Women’s March Expands Anti-ICE TV Ads to More Markets as Recruits Get $50,000 Bonuses
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · May 16
Women’s March Expands Anti-ICE TV Ads to More Markets as Recruits Get $50,000 Bonuses
2 articles · Updated · The Guardian · May 16
Women’s March has widened its anti-ICE television campaign from Charlotte and Palm Beach to markets including El Paso, Miami, Atlanta and New Jersey, buying key time slots to pressure agents to quit or refuse duties.
The ad targets agents’ conscience: a child greets her father as ICE raid footage plays, while a voiceover warns that “a mask can’t hide you” and urges officers to “walk away” before shame follows them home.
Rachel O’Leary Carmona said the group wants to counter an ICE hiring push sweetened by a $50,000 signing bonus, 25% premium pay and up to $60,000 in student-loan repayment.
Other immigrant-rights groups are using similar tactics, from 20-plus weeks of prayer vigils in Philadelphia to appeals around “moral injury,” though critics argue some recruits are drawn by violence or extremist politics rather than reachable remorse.
The campaign lands as ICE faces broad public backlash—one February poll found nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of its actions—and Carmona said the goal is not agents’ redemption but their non-cooperation.
Is 'moral injury' a risk for ICE agents, or does the agency now recruit those predisposed to its controversial work?
With recruitment standards changing, what are the long-term risks for both public safety and the agents themselves?
The 2026 ICE Expansion and the "What Will You Say?" Campaign: Public Outcry, Agent Morality, and Activist Resistance
Overview
In early 2026, the Women's March launched the 'What Will You Say?' campaign, a bold anti-ICE television ad that directly challenged the moral conscience of ICE agents. This campaign arose as the administration ramped up mass deportations, deploying masked and often unaccountable agents after significantly increasing ICE funding and offering large bonuses and student loan forgiveness to new recruits. Amid concerns about minimal training and vetting, the campaign aimed to make agents pause and reflect on their actions, encouraging non-cooperation or even leaving their roles. This direct moral appeal highlighted the human cost of aggressive immigration enforcement and sparked widespread public debate.