Indicted Dem Rep. LaMonica McIver Suggests Acting ICE Director Is Doomed to Hell as Hearing Spirals Out of Control

One of the worst parts about the fact that the modern-day Democrats are little more than the party of outrage merchants is the fact that it becomes almost impossible to have a nuanced discussion that would actually improve the lives of Americans.

Democrats have this obnoxious knack for whittling down any complicated issue into black-and-white matter with a smattering of slogans.

Take, for example, the fiery ongoing debate about Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The tragic deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti after ICE confrontations has made the perpetually uncomfortable discussion about law enforcement reform into a topic that’s impossible to discuss without going off the rails.

Perhaps no example of this was clearer than the unhinged turn that a House hearing took on Tuesday after a deeply partisan Democratic representative posited a wholly performative question to acting ICE director Todd Lyons.

This took place at a hearing titled “Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security: ICE, CBP, and USCIS,” held by the

House Committee on Homeland Security.

The probe, which put ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under a Congressional microscope, was ostensibly for the purpose of identifying ways for immigration enforcement to better perform their jobs.

Instead — thanks to the Democrats — it devolved into another useless demonstration of performative bluster.

Specifically, you can thank New Jersey Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver for this debacle.

(And yes, McIver is not exactly neutral on this matter, given that she faced a three-count indictment for forcibly impeding and interfering with immigration officers in June 2025.)

One of the oh-so-constructive questions that McIver had for Lyons was, to put it bluntly, beyond the pale.

You can watch the moment for yourself, courtesy of the Trump War Room account on social media platform X, below:

Deranged Rep. LaMonica McIver (who is facing FEDERAL CHARGES, including assaulting and impeding law enforcement) asks ICE Director Todd Lyons:

“How do you think Judgment Day will work for you with so much blood on your hands?…Do you think you’re going to hell?”

What a freak! pic.twitter.com/xBrTUunEGF

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) February 10, 2026

“So, Mr. Lyons, I’ve heard my colleagues ask many questions over and over again, and you cannot answer them,” McIver began. “So let me ask you some questions that you may be able to answer. Mr. Lyons, do you consider yourself a religious man?”

“Yes, ma’am,” Lyons answered.

“Oh, ‘yes,’” McIver said. “How do you think Judgment Day will work for you with so much blood on your hands?”

“I’m not going to entertain that question,” Lyons said.

“Oh, OK, of course not,” the condescending McIver continued. “Now, do you think you’re going to hell, Mr. Lyons?”

“I’m not going to answer that,” Lyons said.

“Of course not,” McIver said.

At this point, GOP Rep. Andrew Garbarino — the committee chairman — had had enough of McIver’s ad hominem attacks and quieted the New Jersey lawmaker.

“The gentlelady will suspend!” the chairman interjected.

And thank goodness for Garbarino cutting off McIver’s utterly pointless line of inquiry.

What makes McIver’s outburst so useless isn’t just that it was rude — it’s that it crowded out the only thing this hearing was supposed to be about: results.

There are real, concrete questions lawmakers could be pressing immigration officials on, from detention standards to use-of-force policies to how information is d between agencies. Those are the kinds of issues that actually shape outcomes on the ground and determine whether reforms work or fail.

Instead, the committee got a viral-ready sermonette that produced exactly zero policy insight.

Performative outrage might juice social media clips, but it doesn’t improve systems.

Worse, this kind of theatrics poisons the well for any serious reform effort.

When hearings turn into moral grandstanding sessions, the incentive shifts from problem-solving to point-scoring. Bureaucrats learn to stonewall, partisans dig in, and the public gets another round of cable-news theater instead of answers.

If Democrats truly believe ICE needs changes, then they’re actively undermining their own case by turning oversight into a stage play.

There’s also a basic respect-for-the-process issue here. Congressional oversight exists to extract information, test assumptions, and force agencies to justify their actions under oath. Turning that into a personal morality trial doesn’t just waste time; it signals that the goal was never reform in the first place, only spectacle.

You don’t improve training protocols, clarify rules of engagement, or tighten accountability mechanisms by asking whether someone thinks they’re going to hell. You do it by doing the boring, adversarial, detail-heavy work that real oversight requires.

In the end, that’s the tragedy of moments like this: They make everyone feel righteous while leaving everything exactly as it was before. If Democrats want to be taken seriously on ICE reform, they should start acting like lawmakers instead of performance artists.

The problems are complicated, the stakes are real, and the solutions require discipline, not melodrama.

Until then, hearings like this will keep generating heat, not light — and Americans will keep getting the bill for a debate that never actually goes anywhere.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.