A House Democrat is pushing a sweeping proposal that would eliminate one of America’s most important federal agencies, setting up another major political battle with President Donald Trump over immigration enforcement and national security.
Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois has introduced legislation that would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and dramatically change how the federal government handles border security.
The proposal, known as the Reimagining Safety Act, comes as Democrats intensify their criticism of Trump’s immigration enforcement policies.
The legislation is drawing renewed attention following a controversial federal search of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home and a shooting involving immigration agents in New York City.
The proposal raises a significant question: What would happen to America’s border security and national safety operations if Homeland Security were eliminated?
Democrat Pushes Sweeping Plan to Eliminate Homeland Security
Ramirez wants to dismantle DHS, the federal department established after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to coordinate efforts to protect the United States.
Her legislation would go considerably further than simply reforming immigration enforcement.
The proposal would eliminate ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including the Border Patrol, while replacing DHS with a newly established Department of Community Safety.
Under the plan, federal resources would be redirected toward community safety initiatives, violence prevention, and programs intended to address underlying social problems.
Some existing federal functions, including transportation security, emergency management, cybersecurity, and customs operations, would be preserved or reassigned to other departments.
However, the measure would fundamentally change the structure of federal immigration enforcement.
Ramirez initially announced the proposal in September, but the legislation gained additional attention after recent federal enforcement controversies.
Ilhan Omar Investigation Intensifies Debate
The political controversy escalated after federal investigators searched the Washington, D.C., residence of Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat and prominent Trump critic.
On October 12, agents from Homeland Security Investigations executed a search warrant authorized by a federal judge.
According to reports, investigators are examining immigration-related records associated with Omar’s arrival in the United States as a child.
The Justice Department confirmed that the search was part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation but did not publicly disclose the underlying evidence.
Omar strongly criticized the operation, accusing the Trump administration of targeting a political opponent.
Democratic congressional leaders also questioned the timing of the search, which occurred just weeks before the November midterm elections.
However, the existence of an investigation does not establish wrongdoing, and the political motivation alleged by Democrats has not been independently established.
The incident has nevertheless intensified disagreements over the authority and accountability of federal law enforcement agencies.
New York ICE Shooting Adds to Growing Controversy
Another development contributing to the debate involves a shooting during an immigration enforcement operation in the Bronx, New York.
The incident, involving Oscar Belgal and federal immigration agents, prompted renewed criticism of ICE enforcement practices.
Ramirez cited the shooting and the search of Omar’s home while arguing that the Department of Homeland Security should be dismantled.
The Illinois Democrat believes the existing system gives federal agencies excessive enforcement authority and has called for an alternative approach emphasizing community safety and individual rights.
Her position highlights a growing division over how aggressively the federal government should enforce immigration laws.
Trump has made stronger immigration enforcement a major priority of his administration, while Ramirez and other progressive lawmakers are seeking to substantially reduce the government’s existing immigration enforcement powers.
What Would Eliminating DHS Mean for Americans?
The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for far more than immigration enforcement.
Since its establishment in 2002, the agency has played a central role in coordinating federal efforts involving border protection, airport security, emergency preparedness, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism.
Its responsibilities affect millions of Americans, from travelers passing through airport security to communities preparing for major natural disasters.
Ramirez’s proposal would retain or redistribute several of those functions rather than eliminate every service currently provided by DHS.
Still, dismantling the department would represent a significant restructuring of the federal government.
One of the biggest questions is how the United States would continue securing its borders and enforcing immigration laws under the proposed replacement system.
Supporters believe the legislation could reduce aggressive enforcement tactics while strengthening community-based public safety programs.
Opponents could argue that eliminating established immigration enforcement agencies would create serious challenges for border security and federal coordination.
Both sides are likely to focus on these questions as the political debate continues.
Republicans Face Another Major Immigration Battle
The legislation arrives at a politically sensitive moment for President Trump and congressional Republicans.
With the November 3, 2026, midterm elections approaching, immigration enforcement remains a major issue separating the two parties.
Trump has consistently promoted stronger border security and immigration enforcement, making Ramirez’s proposal a direct challenge to a central administration priority.
The measure would require congressional approval before becoming law.
Given the significant political disagreements surrounding immigration, the proposal faces substantial obstacles.
Even if Congress approved it, the legislation would still require Trump’s signature or enough congressional support to override a presidential veto.
That makes the immediate elimination of Homeland Security highly unlikely.
Nevertheless, the proposal provides voters with another example of the contrasting approaches to immigration and federal law enforcement being debated in Washington.
What Happens Next?
For now, the Department of Homeland Security remains operational, and federal immigration enforcement continues under existing law.
Ramirez’s legislation has not changed DHS authority or eliminated ICE or the Border Patrol.
However, the proposal could become an important talking point as Republicans and Democrats compete for control of Congress.
The debate also raises broader questions about government accountability, public safety, and the proper role of federal law enforcement.
As the midterm elections draw closer, Americans will have an opportunity to consider the different approaches being offered by lawmakers.
Whether Homeland Security should be restructured, reformed, or maintained in its current form remains a significant policy question—one that could influence the nation’s approach to border security and immigration enforcement for years to come.