Tom Steyer has vowed to arrest ICE agents in California, dubbing the agency criminal and promising prosecutions that constitutional scholars and opponents say run headfirst into the Supremacy Clause and settled federal precedent.
Tom Steyer, running for governor in California, has been explicit about wanting to dismantle or criminally pursue ICE officials, calling them a violent extremist group and threatening legal action against federal actors tied to immigration enforcement. His rhetoric has pushed the issue into the spotlight and forced a sharp legal and political response from those who see this as an attack on federal authority. The debate now sits at the intersection of state ambitions and constitutional limits, with heavy consequences for law enforcement and the rule of law.
Critics from the right argue this is more than campaign talk; it is a break with how a constitutional republic handles federal power. The Supremacy Clause vests federal law above conflicting state action, and longtime Supreme Court precedent blocks states from criminally prosecuting federal officers carrying out their duties when those officers reasonably believe their actions are lawful. That legal reality turns Steyer’s vow from a promise into a legal nonstarter, at least according to constitutional orthodoxy.
Steyer’s “watch me” posture plays well to activists who want blunt disruption, but it risks turning California law enforcement into foot soldiers for a partisan stunt. If state officials were ordered to arrest federal agents, those state officers would be the ones who end up in legal trouble or dragged into federal litigation. The idea that a governor can simply override two centuries of constitutional practice is a dangerous precedent, and Republicans say voters should be clear-eyed about what it would mean for federalism and public safety.
There is also a political danger for Democrats who have embraced this confrontational approach: performance often substitutes for policy when campaigns lack substantive solutions. Loud declarations about abolishing federal agencies or jailing federal employees are meant to generate headlines, not solve border security or streamline immigration law. From a conservative perspective, accountability matters, and it needs to come through the rule of law and elections, not theatrical threats against federal officers.
There is a certain kind of politician who has learned that saying something loudly and confidently is a perfectly adequate substitute for saying something true. California’s gubernatorial race has produced a bumper crop of them.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire-liberal-donor-turned candidate, has called for abolishing ICE and jailing its agents, describing the federal law enforcement agency as a “violent extremist group.”
Former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa compared ICE officers to the Ku Klux Klan, and state Schools Superintendent Tony Thurmond promised to have ICE agents arrested. Former US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra vowed to “police the immigration police.“
These are the leading candidates to become governor of the most populous state in the union.
One might ask: Can they actually do any of this? The answer, rooted not in opinion but in two centuries of constitutional law, is no.
And yet the question almost never gets asked, because the performance is the point.
Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution, and under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, states may not criminally prosecute federal officers for actions taken in the lawful course of their federal duties, provided the officer reasonably believed those actions were necessary to fulfill that duty.
This is not an obscure technicality. It is the foundational architecture of American federalism, and it has been settled law for longer than most of these candidates have been alive.
Republicans see this as an assault on common-sense governance: you cannot pick and choose enforcement based on who holds state office without destroying predictable law. If every state lawmaker could punish federal agents whose work they dislike, the result would be chaos for nationwide programs that depend on uniform enforcement. Conservatives argue that preserving the constitutional division of power is critical to preventing such chaos.
Steyer’s rhetoric also raises practical concerns about public safety and cooperation between law enforcement levels. Local and state police often work with federal partners on investigations and operations; threatening the legal status of federal officers risks chilling that cooperation. That could make communities less safe, not more, which is the opposite of what voters expect from leadership in Sacramento.
There is an obvious incentive problem too: Democrats pushing these ideas expect others to take the risk of enforcement for them. “Same for any state law enforcement agent you might convince to do so,” the user wrote. Of course, that’s what will happen. Steyer will order state law enforcement to do this, and they’ll be the ones who get arrested. Republicans warn that asking public servants to choose between obeying federal law and following a governor’s political order is simply irresponsible.
For conservatives, the remedy is straightforward: enforce the law, respect the Constitution, and reject political theater that endangers federal employees and public safety. Officials who genuinely want reform should work through Congress, the courts, and the ballot box, not by promising to flout settled legal doctrine. Voters deserve leaders who solve problems rather than stage spectacles.
In this fight, the rules of federalism are not partisan talking points; they are the guardrails that keep our system working. When candidates toss those guardrails aside for applause, they’re not expanding democracy—they’re risking the rule of law. Republican voices will keep pointing that out, arguing for accountable, lawful leadership over headlines and threats.
When bold claims replace sober policy, performance becomes the product. Republicans will continue to press that reality on voters who care about safety, constitutional order, and practical solutions to immigration and enforcement problems. Those are the stakes as California’s gubernatorial race heats up and candidates trade promises that may not stand up in court or in practice.
