To the editor:

Did the Republican-controlled Congress knowingly create a “personal paramilitary unit to the president,” as Representative John Manion called ICE, when they passed the “big beautiful bill?” To put the best construction on their actions, we might refer to the “law of unintended consequences.” That is, Congress really thought that the tripling of the ICE budget would be necessary to fulfill President Trump’s campaign pledges, not knowing that ICE would take the form it has. It is not entirely clear that they knew what they were doing, of course, but they might have suspected it would not go well.

Astute students of public policy would have predicted that something like a paramilitary force would result. After all, what does a government agency do when its annual budget is tripled and it enjoys commitments for billions more for the next three years? Well, it would undoubtedly think about a rapid expansion of the number of its agents — we’ve seen a doubling in the last year. With the rapid expansion, recruitment standards are stressed and training is rushed. Lots of money also makes possible the procurement of expensive enforcement equipment, much of which was designed for armed conflict not domestic policing. These are all measures that contribute to the sense of indispensability characterized by government bureaucracies.

Of course, until now, the idea of a personal paramilitary force has been anathema to U.S. traditions. As one scholar has recently noted, while other countries have paramilitary units (legal and extralegal militias), only three democratic countries — Nigeria, Honduras, and Brazil — have added these forces since 1960, being joined by the US. It is, of course, tempting for strong executive leaders to create such forces and make them an instrument of personal power if not checked by law or countervailing forces, such as a legislature.

Adding to the “unintended consequences” is the introduction of quotas by zealous associates of the president. While the use of quotas in policy implementation can be useful at times, the ways in which quotas are affecting the behavior of ICE is more reminiscent of the use of quotas in planned economies like the Soviet Union. They invite sloppiness, gross inefficiency and an element of laughability among those charged with implementing them.

Perhaps the members of Congress did understand that they were introducing a new form of industrial policy in tripling the ICE budget. As we see, agencies (in this case, the Department of Homeland Security) have to figure out ways to spend money when it is so abundant. We mentioned the doubling of the number of agents and the procurement of new technologies. We haven’t mentioned, however, the expansion of markets this new spending provides to the detention industry. It is reasonable to assume that members of Congress would welcome new detention facilities in their districts and perhaps campaign contributions from the suppliers of prisons and detention centers.

As Congress now considers current budget proposals, especially increases for the budgets for the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, we now know that the “consequences” of the big beautiful bill are no longer “unknown.” They contribute to bureaucratic aggrandizement and stimuli for the detention industry. Most importantly, however, they have provided the resources for a powerful executive to build an extralegal paramilitary force driven by a rather insane quota policy. All factors to consider as Congress deliberates on the budget.

Richard P. Suttmeier

Keene Valley