompt us to explore and examine a topic that rarely gets the attention it deserves, namely America’s law enforcement’s role in maintaining and preserving extra judicial power for the elites and their elected officials. They do so by enforcing these anti-Democratic impulses and boundaries erected to defend extractive capitalism that has led to historically extreme wealth inequality. Now, this practice has been mainstreamed by the current Trump administration, which has used the levers of government to enrich itself and its supporters, and now apparently other countries proposing this week to execute a currency swap with the United Arab Emirates to help them, not Americans, to help them survive the Iran war economically. But of course, none of this makes sense unless we analyze how this confluence of police, politics, and power finds its way towards the ultimate goal, enrichment through authoritarianism.

And the idea is of love help unless we unpack how all the aforementioned concepts find form and fashion in our lives, meaning we the people who have to live with the chaos. And so to start this explanation and break down how these forces will play out, we return to Capitol Hill. First, Stephen, before we run the clips, can you just talk a little bit about how law enforcement inequality and capitalism interact?

Stephen Janis:

So this is a little theory we have called the inequitable equilibrium law enforcement theory, which basically says that the worst economic inequality gets, the more law enforcement has to ratchet up its unjust enforcement of laws and boundaries to keep people from rising up. Basically what you have, and we’ve seen this in a city like Baltimore, it has extreme poverty amidst riches. And what happened? We had zero tolerance. We had a huge investment in policing, and still Baltimore City spends all its money on policing. Now we’re sitting on the federal level with ICE, and this theory kind of applies to the social and the economic and the fiscal mounting fiscal burden that is being put on the American people to enforce what is in extreme wealth inequality, Taya. And so we’re going to use that to kind of look at all the things that are happening on Capitol Hill now.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, I think Baltimore is such a good example, as well as some of the rural communities we covered on our show, the Police Accountability Report, where poverty and law enforcement is rampant. So let’s put this theory to the test with some clips from a press conference on Capitol Hill we attended. Now, the occasion was a plan by the Republicans to fund ICE to the tune of 70 billion additional dollars. That’s right, that’s billion with a B. Now, the idea was a result of a standoff with Democrats who refused to vote to fund ICE unless major reforms were implemented, namely no mass, no warrantless raids, no body cameras. And wow, this is amazing, name badges. But the Republicans said no. And now they’re trying to hand over even more money to ICE and Border Patrol, which, and I’m not kidding, already has more money than most foreign militaries.

Of the $170 billion in the big beautiful bill allocated for DHS, roughly 140 billion was allocated for ICE and CBP, some for enforcement, some for incarceration, and some for, well, that remains to be seen. But Democrats called out the plan, which they said was excessive. Let’s watch.

Speaker 3:

You see every single member of Congress who is saying that it is unacceptable that DHS terrorize our communities has to listen to the growing number of Americans calling for more than training, more than reform, and more than the bare minimum policy. Those of us who are clear that our taxpayer dollars should not be used to terrorize our communities and violate our rights must not only stand opposed to new investments, but we should significantly diminish ISIS funding and their authority.

Taya Graham:

So Stephen, you hear her outline the amount of money that’s going to be given to ICE. What’s your reaction to Representative Ramirez?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, I think what we’re getting at here is the fact that ICE is being used to enforce all sorts of unjust laws throughout the country and kind of building federal police force to do what we’re talking about before, which is enforce inequality. You need kind of inequality warriors. You can go into a community, disrupt it, disrupt the natural flow of commerce, but most of all, disrupt dissent, which is what we saw in Minneapolis, right? Disruption of dissent. Dissent is the biggest problem for these economic inequality warriors, and that’s what they’re building, a federal police force to deal with it.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, you also asked a question to elicit an answer that really touches on the theme of the show, namely, does ICE and CBP actually need $70 billion more? Let’s listen to Congressman Rob Menendez. He’s a Democrat from New Jersey. Let’s listen to him answer.

Stephen Janis:

So have they given you any idea what this 70 billion is going to be used for? I mean, they’ve already got a hundred and some odd billion. Why do they need extra 70 billion? And

Congressman Rob Menendez:

That’s why I go back to the lead up to November and what they could potentially use the extra $70 billion for to try to militarize ICE across the country. You’ve already seen them do it in Chicago, LA, Minneapolis. And I’m worried if they would use the $70 billion to have ICE to have CBPA in blue districts across the country to try to intimidate voters. That’s a question the administration and Republicans need to answer.

Stephen Janis:

So you’re concerned literally that they’re going to interfere, use this as like a federal police force to interfere with the election?

Congressman Rob Menendez:

That’s right. And look at one of the reforms that we have asked for over and over again during this partial government shutdown is to guarantee that they will not, and they have not agreed to those terms. So yes, it’s something that I’m very concerned about.

Taya Graham:

Now, Stephen, this is on top of the huge sums of money I’ve already mentioned. And in fact, if this additional funding passes, ICE and Border Patrol budget would dwarf the FBI. And in fact, there’s never been an enforcement agency with so much money to spend. I mean, its budget is bigger than the entire federal prison system, which I think makes Congressman Menendez’s concerns harder to ignore. I mean, they’re just awash in billions and the agency is certainly capable of election intimidation and certainly the Trump administration has been setting the table, so to speak, by continually calling into question the 2020 election. So how does this fit into your theory? I mean, are elections the fulcrum of authoritarian power?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, it’s hard. I think you have to use a little bit of imagination. Imagine what it would be like if elected officials didn’t have to worry about voters. You saw a little bit of preview when Congress was shut down for eight weeks by Speaker Mike Johnson and where the healthcare benefits that people wanted, the ACA subsidies were just completely ignored. You’ve seen echoes and glimpses of, we have seen and witnessed echoes and glimpses of it, but it’s transformative. And I think that’s why the attack is on the election. It will totally transform the landscape of the political processes in this country and they’re funding it because it’s going to be expensive. They’re going to have to put ICE agents, CPB, border patrol. They’re going to have to do enforcement, incarceration. They’re going to do, I think, the same attack on dissent that we’ve seen in other cities.

So it’s incredibly expensive. They have the money to do it, but it’s also like the last sort of threshold they have to pass to really make this authoritarian sort of capitalism work, the extractive capitalism that people are pushing back on. They don’t want to pay $4 for gas. They don’t want to pay for a war in Iran. Now they have to somehow throttle the dissent that could occur in this midterm election. If they don’t, I think their plans are going to be somewhat impeded. So yes, everything is here. All the elements are on the table, and it’s frankly very scary that a Congressman would even be saying this on Capitol Hill.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, you make such an excellent point. I mean, the voting booth is where we actually have a chance to dissent and make our point. Absolutely. And you know what? Let’s just run down some of the recent actions the Trump administration has taken to question the integrity of the election and compare it with the actual facts. So recently, the Trump administration requested ballots from Wayne County, Michigan, which includes Detroit for the 2024 election. The Justice Department cited past cases of fraud. However, none of the examples of fraud cited were the result of the 2024 election. And then the Justice Department also sees ballots from Fulton County, Georgia, which includes Atlanta earlier this year under the auspices again of unproven fraud allegations in the 2024 election. And the Justice Department has also sued 29 states to force them to turn over voter data, including sensitive personal information.

And Trump has now appointed 2020 election denier Eric Olson as the head of a presidential agency of election integrity. Olsen worked closely with my pillow CEO, Mike Lindell, to file lawsuits after the 2020 election, which were all unsuccessful. And mind you, the Constitution says the president has no authority over elections. So Stephen, it seems like, like we said, the table is set for an intervention. Can you break down how this might happen? Okay.

Stephen Janis:

Basically what they’re doing here is setting up an idea we call blanket criminality that we talked about in the police accountability report, where you take a community, you criminalize it, and then say they don’t have access to rights. They don’t have access to vote. So here, what they’re trying to do is besmirch Atlanta, which is a Black community, Detroit, majority Black community, and make it seem like they don’t have the right to vote because somehow they’re fraudulent. They are totally trying to criminalize an entire community and say you don’t have the right to vote. You don’t have the right to participate in the Democratic process. I think they’re going to try this in other communities. They already have asked for ballots in other communities across the country. In fact, as you pointed out, they’d ask for ballots in states across the country. But what they’re going to do is create this sort of probable cause to violate the Democratic rights and to take away the right to vote.

They don’t deserve the right to vote because they’re fraudulent. No proof of it, no proof. Let me be clear, no proof whatsoever. But then again, when we looked at zero tolerance in Baltimore City, there was no proof that 100,000 people committed a crime, but it didn’t stop the government from insinuating that and taking away the constitutional rights of the people here in this city. So I think they’re going to apply this to other communities and use it as a pretext, a pretext to take away their right to vote. Blanket criminality is going to be applied here and it’s going to be brutal.

Taya Graham:

And just for the record, that blanket criminality that occurred in Baltimore did occur under a Democratic mayor and a Democratic governor. So just for the record, power does choose to serve itself. And when they choose to criminalize an entire community and delegitimize them, then there’s no way a community has any voice anymore.

And that is the concern with these upcoming elections. Now, I think part of that effort to criminalize and then subjugate the voters in the upcoming election starts with a law enforcement agency that honestly is predicated upon violence. We have already witnessed ISUs violence against American citizens and immigrants. I mean, two US citizens were killed in Minneapolis earlier this year. Both Renee, Nicole Goode and Alex Pretty were gunned down during encounters with ICE and Border Patrol and deemed domestic terrorists by Department of Homeland Security head, Kristi Nome. But there is another big factor, which is to your point, Stephen, about the role law enforcement plays an inequality because another topic in DC is how profitable ICE and border patrol actions have been for private corporations. Let’s listen to Congresswoman Rashida Talib talk about it.

Congresswoman Rashida Talib:

So while ICE is locking up more of our immigrant neighbors more than ever before, 70,000 people, investors, this is why I want you all to follow the money. It’s important. Investors in private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group are getting richer. The violent kidnappings and the murders and the incarceration of our loved ones is fueling record profits for these companies, and it’s still not enough to satisfy their greed. Last December, I conducted an oversight visit in North Lake, ICE Prison in Baldwin, Michigan, where there has been one death so far in multiple suicide attempts, including a young teenage boy, I believe his 19 might turn 20 years old while they’re using the crack of a cell phone glass, slicing his arms, wanting to die then stay in that Baldwin facility. And Gio Group who owns and runs the facility reported $254 million in profits last year.

These companies are making record profits off of violence and human suffering. And the agency, and this is so important, is bousting about it. They’re literally bragging, talking about ICE bragging about it. ICE Director Todd Lyons had said they need to treat ice detention in deportation, quote, “like Amazon Prime, but with human

Taya Graham:

Beings.” Just like Amazon Prime, I mean, I’m sorry, that is just a horrifying comparison. And then to hear about the utter despair that people are enduring, a 19-year-old, someone with their whole life to look ahead of them is threatening suicide. I mean, it’s just horrible. And just to put an even finer point on the idea that ICE’s largest prison contractors have profited tremendously, it shows that this reality, that suffering can be monetized. I mean, CoreCivic and GeoGroup, two of the biggest contractors for ICE have booked over $1 billion in revenue for caging people. They charge $165 per day for each inmate they house. That’s real money to put a real person in a cage. And just to give you an idea of the scope of the services currently, ICE is holding between 60,000 to 70,000 people, which is almost double the total in 2024. And when you keep this in mind, the ICE budget has increased 400% from two years ago.

That’s an incredible amount of money that can be used for detaining and incarcerating families. Stephen, I have to ask you, how does the profit margin figure into this idea of inequality and law enforcement?

Stephen Janis:

Well, if inequality is the imperative, then profit is the accelerant. Okay. So profit helps accelerate the sort of inequality itself, but also sort of accelerates the use of law enforcement, makes it … And once you have a profit incentive, you have private companies to step in. So you privatize the process, so you take it outside the scope of constitutional government, things that you can push back against. Like for example, say my constitutional rights, suddenly you’re just a profit margin for a corporation that has no connection to the government other than taking our tax dollars and using them to CAGE US. So it’s really like an accelerant port on this already volatile situation that only makes it worse for the people, as you were saying, but makes it better for the corporations and makes it so profitable that it creates a political economy in Congress where people are donating money to Congresspeople like these corporations, funding their campaigns so they can get elected to serve them and not the people.

So it’s really just like the last final component of this sort of doomsday that you’ve been portraying through your talk on these bills and on the function of ICE.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, that’s such an excellent point. And just as a side note, we’ve been talking about this incredible amount of money that’s been going to ICE, and some of it was actually supposed to be used to hire new folks with bonuses, but according to reports, rumors, discussions, and screenshots taken from a Reddit page for ICE agents, which was set to private recently, a $50,000 signing bonus that ICE and CBP people were supposed to receive hasn’t worked out like they expected. It has been reportedly structured to be paid out in $10,000 increments over five years, or only to be paid to returning retired members of ICE. But there’s a repay clause. The contract reportedly requires new hires to stay for five years with a stipulation that they must repay the bonus if they leave or are fired before that time. Also, agents reported that smaller portions of the bonus arrived and were heavily taxed.

Now, I checked Snopes for validation on this, and these rumors can’t be completely confirmed because no one from ICE is willing to go on the record. So it seems like the money promised to the agents themselves is a bit of an illusion. Okay, Stephen, so it seems like the bottom line right here is that we have a federal law enforcement agency that is set to receive a massive infusion of funds on top of the already record setting funding. We have Republicans refusing to implement basic reforms that are common practice of law enforcement across the country. We have a sprawling federal law enforcement agency that has been a source of massive profits for private corporations. And now we have allegations that the Trump administration, which has been pushing false theories of election fraud, will use ICE and Border Patrol to intimidate voters in the upcoming midterm elections.

I mean, Stephen, what do you make of all of this?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I think this reality that you’re depicting reflects the underlying reality of wealth inequality and the ugliness of wealth inequality and how extreme it has become. It’s become more and more extreme. And so we see more and more extreme situations. I mean, throwing $70 billion extra Ed ICE at a federal law enforcement agency, when, for example, we pay $1 trillion a year in interest on federal debt, we can’t even pay our freaking bills is unbelievable. But it’s that way because inequality exists, because we have corporate money flowing into politics and people really not getting the truth and people voting against their own self-interest, we have this incredible federal law enforcement complex, which now is going to be used against us in terms of suppressing our Democratic rights. Its ugliness is reflected of the ugly reality of inequality, and it’s only going to get uglier because inequality is going to continue to grow if this is allowed to persist.

It’s really, there’s not a way out of this unless we tamp down on this money and somehow tamped down on the evolution of a federal law enforcement agency, which seems possibly predicated upon taking away our Democratic rights. We’ll see.

Taya Graham:

I mean, Stephen, to your point, President Trump has proved again and again that he’s capable of pushing boundaries and overriding norms in pursuit of these desperate goals. I mean, when I read that tweet about his threat to end the civilization of Iran, I thought it was actually less about the warfare and more about his need to portray absolute authority, and that does not bode well for the midterms. If it seems like the Democrats have a chance or on the verge of winning the House, I think it’s entirely possible ICE could become a factor in ways that we can’t even imagine yet. And I mean, it would’ve absolutely seemed implausible a few years ago that ICE would shoot two US citizens on the streets of a US city in broad daylight, and yet that has happened and even more. Dozens of people have died in ICE custody.

Children have been jailed and deported despite court orders. And all this was due to one man’s desire to meet his stated goal to deport one million people a year. And that is why the possibility of electoral interference is so scary. If the administration appears to be on the break of losing its near total grip on power, then anything is possible. If the voters decide to subject the administration to real accountability, the pushback is inevitable. So the point is this administration tried to overturn one election. Why wouldn’t they try another? I mean, Stephen, what are your thoughts?

Stephen Janis:

Well, many people say, and many experts who we’ve spoken to like Dr. Richard Wolfe said that inequality eventually destroys democracy. And we’re seeing this because this administration is a personification of inequality. When you look at the billionaires that populate the cabinet, you look at the way the Trump administration has enriched itself with cryptocurrency, this is the literally electoral embodiment of inequality. So I am really scared and also upset that we’re even discussing this because I really wish this was totally improbable. And I wish we didn’t have to discuss this and I wish we didn’t have to review this evidence or even ask a Congressman this question and push him on this and say, “Is this what you really think? ” One of the reasons I asked him the question twice was because I just couldn’t believe in some sense what I was hearing. Not that it’s not possible, but just none of us really want to contemplate the idea that democracy will somehow be subverted by one person, but that’s the reality we’re facing.

And so I feel like we are facing a pivotal moment in the history of economic inequality in which we might lose our Democratic rights and I think we hopefully will be able to preserve them, but I’m concerned.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, I think every American should be concerned, but you know what we’re going to do? We’re going to keep going to Washington DC. We’re going to keep showing up to Capitol Hill, bothering the Congressmen. We’re going to keep on showing up to those press conferences, asking uncomfortable questions, and hopefully getting the answers that we deserve and that we need. My name is Taya Graham. This is Stephen Janis, we’re your inequality watchdogs reporting for you.