Even as some thought the controversy over immigration enforcement appeared to have already reached its zenith, fresh polling reveals that America’s deep domestic divisions on the issue are not only persisting but continuing to widen.

A new Economist/YouGov poll, conducted between February 27 and March 2, reveals how Americans’ support for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is at a historic high — 50% are in support, with only 39% opposed. For the first time in YouGov’s tracking, the “abolish ICE” camp has crossed the halfway mark, climbing steadily since January as ongoing debates over border security and enforcement tactics first began to unravel.

Democrats are leading the surge, with 77% in support of abolishing ICE. Independents have jumped up to a new high of 52%. Even Republicans, though 68% remain opposed, are also breaking records with 23% in favor. Large majorities also want ICE agents to wear clear identifiers and oppose face-covering masks during operations, despite arguments that such measures are in place to protect agent safety. Overall, 44% of Americans have no trust in ICE. By party, 76% of Democrats report no confidence, while 60% of Republicans express a lot of confidence.

The survey links much of the support for abolition to perceptions of excessive force, with 58% citing this as a reason. At the same time, 30% say ICE’s use of force has been “necessary and justified,” though that number did drop from 34% in October. Others argue that abolishing ICE would undermine its work deporting criminals, disrupting trafficking, and enforcing immigration laws that protect American workers and communities.

Notably, this surge in “abolish ICE” support stands in stark contrast to other recent polling on immigration outcomes. A Harvard Harris poll conducted February 26-28 found that 57% of Americans want all illegal migrants sent home — including 79% of Republicans, 54% of Independents, and 35% of Democrats. ICE is the primary federal agency tasked with immigration enforcement and deportations of those in the country illegally. Consequently, while half the public now backs abolishing ICE, a clear majority appears to endorse the very result — mass removals — that the agency is tasked with carrying out.

This inconsistency further emphasizes the polarized debate at hand: many Americans support deporting those they believe should return home, yet a growing share wants to eliminate the main tool for doing so. Regardless, it stands to reason that both polls land at a particularly tense moment culturally.

From mass protests that have erupted nationwide — spanning cities like Minneapolis, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Phoenix — to the tragic deaths of two U.S. citizens during hostile encounters with federal agents, the public discourse on immigration enforcement has reached a fever pitch. This was only exemplified further when anti-ICE agitators stormed Cities Church in Minnesota in January, claiming they had a First Amendment right to disrupt the service, even as it scared congregants and children.

Yet the backlash has only intensified as the November 2026 midterms approach, as questions swirl over potential federal interference in the electoral process. In early February, Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist during the first Trump administration, commented on his podcast that ICE should “surround the polls come November” to prevent election theft and noncitizen voting. Not long after these statements, Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation responding to those concerns.

On March 2, for example, Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.) introduced the Democracy Without Intimidation Act, which would make it a federal crime — punishable by up to five years in prison — for senior officials to order law enforcement, including ICE, to polling places. McClain Delaney claimed such deployments constitute “fascism” aimed at suppressing turnout. Pushing a similar legislation, Reps. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), and Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) introduced the Stop ICE Election Militarization Act, which seeks to restrict immigration enforcement near polling places and requires specific probable cause for any related actions.

These measures, however, face significant obstacles in a Republican-controlled Congress, where supporters argue that they are overreactions that could undermine legitimate efforts to secure elections against active noncitizen voting concerns. Those in favor of stronger safeguards, including the SAVE America Act, see that such tools protect electoral integrity without broad federal overreach.

Amid these ongoing debates, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to calm the storm during a March 3 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. She testified that DHS has “no plans” to deploy ICE or other officers to polling places. Pressed repeatedly by Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) to rule it out entirely, Noem reiterated the lack of plans but added a caveat: “There should be no need to, unless you plan on illegals voting.”

Federal law already prohibits military involvement at voting sites and criminalizes voter intimidation. But as 2026 unfolds, the divide remains sharp: one side views strong enforcement as essential for sovereignty and fair elections while the other sees it as a risk on various fronts.