Tom Steyer's California governor bid centers on prosecuting ICE agents and flying deported immigrants back to the state

Tom Steyer, the 68-year-old billionaire and founder of Farallon Capital Management, rolled out a five-point immigration plan this week that reads less like a policy platform and more like a declaration of war against federal law enforcement. The California gubernatorial candidate pledged to abolish ICE operations in the state, criminally prosecute federal immigration agents, and use state funds to retrieve deported individuals from foreign countries and fly them back into California.

Steyer released his immigration pledges on Tuesday, framing the plan as a frontal challenge to federal immigration enforcement. In his own words, the candidate compared ICE to organized crime and cast himself as the lawman who would bring them down.

The plan amounts to an open promise by a major-party gubernatorial candidate to obstruct federal immigration law, arrest the agents who enforce it, and spend taxpayer money to undo lawful deportations. For California voters already living with the consequences of the state's sanctuary policies, this is what the next step looks like.

The five-point plan: prosecute, obstruct, retrieve

Steyer's platform begins with what he described as abolishing ICE in California and enforcing state statutes against federal immigration officers. He said his plan would give the state Attorney General new authority to go after the agency's chain of command, not just individual agents but their supervisors.

Steyer laid out the legal theory in blunt terms:

"My plan will pursue supervisory liability. This body of law empowers the California justice system to criminally prosecute and imprison not just the ICE agents who are committing these crimes, but the leadership directing them to do so."

His third pledge calls for creating a special branch inside the state attorney general's office dedicated to building cases against federal immigration officers. The new unit would pursue what Steyer called "evidence" leading to prosecution. In effect, he is proposing a permanent state apparatus whose sole purpose is to target federal agents doing their jobs.

The fourth point goes further still. Steyer pledged to use state money to send representatives to foreign countries and pay to fly deported individuals back into California. He put it this way:

"I will bring those detained and kidnapped by ICE back home."

He added that his administration would "assist and help those who have been imprisoned without due process." The plan does not appear to distinguish between illegal immigrants removed through lawful proceedings and those whose cases may involve disputed circumstances. The pledge is sweeping: retrieve them and return them, on the taxpayer's dime.

The fifth plank is a statewide "Know Your Rights" public awareness campaign aimed at telling residents, regardless of immigration status, how to resist encounters with federal agents. Steyer described the scope in expansive terms:

"Every Californian, regardless of their immigration status, should know their constitutional and legal rights if you are stopped, detained, or questioned by ICE agents, if you are assembled to protest against ICE, if you are filming ICE agent activities, or if you witness unlawful and illegal actions perpetrated by ICE agents."

Steyer frames ICE as a criminal enterprise

The language Steyer chose was not cautious or lawyerly. He did not frame his proposals as modest reforms. He called ICE a criminal organization and said he would treat it like one.

"Trump has turned ICE into a criminal enterprise, so let's treat it as such. As governor, I'll go after ICE the way Eliot Ness and Joe Friday went after the Mob: bring them to justice by using their most basic crimes against them. For the Mob it was racketeering; for ICE it's racial discrimination."

That comparison, a sitting federal law-enforcement agency likened to the Mafia, is not a throwaway line. It is the organizing principle of the entire platform. Steyer is not proposing oversight or reform. He is proposing prosecution, imprisonment, and obstruction of agents enforcing duly enacted federal law.

He also pledged to ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings he does not agree with, a position that raises obvious questions about the oath of office any governor takes. Steyer framed this as California "taking matters into our own hands."

"California should take matters into our own hands. California can extend these legal protections to its residents, despite the federal government's failure."

The candidate described his approach as targeting what he called "the linchpin that holds together the entire ICE machine: their ability to weaponize their authority as federal agents to engage in racial profiling and racial violence." He offered no specific evidence of racial violence in the plan's rollout. The charge was asserted, not documented.

Musk responds; Steyer doubles down

The proposals drew a one-word reaction on X from Elon Musk: "Wow." Steyer responded directly, seizing on the attention.

"'Wow' is right. ICE is a criminal organization. As governor, I'll prosecute them like one."

That exchange captured the dynamic neatly. Steyer is not running from the most radical reading of his platform. He is running toward it. The proposal to arrest federal officers and fly deported illegal immigrants back into the state is not a fringe add-on buried in a policy appendix. It is the headline.

Steyer also said he sees a "solid legal foundation for California to expand these protections and prosecute ICE agents for breaking the law." What that legal foundation consists of, which statutes, which precedents, which constitutional provisions, remains unclear from the plan as released. The five-point platform offers rhetoric in abundance and legal specifics in short supply.

What this means for California and federal authority

Set aside the campaign trail theatrics for a moment and consider what Steyer is actually proposing. A state governor would direct the state attorney general to build criminal cases against federal agents carrying out federal immigration law. A special prosecution unit would exist for that sole purpose. State funds would fly deported individuals, removed under federal authority, back into the state. And the governor would publicly instruct residents on how to obstruct federal officers.

This is not sanctuary policy. Sanctuary cities and states decline to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Steyer's plan goes well beyond non-cooperation. It proposes active, aggressive state action against federal officers, prosecution, imprisonment, and the reversal of federal deportation orders by state fiat.

The constitutional questions are obvious. The Supremacy Clause exists for a reason. Federal immigration law has been upheld repeatedly by courts at every level. A governor who pledges to ignore Supreme Court rulings and arrest federal agents enforcing federal law is not describing a policy disagreement. He is describing a constitutional confrontation, one that would put state law-enforcement officers in the position of arresting their federal counterparts.

Steyer closed his announcement with a promise aimed squarely at ICE:

"On my watch, California will protect the most vulnerable and bring to justice those who break the law and brutalize our neighbors. We'll let ICE know: in California, you obey our laws and respect our residents, or you go to jail."

That line tells you everything about where the Democratic primary in California is heading. The baseline is no longer non-cooperation with federal enforcement. The baseline is now prosecution of federal officers, taxpayer-funded retrieval of deported illegal immigrants, and open defiance of the Supreme Court.

The pattern is familiar. Across the country, Democratic officials have escalated their resistance to federal immigration enforcement at every turn. What was once passive non-compliance has become active obstruction. Steyer's platform simply says the quiet part out loud, and adds handcuffs.

For the taxpayers and lawful residents of California, the proposal raises a straightforward question: Who exactly is the governor supposed to protect, the citizens who follow the law, or the political class that wants to rewrite the rules to shield those who broke it?

Steyer's answer is clear enough. Whether California voters share it will say a great deal about where the state, and the Democratic Party, are willing to go.

When a candidate for governor promises to jail the cops and fly the lawbreakers home, the platform isn't progressive. It's lawless.