White House posts compilation of 57 Democratic officials' criticisms of ICE

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law‑enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission is to “protect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety.” In practice, its main responsibilities are:

• Enforcing U.S. immigration laws inside the country: locating, arresting, detaining, and removing people who are subject to deportation, especially those considered threats to public safety or national security.
• Investigating cross‑border and transnational crime: such as human smuggling and trafficking, drug and weapons smuggling, transnational gangs, financial crimes, cybercrime, trade fraud, and related offenses. ICE carries out these roles mainly through two branches: Enforcement and Removal Operations (immigration enforcement and deportations) and Homeland Security Investigations (criminal investigations involving cross‑border activity).

The article itself says it was published to coincide with National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day (January 9) and to praise ICE and other law‑enforcement officers. It frames the list of 57 Democratic statements as evidence that “Radical Left Democrats” have vilified ICE and allegedly fueled hostility toward it. The piece does not identify a single specific incident that directly triggered its publication beyond this broader political conflict and the symbolic date.

National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day (often abbreviated L.E.A.D.) is an annual observance in the United States on January 9 intended to show public support and gratitude for law‑enforcement officers. It was launched in 2015 by the nonprofit Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.) in partnership with other law‑enforcement organizations, at a time of heightened tensions and criticism of policing. It is observed nationwide by police agencies, law‑enforcement support organizations, public officials, and members of the public who choose to participate.

Governors and mayors cannot legally stop ICE from operating in their territory, because immigration enforcement is a federal power and federal officers may enforce federal law inside any state or city. However, under the “anti‑commandeering” doctrine, states and localities generally cannot be forced to use their own personnel or resources to help enforce federal immigration law. This is why many adopt “sanctuary” policies that:

• Limit when local police honor ICE detainer requests or share information, and
• Restrict local officers from asking about immigration status. These policies can sharply reduce local cooperation with ICE but do not bar ICE agents themselves from carrying out raids or arrests in those jurisdictions.

To check the accuracy and context of the quotes and links in the White House article, you can:

1. Go to the original sources: Follow each hyperlink in the list back to the full speech, interview, social‑media post, or news story and read or watch the full context around the quoted sentence.
2. Trace quotes back to primary material: Use search tools (e.g., searching the exact quoted phrase plus the official’s name) to find original video, transcripts, or official statements, and compare them with how the White House article presents them.
3. Use independent verification guides: Apply standard fact‑checking steps recommended by librarians and journalism educators—checking multiple reputable outlets, looking for full transcripts, and confirming dates and locations—rather than relying on any single partisan summary.

In U.S. law, public officials are generally subject to the same criminal rules on incitement and solicitation as anyone else, but they also have strong First Amendment protections. Two main areas are relevant:

1. Criminal incitement / solicitation

   • Under the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio standard, advocacy of violence is only punishable if it is intended to provoke imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. Mere harsh rhetoric or abstract support for illegality is protected speech.
   • Separately, 18 U.S.C. § 373 makes it a federal crime to solicit another person to commit a “crime of violence,” with substantial penalties if the underlying crime is serious. This can apply to anyone, including officials, who seriously urge others to commit violent crimes.

2. Other potential consequences

   • State criminal laws (such as aiding and abetting, solicitation, or making terroristic threats) can also apply if an official’s statements clearly encourage specific violent acts.
   • Even if speech does not meet the high bar for criminal incitement, officials may face political or professional consequences (ethics investigations, censure, loss of office) under relevant state or local rules.

The article is labeled simply as an “Articles” post on whitehouse.gov and lists “The White House” as the byline, without naming an individual author. On that site, such unsigned pieces are typically treated as official communications from the sitting administration—in this case, the Trump Administration—rather than personal commentary by a named staffer.