Broken Trust: ICE, American Citizens, and the Crisis of Accountability

In a recent congressional hearing, a rare and raw confrontation unfolded between lawmakers and the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). At the heart of the exchange was a series of disturbing allegations: American citizens being detained, assaulted, and denied due process by immigration authorities. The hearing did more than highlight individual cases—it exposed a deep crisis of trust, accountability, and constitutional norms in the United States.

The Human Cost of Broken Systems

Julie Johnson, a member of Congress, did not mince words. Her testimony was not just a critique of policy; it was a plea for justice. “When somebody says, ‘I’m an American citizen’ to ICE, and ICE does not stop and continues to assault them and physically berate them and then hold them for days and days on end without a due process hearing—that is a problem, and it is not stopping,” she declared.

Johnson’s examples were not hypothetical. She referenced multiple American citizens who had been arrested by ICE, despite having done nothing wrong. One case involved an elderly man who suffered broken ribs and a brain injury after being knocked down by agents—despite asserting his citizenship. Another involved a pregnant woman who lost her baby after being detained and mistreated. These stories were not isolated incidents, Johnson insisted, but part of a pattern that was eroding public trust in law enforcement and the rule of law itself.

The Disconnect Between Rhetoric and Reality

Throughout the hearing, Johnson and her colleagues repeatedly pointed out the gap between DHS leadership’s rhetoric and the reality on the ground. Secretary Gnome claimed she was “restoring the rule of law.” Johnson’s response was unequivocal: “That is absolutely not true because the rule of law is founded on two fundamental principles: probable cause and due process.”

Probable cause means that the government must have evidence or reasonable suspicion before arresting someone. Due process means that every person is entitled to a fair hearing and the protection of their legal rights. Johnson argued that both principles were being systematically ignored. “You can’t just snatch somebody walking into a coffee shop because of the color of their skin. There’s no probable cause for that.”

She described visiting an ICE facility outside Dallas, where over 70% of detainees had never been charged with a crime or posed any threat to national security. “They were there because of the color of their skin,” Johnson said. “They have no criminal history at all.”

Fear and Frustration: The Erosion of Public Trust

One of the most striking aspects of Johnson’s testimony was her focus on fear—fear of law enforcement, fear of being targeted, fear of being denied one’s rights. “The rhetoric and fear that is happening is at an all-time escalated high,” she said. Johnson argued that this fear was not accidental—it was the result of leadership choices, political narratives, and a refusal to be accountable.

She warned that the lack of respect for the rule of law by DHS leadership was causing frustration to boil over. “The administration is not listening and is only doubling down on the rhetoric,” she said. “The lack of respect and regard for the rule of law by this administration and in particular by this secretary is at a level that we have never seen and violates all of the constitutional norms and all of the principles of legal fairness in this country.”

This erosion of trust, Johnson argued, was manifesting itself in threats to law enforcement and rising tensions in communities across the country. “Citizens begin to fear law enforcement, communities start to distrust the institutions that are supposed to protect them, and the system begins to crumble.”

Oversight Letters Unanswered: Accountability Denied

Johnson and her colleagues described a pattern of stonewalling by DHS. “We have brought these concerns to the secretary and to agencies like yourself in these hearings time and time again through multiple letters. We’ve all written letters that have gone unresponded because this cannot happen in our country.”

This lack of response was not just frustrating—it was dangerous. Congressional oversight is not optional, Johnson reminded the hearing. It is a constitutional requirement, designed to prevent abuses of power and ensure that government agencies are held accountable for their actions.

Good Agents, Bad Actors, and Leadership Failure

Johnson was careful to distinguish between the majority of ICE and Border Patrol agents, who she said were “doing their jobs correctly and responsibly,” and the “bad actors” who were exceeding their authority, acting with intimidation, and failing to respect the rights of citizens.

“There are people who are exceeding their authority. The power’s gone to their head. The intimidation is outrageous. And there’s no effort to rein them in by the FBI. There’s no effort to reign them in by Homeland Security. There’s no effort to overcorrect,” Johnson said.

She argued that leadership’s failure to address these abuses was breaking down the trust of the American people. “If we’re going to address the violence in this country, these concerns need to be addressed.”

Constitutional Crisis: Rule of Law Under Threat

Johnson framed her argument not as a political attack, but as a constitutional crisis. “Oversight exists to prevent abuses of power, and when repeated warnings go unheeded, the risk to democracy becomes real.”

She emphasized that the rule of law is not just a slogan—it is the foundation of American democracy. When government agencies ignore probable cause and due process, they undermine the legitimacy of law enforcement and threaten the rights of every citizen.

“None of us want a recreation of 9/11, but we also do not want under any level the trampling of our constitutional rights and the legal system of due process,” Johnson said.

Rhetoric vs. Reality: The Danger of Political Narratives

One of Johnson’s most important points was the danger of political narratives that prioritize optics over evidence. Secretary Gnome claimed that DHS was “only going to pursue serious threats.” But Johnson’s visit to the Dallas ICE facility told a different story. “A majority of detainees pose no threat at all.”

“When leadership prioritizes political narratives over factual, evidence-based enforcement, it creates misguided policies and harmful outcomes for ordinary people,” Johnson warned.

She argued that the disconnect between rhetoric and reality was not just misleading—it was dangerous. It created policies that targeted innocent people, undermined public trust, and fueled fear and resentment.

The Human Impact: Families, Seniors, and Communities at Risk

Johnson’s testimony centered on the lived experiences of individuals and families. She described seniors, immigrants, and entire communities affected by ICE actions. “This isn’t an abstract policy problem. It affects families, seniors, immigrants, and entire communities.”

She emphasized that the fear and frustration experienced by ordinary people was not inevitable—it was the result of leadership choices and the refusal to be accountable when oversight mechanisms were engaged.

The Role of Oversight: Protecting Democracy and Rights

Johnson’s argument was clear: oversight is not a political tool or a bureaucratic formality. It is essential to protecting citizens’ rights, preventing abuses of power, and maintaining public trust in institutions.

“Oversight isn’t optional. It exists to prevent abuses of power, ensure the law is applied fairly, and maintain public trust in institutions. Without it, even agencies tasked with protecting the public can drift into practices that are harmful, selective, and unjust.”

She called on lawmakers and the public to demand transparency, accountability, and respect for constitutional principles.

A System at Risk: What Happens Next?

As the hearing concluded, Johnson’s message resonated beyond the walls of Congress. The crisis she described was not limited to one agency or one administration—it was a systemic problem that threatened the foundations of American democracy.

She urged viewers to stay engaged, ask questions, and hold leaders accountable. “As we reflect on this hearing, it’s worth asking ourselves: Are the people in power earning our trust? Are the policies being implemented in ways that protect ordinary citizens, or are they undermining the very principles that keep our system of government fair and functional?”

Conclusion: The Urgency of Democratic Accountability

The hearing was a stark reminder that democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires vigilance, participation, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Oversight is not a luxury—it is a necessity.

Johnson’s testimony showed that the consequences of failed oversight are not abstract—they are felt by real people, in real communities, every day. The erosion of trust, the denial of due process, and the abuse of power are not just political issues—they are threats to the very fabric of American society.

If democracy is to survive, citizens must demand accountability, transparency, and respect for the rule of law. Lawmakers must use their oversight powers to shine a light on abuses, protect rights, and restore public trust.

Hearings like this are not just political theater—they are essential moments of democratic accountability. For viewers, your engagement matters. Share your thoughts, ask questions, and make your voice heard.

The future of American democracy depends on it.