WASHINGTON — A fatal shooting during a federal immigration operation in Minneapolis has accelerated a political rupture that has been building for months, pushing Democratic governors and lawmakers toward a coordinated effort to rein in the powers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and related federal agencies under President Donald Trump.

In Congress this week, Democrats advanced new legislative language aimed at limiting funding, oversight authority and operational latitude for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, marking the most significant attempt yet to constrain the administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics. The move follows a series of confrontations in major cities, where federal agents have been accused of using excessive force, bypassing local authorities and escalating tensions in communities already on edge.

The immediate catalyst was a deadly encounter in Minneapolis that state officials say unfolded with little transparency and no independent investigation before federal authorities issued a public justification. The incident echoed earlier episodes in Chicago and elsewhere, where ICE accounts were later contradicted by court findings, fueling accusations that the agency has grown both emboldened and insulated from accountability.

“This is not about immigration policy anymore,” said JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois, in a televised interview. “This is about federal agents operating in American cities without restraint, ratcheting up violence and then declaring themselves blameless.”

Mr. Pritzker, who has clashed repeatedly with the White House over immigration enforcement in Chicago, called for a unified response from governors of both parties. He argued that ICE’s expanded footprint — including the rapid hiring of thousands of new agents — has turned the agency into what he described as a “paramilitary force” operating with minimal oversight.

At the Capitol, Democratic lawmakers echoed that assessment. Several members said the Minneapolis shooting underscored why Congress should not provide additional resources to agencies they believe are abusing their authority. Proposed measures would restrict funding for large-scale urban operations, mandate independent investigations of fatal encounters involving federal immigration agents, and clarify that state authorities may assert jurisdiction when state laws appear to have been violated.

Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a Marine veteran who has often taken more conservative positions within his party, said the events had forced a reckoning. “You cannot enforce the law if you believe you are above it,” he said. “Federal officers are not exempt from prosecution.”

The legislative push comes amid rising fears among Democratic leaders that the administration is deliberately provoking unrest. Mr. Pritzker and others warned that heightened enforcement and confrontational tactics could provide a pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act, allowing the president to deploy military forces domestically.

“That is the danger here,” Mr. Pritzker said. “You inflame the situation, then claim you are restoring order.”

Republicans, by contrast, have largely remained silent or defended the administration, a stance Democrats say represents a stark reversal from decades of conservative rhetoric about states’ rights. Critics argue that federal immigration operations have increasingly overridden local law enforcement and state governments, even in jurisdictions that have not obstructed federal law.

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security have defended ICE’s actions, saying agents face dangerous परिस्थितons and must act decisively to protect themselves. Officials insist that operations are lawful and necessary to enforce immigration statutes passed by Congress.

Yet the political landscape appears to be shifting. What is striking, analysts say, is the breadth of Democratic alignment. Progressive lawmakers who have long called for dismantling ICE are now joined by centrists and state executives who once favored incremental reform. That convergence has given new momentum to proposals that only months ago seemed unlikely to advance.

“The party has not always spoken with one voice on immigration enforcement,” said a Democratic strategist. “What’s different now is the perception that this is no longer a policy dispute but a constitutional one.”

The measures moving through Congress stop short of abolishing ICE, a step that still lacks majority support. Instead, they focus on narrowing operational authority, tightening oversight and using the power of the purse to force changes in behavior. Whether the bills can clear both chambers — and survive a presidential veto — remains uncertain.

Even if they stall, the debate itself signals a broader confrontation between the federal government and states led by Democrats. Governors in Minnesota, Illinois and other states have already moved to assert greater control over investigations involving federal agents operating within their borders, a stance that could set up prolonged legal battles.

For President Trump, the controversy adds another front to an already volatile term. His allies frame the backlash as evidence that Democrats are weak on immigration and hostile to law enforcement. His critics argue the opposite: that unchecked federal power is undermining public safety and the rule of law.

As protests continue and investigations unfold, one reality is clear. The Minneapolis shooting has transformed simmering discontent into legislative action, forcing Congress to confront a question it has long deferred: how far federal immigration enforcement can go inside American cities before lawmakers step in to draw firm boundaries.