ICE Protests Push Voters Closer to Trump’s Immigration Plan
June 17, 2025.png)
Key Takeaways
- Anti-ICE and No Kings protests have hardened, not shifted public sentiment, with support for deportations holding firm.
- Prior to Saturday’s No Kings demonstrations, many voters believed the protests were orchestrated by political operatives rather than grassroots movements.
- Immigration policy has become a symbolic battleground, where law-and-order and civil liberties issues leave no room for middle ground.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
382,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
7 Days
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
The recent wave of anti-ICE demonstrations and anti-Trump “No Kings” protest don't seem to shift public sentiment. Reactions to the protests suggest conservative support for deportation policies is firming and liberals see them as resistance to federal overreach.
Many on the right view the protests as coordinated, Democratic and foreign-funded attacks on law enforcement and national sovereignty. Rather than influencing opinions, the unrest in LA and other cities is solidifying existing views of immigration and reinforcing support for President Trump’s hardline enforcement approach.
Change in Sentiment Over the Last Week
Public sentiment has not meaningfully shifted in the week since the protests began. If anything, sentiment among politically engaged voters has become more resolute. Instead of provoking reevaluation, the protests have crystallized opposing worldviews—pushing voters further into existing camps.
There is no broad reassessment of ICE policy or Trump’s actions. Instead, the unrest serves as a symbolic inflection point where conservatives say it confirms immigration enforcement is under siege, while progressives say it threatens constitutional rights.
The effect of these protests is consolidation, not persuasion. The left is louder but not larger. Online discussions, media narratives, and political influencers push Trump criticism, but the numbers don’t suggest any erosion of pro-enforcement support.
Support for Deportations and Trump’s ICE Actions
MIG Reports data confirms that support for immigration enforcement remains solid, particularly among conservatives. Sentiment has not fractured under pressure from protest optics or media framing. Instead, the most consistent reaction is expressing confidence in Trump’s approach to deportation and law enforcement.
- 47% support deportation enforcement efforts.
- 33% oppose ICE, often linking it to excessive force or procedural abuse.
- 20% hold neutral or mixed views, with many expressing legal uncertainty.
.png)
Real-time metrics show a coherent and stable base of support for Trump’s immigration posture. Those backing deportations frame the issue as one of national integrity and legal obligation. They reject the idea that enforcement is inherently political, instead treating it as the restoration of a neglected constitutional duty.
Critics fail to offer a compelling counterweight. Their arguments—centered on humanitarianism or rule-of-law violations—do not appear to resonate beyond their own base. Calls for moderation or reform seem to have little weight in the current climate. Many view Trump's decisions, including deploying ICE and National Guard resources, as pragmatic, lawful, and long overdue.
.png)
.png)
Are Protests Funded or Inorganic?
Discussion of the planned “No Kings” protests, prior to June 14, does not treat them as organic expressions of public outrage. Instead, many conservative voices frame the demonstrations as coordinated and professionally engineered operations aimed at undermining lawful immigration enforcement and delegitimizing the Trump administration.
- 35% of discussions related to the protests explicitly view them as orchestrated by well-funded groups and political actors, not grassroots movements.
- There are claims that the protests are “DNC-funded,” “NGO-backed,” or “paid agitator” operations.
- Many reference foreign flags, pre-made signage, bricks being delivered, and protester logistics as evidence of staging.
- Some assert that the protests serve as media bait designed to portray ICE enforcement as authoritarian.
A large portion of Americans argue these demonstrations are being used to provoke federal overreach, destabilize the public, or generate an authoritarian backlash narrative. They suggest Democrats and their allied nonprofits are counting on chaos that will translate into political capital. For conservatives, this possibility strengthens their resolve to press forward with enforcement.
.png)
Left vs. Right
Reactions to the protests reveal a binary moral framing with little room for nuance. Each side operates with fundamentally different assumptions about law, legitimacy, and the role of federal power.
Right-leaning perspectives
- View the protests as chaotic, foreign-influenced, and anti-American.
- Frame deportation as a legal necessity and ICE as a frontline agency defending national sovereignty.
- Dismiss liberal outrage as performative and detached from the real dangers posed by uncontrolled immigration.
Left-leaning perspectives
- View the protests as essential resistance against authoritarian encroachment.
- Portray ICE and Trump’s enforcement actions as unconstitutional and morally indefensible.
- Emphasize civil liberties, humanitarian concern, and racial equity as driving principles.
These diverging worldviews mostly reinforce themselves. For many, each protest, each ICE raid, and each viral video confirms preexisting moral allegiance. The right believes the more violent protests become, the more justified the enforcement appears. On the left, the escalation confirms fears of democratic erosion. There is little crossover—and no signs of convergence.
Perceived Effectiveness of the Protests
While the protests generate attention, they are not universally seen as effective or legitimate in purpose.
- Right-leaning voices: Overwhelmingly dismiss the protests as theatrics, not meaningful resistance.
- Left-leaning voices: Defend the protests on symbolic grounds, even if practical outcomes remain elusive.
- Independent and skeptical observers: Question whether the protests will lead to any concrete change or if they simply damage communities and cost money.
Among conservatives, there is a consistent belief that protests will not influence policy, but will creating negative optics, particularly for Democrats like Gavin Newsom. Many say protests are only mean for provocation and to bait federal overreach and cast Trump as the villain.
Even among some on the left, there’s quiet frustration about the lack of strategic clarity and negative publicity. The protests claim moral energy but offer no cohesive policy alternative. As a result, the discourse remains gridlocked.
Media and Messaging Framing
Narratives around the No Kings protests and ICE enforcement actions are shaped as much by media portrayal as by the events themselves. Both sides accuse the press of manipulation—though for different reasons.
Conservative perspectives
- Accuse mainstream outlets of glamorizing protest violence while ignoring law enforcement restraint.
- Argue the media selectively amplifies footage that portrays ICE and Trump in the worst possible light.
- View legacy press as aligned with progressive messaging, crafting a narrative of authoritarianism to sabotage immigration control.
Liberal perspectives
- Claim media coverage whitewashes federal abuses and centers too heavily on property damage instead of civil rights.
- Argue both corporate and state-linked outlets downplay the moral gravity of raids and deportations.
- Use social media to circumvent traditional channels, often sharing unverified but emotionally charged content.
This mutual distrust results in two incompatible storylines. For right-leaning analysts and voters, the press is complicit in the ideological campaign against national sovereignty. For progressives, media silence or misdirection signals a failure to hold power accountable.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)