Yesterday showcased something the legacy media would rather you didn’t see: a clear, unapologetic accounting of what’s actually happening at our borders and inside our cities.

While cable news panels hyperventilated about “atrocities” and “murder” by masked agents, senior officials from ICE, CBP, and USCIS testified before the House Homeland Security Committee and laid out their case in stark terms.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow didn’t hedge, duck, or retreat. They delivered a blunt message: enforcement is back, and it’s working.

Start with the numbers—because numbers tend to disrupt narratives.

Director Lyons testified that in the past year alone, ICE has conducted more than 475,000 removals. That’s nearly half a million individuals deported—criminal aliens, gang members, traffickers, and others deemed threats to public safety.

With additional funding from Congress, detention capacity is increasing and removal flights are departing daily. Officials argue this marks a sharp break from what they describe as the Biden-era “catch-and-release” approach. Supporters call it competence. Critics call it harsh. Either way, it represents a dramatic escalation in enforcement—and a fulfillment of President Trump’s campaign pledge to prioritize border security and interior removals.

USCIS Director Joseph Edlow added another dimension to the testimony: fraud.

He outlined what he described as widespread abuse within the immigration system—fraudulent applications, bad-faith asylum claims, and exploitation of humanitarian programs.

Edlow and his colleagues framed their agencies’ work as both dangerous and necessary, emphasizing that officers face volatile situations while carrying out enforcement actions. They argued that the media focus on confrontation obscures the broader mission: restoring order to an overwhelmed system.

Tensions rose during questioning over cooperation from state and local governments. Officials cited resistance in places like Minnesota, where sanctuary policies and non-cooperation, they argue, complicate federal enforcement efforts. Democrat lawmakers pushed back, accusing ICE of escalating tensions in communities.

Representative August Pfluger challenged claims that ICE had “invaded” Minneapolis, calling the characterization misleading.

Minneapolis became a focal point during the hearing. Lawmakers referenced the January shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during enforcement encounters. Critics have described them as innocent victims caught in aggressive operations. ICE leadership countered that the situations were chaotic and rapidly escalating, with officers facing resistance and large crowds.

Lyons pledged to release full investigative reports once complete. He also noted that body camera deployment is expanding under DHS leadership, arguing that footage will provide greater transparency in future operations.

“Why deploy body cameras,” supporters asked, “if leadership believed agents were routinely violating rights?”

Representative Eric Swalwell attempted to challenge Lyons with a hypothetical scenario designed to question ICE tactics. Lyons rejected the premise.

Republicans framed the exchange as emblematic of what they see as a broader Democratic strategy: focus on hypotheticals and rare tragedies while, in their view, downplaying crimes committed by individuals in the country illegally.

Supporters of the administration contrasted current enforcement efforts with what they describe as the surge of unlawful crossings, fentanyl trafficking, and gang activity during the previous administration. Programs like Operation Metro Surge were cited as evidence of a more aggressive interior enforcement strategy.

At the same time, Democrats have proposed reforms that would require additional judicial warrants for certain operations, restrict enforcement actions near sensitive locations like schools and churches, and mandate stricter identification requirements for agents. Enforcement officials argue those changes would severely limit operational flexibility.

And, they contend, when policy arguments fall short, rhetoric escalates.

The hearing also unfolded against the backdrop of a looming DHS funding deadline on Friday, February 13. Democrats and Republicans remain divided over funding levels and enforcement authorities. A failure to reach agreement could trigger a partial shutdown affecting TSA, the Coast Guard, and cybersecurity operations.

Some lawmakers have gone further than funding disputes. Michigan Representative Shri Thanedar reiterated calls to abolish ICE during questioning of Commissioner Scott.

Thanedar, who became a U.S. citizen in 1988 after immigrating legally, has argued that the agency’s structure should be dismantled and rebuilt. Critics counter that abolishing ICE would effectively end meaningful interior enforcement at a time they believe it is most needed.

Throughout the hearing, Lyons, Scott, and Edlow maintained that they are carrying out the mandate voters delivered in the 2024 election. They characterized their work as restoring credibility to immigration enforcement and prioritizing American communities.

The broader political fight is unlikely to cool anytime soon. Supporters see record removals and expanded enforcement as long-overdue corrections. Opponents see overreach and dangerous escalation.

But one thing was clear from the testimony: the enforcement apparatus is operating at full throttle, and both sides of the aisle understand the stakes.

As the Senate prepares for additional testimony later this week, the battle lines are firmly drawn—over funding, oversight, and the future of immigration enforcement in America.