On February 6, 2026, a fierce debate erupted in Washington, D.C., as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called for sweeping changes to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the wake of two high-profile deaths. The passing of Renee Macklin Good and Alex Pretti—two cases that have captured national attention—prompted Jeffries to demand that Congress take immediate steps to rein in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which he described as “completely and totally out of control.”
According to NPR, Jeffries did not mince words during a Morning Edition interview, declaring, “ICE is completely and totally out of control and it needs to be reined in, which is why we need dramatic reform at the Department of Homeland Security.” His comments underscored the growing frustration among Democrats who believe that ICE’s enforcement tactics have become too aggressive and lack accountability.
In a coordinated move, Jeffries joined forces with Senate Minority Leader Chuck E. Schumer on February 5, 2026, sending a strongly worded letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. The letter, as reported by NPR, laid out a series of demands designed to overhaul ICE’s operational guidelines. Chief among these were the prohibition of masks for federal agents and a new requirement that all immigration enforcement officers wear body cameras during public interactions.
The push for these reforms was not made in isolation. The deaths of Good and Pretti have provided a rallying point for critics of ICE, who argue that the agency’s current practices lack transparency and foster an environment ripe for abuse. The letter to Johnson and Thune articulated this urgency, insisting that new guardrails are necessary to restore public trust and ensure accountability.
“We are calling on our Republican colleagues to join us in instituting common-sense reforms that will protect both the public and our law enforcement officers,” Jeffries explained in his interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep. The House Minority Leader’s comments reflect a sentiment that has been building for months among progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups, many of whom see ICE as emblematic of deeper problems within DHS.
But as with most things in Washington, consensus is elusive. While some Republicans have expressed openness to certain elements of the proposal—most notably, the requirement for body cameras—others have balked at the idea of banning masks for agents. According to NPR, several GOP members argue that masks are necessary for operational security, particularly in situations involving dangerous fugitives or undercover work. They warn that removing this tool could endanger officers and compromise sensitive operations.
Despite these reservations, the overall proposal has not been outright rejected by Republican leadership. In fact, Johnson and Thune have signaled a willingness to enter negotiations, albeit with clear boundaries. “Many Republicans say they will support some changes—like ICE agents wearing body cameras. But some GOP members draw the line at getting rid of masks,” NPR reported. This leaves the door open, at least for now, to a bipartisan discussion on how best to reform ICE without undermining its core mission.
Time, however, is not on lawmakers’ side. The window for negotiations is expected to be short, and with the political climate as charged as ever, both sides will need to move quickly if they hope to reach a compromise. Jeffries and Schumer’s letter has set the stage for what could be a contentious debate, one that will test the willingness of Congress to enact meaningful change in response to public outrage and mounting calls for accountability.
For many Democrats, the stakes are clear. They see the deaths of Good and Pretti as tragic reminders of what can happen when law enforcement agencies are allowed to operate without sufficient oversight. “We need dramatic reform at the Department of Homeland Security,” Jeffries insisted during his NPR appearance. The push for body cameras and the ban on masks are, in their view, necessary steps to prevent future tragedies and to bring ICE in line with modern standards of policing and transparency.
Republicans, on the other hand, are treading carefully. While there is some recognition that reforms may be necessary, especially when it comes to increasing transparency through body cameras, many are wary of going too far. The idea of removing masks, in particular, has become a flashpoint. Some GOP lawmakers argue that such a move could inadvertently put agents at risk or hinder their ability to carry out sensitive tasks. They also raise concerns about setting a precedent that could spill over into other areas of law enforcement.
Yet, even amid these disagreements, there is a sense that the status quo is untenable. The deaths of Good and Pretti have brought new urgency to the debate over ICE’s future, forcing lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to confront difficult questions about the balance between security and civil liberties. As negotiations get underway, both parties will have to grapple with the challenge of crafting reforms that address legitimate concerns about accountability without undermining the agency’s ability to protect the nation’s borders.
According to NPR, Jeffries remains steadfast in his commitment to reform. “We need to hold immigration enforcement officers accountable for their interactions with the public,” he said, reiterating the need for body cameras and other measures. The proposed reforms, he argues, are not about hamstringing law enforcement but about ensuring that those tasked with upholding the law do so with integrity and respect for the rights of all individuals.
Whether Congress will be able to bridge the gap between competing priorities remains to be seen. The next few weeks promise to be pivotal, as lawmakers race against the clock to hammer out an agreement that satisfies both demands for reform and the practical realities of law enforcement. With public scrutiny at an all-time high and the memories of Good and Pretti still fresh, the outcome of these negotiations could have far-reaching implications—not just for ICE, but for the future of immigration enforcement in the United States.
As the debate unfolds, one thing is certain: the call for accountability and transparency within ICE has reached a fever pitch. Lawmakers from both parties now face the daunting task of translating that call into concrete action, all while navigating the treacherous waters of partisan politics. The coming days will reveal whether Congress is up to the challenge—or whether the status quo, for better or worse, will prevail once again.