Spanberger Fabricates ICE History, Undermines Border Security

The piece critiques Virginia Democrat Abigail Spanberger’s recent comments about ICE, arguing she misstates the agency’s origins and purpose, mischaracterizes its counterterrorism role, and downplays the border crisis under the Biden administration.

Abigail Spanberger’s recent interview included a claim about the founding purpose of ICE that drew sharp pushback. She suggested ICE was created mainly to oversee the importation of goods and only later shifted to counterterrorism and immigration enforcement. That line of reasoning surprised many who know the agency’s post-9/11 origin and its ties to the Department of Homeland Security.

During the exchange, Spanberger said: “Related to the value or purpose of ICE , when ICE was put together, [mumbles] multiple organizations came together under the umbrella of ICE for the purpose of [mumbles] the importation of goods — in addition to people crossing borders so [mumbles] that we could, under Homeland Security, have a better [mumbles] view of what risks are facing our country. …

I think when we pivoted primarily toward counterterrorism focus, then that did change the tenor of the way that ICE agents were engaging with people, because now there’s a move from patrolling or protecting the border to this idea that [we’re] keeping terrorists out, or we’re protecting the homeland in a different way that becomes more of a focus of what … offense is that person looking to … um… commit. 

Those comments raise real questions about Spanberger’s grasp of modern security institutions. ICE was formed after the September 11 attacks as part of the homeland security overhaul, combining existing functions to address new threats. Its mission has always included criminal investigations, immigration enforcement, and preserving national security, not merely supervising cargo imports.

To argue otherwise risks minimizing the agency’s role in counterterrorism and public safety. ICE houses Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations, among other units that handle criminal networks, human trafficking, and national security threats. Suggesting ICE only later “pivoted” to counterterrorism ignores why the agency was stood up in the first place.

Spanberger also complained that ICE’s focus has shifted away from patrolling toward other priorities. That reading ignores a simple fact: the border reality changed dramatically during the Biden-Harris years. Millions of unlawful entries and lax enforcement created a need for more aggressive interior enforcement and criminal investigations tied to the resulting crime surge.

Under those conditions, ICE agents have had to adapt to dangerous, unpredictable work to remove criminal aliens and dismantle cross-border criminal operations. Saying the agency is overstepping because it now tackles terrorism, smuggling, and organized crime reveals a policy blind spot at a time when Americans expect secure borders and public safety.

The timing of Spanberger’s remarks also matters politically. With the gubernatorial race in Virginia tight, comments that mischaracterize federal law enforcement will be parsed and challenged by voters. Many conservatives see this as another example of a candidate out of step with concerns about immigration, public safety, and the impact of federal policy choices.

Media-friendly sound bites that minimize the border crisis won’t reassure voters living with the consequences of weak enforcement. Republicans argue the correct response is stronger border control, clearer agency mandates for removal of criminal aliens, and accountability for lawlessness at entry points. Those are the priorities many conservative voters say they want candidates to emphasize.

Beyond the policy arguments, there is the matter of credibility. When a candidate offers a shaky explanation of a key federal agency’s origin and mission, opponents will call that out—and voters will judge whether it reflects a lack of seriousness about national security. That dynamic plays directly into the debate about who is best suited to protect public safety and enforce immigration laws.