e.economist.com

🔴 The Insider: Donald Trump’s ICE experiment

2026-01-28 · 19:12 UTC ·Zanny Minton Beddoes at The Economist ·6 min read

Brief

Zanny Minton Beddoes uses this Insider newsletter to set up a forthcoming Economist panel on whether Trump’s use of ICE has crossed from harsh immigration enforcement into something closer to a proto-paramilitary experiment. The piece argues that Minneapolis may be a turning point because two citizens were killed by federal immigration agents, videos of the violence circulated widely, and the administration’s public justification was later described as false. It emphasizes both institutional and political tests ahead: whether courts impose accountability, whether Congress constrains ICE funding, and whether public opinion forces a tactical retreat. The newsletter includes several concrete markers of that retreat—Gregory Bovino’s replacement by Tom Homan, Trump’s own “de-escalate a little bit” comment, and polling showing 60% of Americans think officers’ tactics are too forceful. Although framed as analysis, the item is mostly an event promo rather than a reported investigation, with the $170bn immigration-enforcement figure serving as its main policy-scale detail.

Cleaned source text

title: 🔴 The Insider: Donald Trump’s ICE experiment

author: Zanny Minton Beddoes at The Economist

content_type: newsletter

publication: e.economist.com

published: 2026-01-28T13:12:48-06:00

source_url: gmail://19c06096e759f5f6

word_count: 1243

How will it shape American democracy?

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

January 28th 2026

For subscribers

Insider

Behind the scenes at _The Economist

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

Donald Trump’s ICE experiment

Zanny Minton Beddoes

Editor-in-chief

Is America sliding from democracy towards authoritarianism? And, in trying to answer that question, how can we at _The Economist_ steer a course that avoids both Trump-derangement syndrome, where we interpret every presidential action in the most extreme, negative light, and yet also avoid normalising illiberal, proto-tyrannical behaviour?

I have been thinking about this a lot during the past year and, no doubt like many of you, I have been brushing up on historical analogies both in America and elsewhere. My general approach, as my colleagues know well, has been to urge calm. America is a resilient democracy that has survived a lot. However ugly, the administration’s actions, especially as regards illegal immigration, are often in line with the promises Donald Trump ran on. And the more you draw on imperfect analogies, the less power they have.

The events in Minneapolis, however, may prove a Rubicon. Is the Trump administration creating paramilitary organisations with barely checked power to use violence against American citizens? That is a dividing line between liberty and tyranny. Mr Trump went right up to the line this week, and then pulled back.

Federal immigration agents have now killed two citizens in the Midwestern city. The administration’s characterisation of these individuals as terrorists was blatantly false; the officers’ unwarranted brutality was obvious in videos watched by millions around the world. Public outrage over the latest shooting—of Alex Pretti, a protester and nurse—was powerful and bipartisan. Republican lawmakers found a rare voice; so, too, did otherwise silent CEOs. It prompted a clear retreat. The president has replaced Gregory Bovino, the macho commander of the Minnesota crackdown, with Tom Homan, his “border czar”. And yesterday Mr Trump told Fox News that his administration would “de-escalate a little bit” in the city.

I’ll be asking my colleagues what they make of this pivot and the events in Minneapolis. What’s their understanding of Mr Trump’s vision for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? Is it a sinister proto-paramilitary force or an aggressive, ugly means of fulfilling Mr Trump’s campaign pledge on immigration? What happens from here? What are the implications for the midterm elections in November? And what does all this mean for the health of American democracy?

To kick off the conversation I want to take a clear-eyed look at ICE: its culture, recruitment strategy, style of enforcement and chain of command. The agency was a major beneficiary of Mr Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which included $170bn for immigration enforcement. But its masked agents seem to operate with impunity. I’ll be asking Robert Guest, deputy editor, and Steve Coll, senior editor, what it is about the organisation that so appeals to a president with strongman instincts. And just how far do they think the president will take his paramilitary experiment?

Ed Carr, my co-host and deputy editor, and Charlotte Howard, our executive editor and New York bureau chief, will also help unpack what might come next—and why it’s important for American democracy. One of the big tests to come is whether the courts will hold accountable those responsible for the killings. Another test will take place in the political arena. Is Mr Trump’s retreat in the face of poor polling (three in five Americans say immigration officers’ tactics are too forceful) and the possibility of a government shutdown over ICE funding a sign of serious change or just tactical? I’ll wrap up the show by asking my colleagues where they expect the political battle to go from here.

The show will be available to watch from 6pm London time (1pm in New York) on Thursday. Please send your questions to us via the Q&A portal on the episode page and write to us at insider@economist.com with your feedback after the show.

Frame the debate

Is ICE a serious threat to American democracy?

Next show

The Insider

The ICE test: how the Minneapolis killings will shape American democracy

Does this mark a turning point for Donald Trump?

Thursday Jan 29th, 6pm GMT · 45 min

Add to calendar

Watch on demand

Inside Defence

How satellite imagery is reshaping open-source intelligence

Will Marshall, CEO of Planet, on the future of space surveillance

Recorded on Jan 27th · 41 min

Watch now

![timer]()

Overheard in the newsroom

America as a country should not be dependent on one individual’s self-restraint.

—Charlotte Howard, our executive editor and New York bureau chief, during a discussion about ICE and the limits of presidential power. She calls for America’s other branches of government to be more assertive.

All upcoming shows