A prevailing narrative suggests that language used by activists around “defund” and “abolish” – specifically concerning ICE and police – contributed to Harris’ 2024 loss to Donald Trump. This consensus, despite lacking evidence, has grow widespread in media and political circles. The narrative, according to reporting by Adam Johnson, overlooks the fact that Democrats overperformed in the 2018 primaries during the height of “abolish ICE” rhetoric and that Biden utilized the momentum of the George Floyd protests in 2020 to win the White House.
This narrative has been amplified by billionaire-backed groups like Searchlight Institute, Third Way, and Blue Rose’s David Shor. The current media focus, the report states, appears to be a public relations effort by center-left media and law enforcement allies to downplay concerns over abuses by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and frame them as isolated incidents. This effort attempts to portray local police departments as paragons of progressive policing.
Police Collaboration with ICE
However, this narrative is challenged by the continued collaboration between local police departments and ICE. According to the report, local police are actively involved in assisting ICE, sharing data, and suppressing protests against DHS violence.
The New York Times has published multiple articles in recent months highlighting the perceived tension between ICE and local police departments, particularly in Minneapolis. These articles, the report states, assert—without evidence—that DHS actions are undermining “years of hard-won progress” and eroding “trust” built through police reforms.
The report notes that the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Houston Chronicle, the Minnesota Star Tribune, and the Washington Post are promoting the idea of successful post-2020 police reforms, allowing the violence perpetrated by Trump’s DHS to “launder the reputation of local police departments.”
The articles in question rely heavily on statements from Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara. The report points out that these outlets present the claim of increased “community trust” as established fact, with the sole source being the police themselves. No independent analysis or data is provided to support this claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central argument of the report?
The report argues that media outlets are uncritically promoting a narrative pushed by law enforcement agencies that portrays them as reformed and unfairly undermined by DHS actions, despite a lack of evidence supporting these claims.
Which media outlets are specifically mentioned as contributing to this narrative?
The New York Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, the Atlantic, and the Minnesota Star Tribune are all cited as promoting the narrative of successful post-2020 police reforms.
What is the role of DHS in this narrative?
The report states that DHS’s actions are being used to deflect criticism from local police departments and to create the impression that local law enforcement is a positive force compared to the perceived excesses of DHS.
Given the current media landscape, will independent reporting continue to challenge narratives presented by law enforcement and mainstream media outlets?
