Gabe Vasquez goes full anti-ICE, smears federal agents in op-ed

Far-left Democrat Gabe Vasquez is once again drawing sharp criticism after publishing an incendiary op-ed that demonizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), echoes open-borders talking points, and casts federal law enforcement as rogue actors—while downplaying the real consequences of lax border policy on New Mexico communities.

In the Albuquerque Journal op-ed, Vasquez launches an extraordinary attack on ICE officers and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing agents of operating “with little to no regard for the law,” alleging they are “detaining American citizens and legal residents with impunity,” and claiming the agency has “violently” ended lives. He writes, “We would not tolerate this behavior from any other law enforcement agency,” a sweeping indictment that critics say smears thousands of federal officers who risk their lives daily to stop drug trafficking, human smuggling, and cartel activity.

Vasquez’s rhetoric relies heavily on emotionally charged anecdotes while offering no substantiated evidence of the systemic abuses he alleges. He describes DHS as a “rogue agency” propped up by what he calls a “$150 billion slush fund,” and he derides enforcement tools such as border barriers, sneering that “billion-dollar walls…can be beaten with $4 work gloves.” The language mirrors long-standing progressive hostility toward border enforcement, framing any meaningful increase in ICE resources as inherently suspect.

Despite representing a district that spans roughly 180 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border—an area ravaged by fentanyl trafficking, cartel smuggling routes, and repeat border crossers—Vasquez voted against additional ICE funding and used his op-ed to justify that vote. He admits Congress considered a spending bill that would have provided ICE with $10 billion, but complains it lacked “substantive reform,” including mandates on agent attire and expanded oversight provisions. In other words, rather than prioritize enforcement capacity, Vasquez demanded ideological conditions that critics say would further hobble an already overstretched agency.

This posture is consistent with Vasquez’s broader record. As previously reported, he has repeatedly sided with the progressive wing of his party in opposing border enforcement measures while supporting policies that expand legal pathways and reduce detention—policies critics argue functionally reward illegal entry and encourage further migration surges. While Vasquez insists he opposes “open borders,” his proposals align closely with national Democratic plans that emphasize legalization, reduced enforcement, and bureaucratic oversight over deterrence.

In the op-ed, Vasquez attempts to inoculate himself from criticism by listing border-related experiences—claiming he has “walked the border,” “ridden horseback” in the Bootheel, and convened stakeholder meetings. Yet he simultaneously dismisses the very agents tasked with enforcing the law in those areas, accusing them of “lawlessness and disregard for American rights.” That contradiction has not gone unnoticed by ranchers, law enforcement, and border residents who say the congressman’s words undermine morale and embolden criminal networks.

Vasquez also uses the piece to attack Trump administration officials, calling for the removal of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and blaming her for “chaos” in American neighborhoods. He even drags unrelated issues into the argument, alleging failures in disaster response in Texas and Ruidoso—claims critics say are designed to inflame rather than inform.

Ultimately, the op-ed underscores a familiar pattern: when given a choice between backing law enforcement or appeasing the activist left, Vasquez chooses the latter. While he claims Americans shouldn’t have to choose “between open borders or the horrific violence from ICE,” his policy prescriptions—expanded legal pathways, reduced detention, and increased oversight—amount to the same failed approach that has produced record crossings, overwhelmed border communities, and historic drug flows.

For many New Mexicans, the question is no longer whether the system is broken—it is whether their congressman is willing to enforce the law. Vasquez’s op-ed suggests he is not.