In a shocking statement, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan has just defended the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claiming that agents are “doing God’s work.” The statement immediately sparked a wave of fierce controversy, with many asking: Is separating families and detaining children really “God’s work”?
Jim Jordan, known for his tough and conservative statements, has not used faith as a political tool for the first time. But this time, he has stepped into forbidden territory: using religion to justify a controversial policy that has been heavily criticized by a series of human rights organizations. ICE has long been a symbol of harsh immigration policies, where children are separated from their parents, families are detained in squalid conditions, and a series of widely reported human rights scandals.
Opponents argue that linking “the work of God” to a law enforcement agency that causes human suffering is a complete distortion of morality and faith. They insist that faith should never be used as a tool to legitimize violence or injustice. Meanwhile, Jordan appears to have separated religious belief from political reality: he praised ICE while thousands of children and families continue to suffer separation and injustice.
The response on social media and in the media has been swift. Human rights activists, clergy, and ordinary citizens have all spoken out strongly against it. Some called Jordan’s remarks a “weaponization of faith,” turning religion from a tool of comfort and goodwill into a political shield to justify controversial policies. His supporters, meanwhile, argued that ICE enforces the law and maintains order in the country, but this does little to alleviate the heartbreaking images of detained children and separated families.
The incident is not just a political debate, but also raises larger questions about the ethics and responsibilities of lawmakers: Should religious beliefs be used to justify causing human suffering? Is the claim that “ICE is doing God’s work” truly in line with the humanistic spirit of religion or merely a political tactic to consolidate power and personal gain?
Once again, the incident reminds the public that political statements, especially when they involve faith, should never be taken lightly. When a politician uses religion to defend controversial policies, public opinion raises questions not only about policy, but also about morality, faith, and human responsibility. Jim Jordan’s words today are creating a broader debate about the boundaries between faith, politics, and justice.
