ICE's Geopolitical Fallout: How Domestic Enforcement Erodes U.S. Soft Power and Strategic Stability

The administration's aggressive enforcement strategy is now fracturing its own political base, turning a domestic policy into a strategic vulnerability. The erosion of public trust in ICE is no longer just an internal political headache; it is a direct threat to U.S. domestic stability and international credibility. The metrics tell a stark story of a policy losing its legitimacy. Just a year after the 2024 election, the agency's net approval rating has collapsed from a positive +16 in February 2025 to a negative -14. More critically, 52% of Americans disapproved of how ICE was handling its job, with a majority calling its tactics "too forceful." This isn't abstract polling-it's a direct hit to the state's monopoly on legitimate force within its own borders.

The fracture is most visible in the defection of major political endorser Joe Rogan. The popular podcaster, who endorsed President Trump just weeks after their 2024 interview, has become one of the administration's most relentless critics. In a recent episode, Rogan publicly broke with the White House, comparing ICE to "the Gestapo" and questioning whether the U.S. had become a nation where agents roam the streets asking for papers. His platform, with over 20 million YouTube subscribers, gives this criticism extraordinary reach, signaling a significant split within the base the administration sought to consolidate. This cultural penetration of ICE's brutality is a new and dangerous dynamic.

The strategic risk is twofold. First, it undermines the domestic cohesion necessary for a stable state. When a significant portion of the population perceives the government as waging a war on its own streets, with 58% of adults believing a conflict is happening in U.S. cities, it creates a sovereign risk. Second, it directly erodes America's soft power and international credibility. The image of a "Gestapo" is not just a domestic soundbite; it is a global narrative that can be weaponized by adversaries to delegitimize U.S. leadership and foreign policy. The administration's attempt to project strength through domestic enforcement may be inadvertently weakening its strategic position abroad.

The Escalation Trap: Domestic Violence and the "War" Mentality

The administration's enforcement playbook is creating a dangerous feedback loop, where operational intensification fuels domestic hostility, which in turn justifies further escalation. This is not a policy failure; it is a strategic miscalculation that turns the U.S. into a battleground and erodes the very stability it claims to defend.

The metrics of this escalation are staggering. In the first year of the administration, assaults on ICE agents have surged more than 1,300%, vehicular attacks have spiked over 3,200%, and death threats have ballooned more than 8,000%. These are not isolated incidents but a systemic breakdown in the relationship between law enforcement and the communities it operates within. The administration's own rhetoric, which frames the operation as a war against "the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens," directly contributes to this environment of dehumanization and violence. The violent rhetoric from political opponents, from calling ICE the "modern-day Gestapo" to urging people to "fight" the administration in the streets, is cited by DHS as a key driver of this assault wave.

This violence is the inevitable consequence of a strategy that targets hundreds of thousands of people, most with no criminal record, to pressure them into giving up their cases. The American Immigration Council's report details how arrests of people with no criminal record surged by 2,450 percent in the first year, as the agency's detention system expanded to its highest level ever. The goal is not public safety but leverage-a mass detention system designed to coerce compliance. When the state treats a vast population as a security threat, it invites a security threat in return.

The perception of conflict is now a national reality. A YouGov poll found that 58% of Americans believe there's a war or conflict happening in U.S. cities, a figure that rises to 74% among those 65 and older. This is the strategic cost: a domestic landscape fractured by fear and hostility. The administration's "war" mentality has successfully militarized the immigration debate, but it has also militarized the streets. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle where increased force leads to increased violence, which justifies more force, further entrenching the perception of a conflict that consumes political capital and social cohesion. The strategic stability of the state is being sacrificed on the altar of a short-term enforcement quota.

The Catalyst: The Renee Nicole Good Incident and Its Geopolitical Fallout

The fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good on January 7 became the flashpoint that crystallized the crisis. The incident exposed the operational risk of using force in residential areas, directly challenging the administration's narrative. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem quickly labeled the incident "domestic terrorism," claiming Good had used her car to attempt to hit the agent. Yet video evidence and immediate public reaction fueled a national divide, with many questioning that justification. As Joe Rogan noted, the footage showed a woman turning her car away from agents, not charging them-a detail that undermines the "self-defense" and "terrorist threat" framing used to justify raids.

This event catalyzed widespread civilian organizing, transforming local resistance into a coordinated network. The rapid-response model, already active in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, gained new urgency in Minneapolis. As seen in those cities, activists had long trained volunteers, distributed whistles, and formed neighborhood watch groups to monitor and resist raids. The Good shooting provided a clear, visceral call to action, accelerating the formation of these networks and demonstrating a shift from passive fear to active defiance. The administration's attempt to project strength through a high-profile raid instead ignited a grassroots movement that could paralyze future operations.

The geopolitical fallout is already visible. The incident has become a global Rorschach test, with the U.S. image fracturing along familiar lines. While supporters of the administration may see it as a tragic but justified act of self-defense, the broader international perception is likely to be shaped by the video and the administration's initial characterization. The image of an agent shooting a U.S. citizen in her car, coupled with the "Gestapo" rhetoric from a major cultural figure like Rogan, provides a potent narrative for adversaries to weaponize. It reinforces the narrative of a nation where state agents operate with unchecked force in civilian spaces, directly eroding America's soft power and strategic credibility. The administration's domestic enforcement strategy, intended to project strength, may now be its greatest strategic vulnerability.

Strategic Scenarios: De-escalation vs. Hardening and Their Geopolitical Premium

The administration now faces a clear fork in the road. The operational costs of its current strategy-measured in a 1,300% surge in assaults on ICE agents and the detention of hundreds of thousands, most without criminal records-have created untenable political and social pressures. The path forward will determine whether the U.S. strengthens or further weakens its strategic position globally.

The first scenario is a hardening of resolve. Facing a surge in violent attacks, the administration could double down, framing resistance as lawlessness and justifying further escalation. This path is already being signaled by DHS officials, who directly blame "sanctuary politicians" and the media for creating an environment that encourages assaults. The geopolitical premium here is high but risky. It would likely deepen societal polarization, with 58% of Americans now believing a conflict is happening in U.S. cities. This internal fracture would severely undermine America's credibility as a stable, rule-of-law exemplar. For allies, it would signal a retreat from the normative power that underpins Western unity. For adversaries, it would provide a potent narrative of American decline and internal chaos, potentially emboldening actions abroad. The strategic stability of the state would be sacrificed for short-term enforcement quotas.

The alternative is strategic de-escalation. This path requires acknowledging the political and operational costs, as evidenced by ICE's net approval rating of -14 and mass detention of people with no criminal record. It would involve scaling back the aggressive daily arrest targets and refocusing resources on serious criminals, thereby reducing the violence and public backlash. The geopolitical premium for this choice is significant. It would begin to heal the domestic fracture, restoring some measure of social cohesion and reclaiming the moral high ground. For international migration flows, a more predictable and less violent enforcement posture could reduce the fear-driven chaos that often accompanies mass raids, potentially making the U.S. a more stable destination for legal migration and investment. It would also preserve the agency's core mandate without the self-inflicted wounds of a policy that has alienated a majority of the public.

The key watchpoint is the administration's response to the Renee Nicole Good incident and the broader public trust data. The initial characterization of the shooting as "domestic terrorism" and the aggressive rhetoric from DHS officials point toward hardening. Yet, the overwhelming public disapproval and the cultural penetration of the "Gestapo" critique from a figure like Joe Rogan suggest the political cost of that path is mounting. The strategic stability of the U.S. is no longer just a domestic concern; it is a direct function of how this enforcement policy is managed. The choice between these two scenarios will define the country's geopolitical premium for years to come.