Don Davis’ vote on ICE was wrong, but it’s hard being a moderate in NC | Opinion
Deputy Opinion Editor Paige Masten is covering the 2026 election for The Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News & Observer.
U.S. Rep. Don Davis has always been one of the most moderate Democrats in Congress.
As one of just a handful of Democrats to win a district carried by Donald Trump in 2024, he has to be. But being a moderate also has its pitfalls.
Davis was one of seven House Democrats who voted with Republicans last week to approve a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security. Within that budget was an additional $10 billion for ICE, which is facing major backlash for its aggressive immigration enforcement operations across the country.
Davis’ vote drew criticism at the time, and it didn’t age well, either. Two days after that yes vote, immigration agents in Minneapolis killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and ICU nurse who appeared to be doing absolutely nothing wrong. It was the city’s second fatal shooting by a federal officer this month.
Davis released a statement following the shooting that rightfully condemned the violence, called for an investigation and demanded that the Trump administration take action. But his vote just days earlier hadn’t been forgotten, and the backlash on social media was fierce, with some calling for him and other Democrats who voted for the DHS budget to be primaried.
These are the realities of being a moderate in Congress, and it’s why they’re becoming an increasingly rare breed. Davis is in a tremendously difficult position. Even before his district was gerrymandered, he was by far the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent in North Carolina this year, and he has been on the receiving end of much of the GOP’s fundraising and messaging efforts. The other six Democrats who voted for the bill face similar predicaments.
But there’s a difference between voting smart and voting scared. Could voting against the bill have given Republicans fodder for their campaign against Davis? Probably, but the answer to that will always be yes. The real question should be: is this vote, and this issue, worth the fight? Davis could have offered a pretty compelling defense of his vote last week, given the growing unpopularity of both ICE and the Trump administration’s larger immigration enforcement strategy even before the second Minnesota killing. While immigration has long been a weakness of Democrats, it’s Republicans who are in the hot seat right now. Besides, the funding vote was not about defunding ICE. The agency already has more than enough funding, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and is currently the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency. Missing out on an additional $10 billion would not handicap the agency, nor detract from what its mission ought to be, which is focusing on violent offenders.
In a statement after the vote, Davis said his decision was about securing needed disaster relief for North Carolina, but also said “I believe ICE must be held accountable.”
But the spending bill was — and is — Democrats’ best opportunity to demand accountability for an agency that has gotten out of control. The version that passed the House did include some minor guardrails, such as funding for body cameras and independent oversight of detention facilities, but it didn’t go nearly far enough. Even moderate Democrats can reasonably condition their support for the bill on the inclusion of such constraints, which may include preventing agents from wearing masks, requiring warrants for them to make arrests, mandating the use of body cameras and more. That’s why Senate Democrats have collectively vowed to oppose the bill in the wake of Pretti’s killing. That includes key moderates from swing states that previously seemed likely to support it.
Lots of voters, especially independent ones, say they want centrist candidates, but there are increasingly few. That’s due in part to the influence of primary voters, plus the fact that gerrymandering has drastically reduced the number of congressional districts that are actually competitive, including Davis’. But seeking accountability for an agency that is killing Americans in the streets is not a radical position – it’s a very reasonable one.
Of course, Davis’ decision may seem more straightforward in retrospect than it did at the time. There are plenty of instances where the moderate path is likely the right one, such as with Davis’ vote to reopen the government after a long and painful shutdown. Davis can’t afford to choose every battle, but he shouldn’t back down from all of them, either.
