A country that refuses to defend its law enforcement officers ultimately refuses to defend its own laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement exists for a simple reason: Congress passed immigration statutes, and the federal government is obligated to enforce them.

ICE agents do not legislate. They do not set policy. Instead, they carry out the law as written. Treating that function as immoral — or worse, criminal — has consequences, and those consequences are now measurable.

Attacks on ICE agents have surged by more than 1,000% in recent months. That figure reflects a dramatic shift in how enforcement itself is perceived. Officers tasked with executing federal law have been recast as political actors rather than public servants.

Once enforcement is framed as oppression, hostility becomes justified in the minds of those who accept that narrative.

Political disagreement over immigration policy is legitimate. Opposition to enforcement is not. If Americans want immigration laws changed, Congress is the appropriate forum. Targeting the agents charged with enforcing existing law is indefensible. No functioning legal system survives when its enforcers are treated as fair game.

The recent incident involving an ICE agent who fired his weapon after being struck by a vehicle has been widely misrepresented. Like most Americans, I watched the video. Some have claimed the driver was attempting to signal the agents to move. That interpretation may or may not be accurate. What is clear, however, is that when ICE agents ordered the driver to exit the vehicle, she refused.

An agent was standing directly in front of the car. The vehicle moved forward. Contact was made. The officer was injured.

Intent is not the controlling factor in that situation. Law enforcement does not operate on the benefit of hindsight. A vehicle advancing toward an officer at close range constitutes a lethal threat. That principle is not controversial within policing standards or legal precedent. A car is capable of killing just as effectively as a firearm.

The ICE agent involved had seconds — not minutes — to decide whether his life was in danger. He was facing a moving vehicle that struck him, and he had no certainty that the threat would stop. Expecting an officer to pause and speculate about motive at that moment is unreasonable. Self-defense under those conditions is precisely what training prepares officers for.

Democrats have focused exclusively on the tragic loss of life while refusing to confront the alternative outcome. Had the agent hesitated and been run over, there would likely be no national outrage. His death would have been contextualized, rationalized, and ultimately dismissed as collateral damage in a politically charged environment.

That asymmetry exposes the real issue: enforcement officers are no longer afforded the presumption of legitimacy.

This shooting unfolded in a state marked by persistent anti-ICE demonstrations and a political climate in which federal immigration enforcement is routinely portrayed as abusive or illegitimate.

In most jurisdictions, local authorities have even refused cooperation with ICE. When officials undermine enforcement, they invite confrontation. When confrontation escalates, responsibility does not rest with the officer forced to react.

Blame lies with those who spent years portraying ICE as anti-American rather than acknowledging its role within the legal system. The agent involved has been publicly identified. His life is permanently altered. He will carry the psychological burden of that decision while facing heightened personal risk for himself and his family. That is the cost imposed by political demonization.

A nation cannot selectively support law enforcement. Either the law matters, or it does not. Supporting ICE does not require agreement with every immigration statute. It requires recognition that abandoning enforcement officers means abandoning the Rule of Law itself.