Listen to the article
Senate Republicans Push Forward with DHS Funding Plan Amid House GOP Resistance
Senate Republicans are advancing a two-step strategy to end the record-breaking Department of Homeland Security shutdown, but House Republicans are expressing significant opposition to the approach, highlighting growing tensions within the GOP over funding priorities.
The Senate approved a budget resolution Thursday largely along party lines that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s term. Republicans are utilizing the partisan budget reconciliation process to bypass Democrats after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer refused to fund the department without including sweeping reforms.
House conservatives, however, are pushing for a more comprehensive package that includes additional policy priorities beyond immigration enforcement funding.
“I think we’ve got one last opportunity for reconciliation,” Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., told Fox News Digital. “I like the idea of making it bigger,” he added, advocating for the inclusion of defense funding and cost-of-living measures in the package.
The disagreement reflects a broader divide within the Republican Party about tactical approaches to the DHS funding crisis. House Speaker Mike Johnson is racing to pass the Senate’s budget resolution as early as next week, with little room for error given the slim Republican majority. President Trump has established a June 1 deadline for Republicans to fully fund immigration enforcement through a GOP-only bill.
Before the DHS shutdown began in mid-February, House Republican leadership had suggested a more comprehensive reconciliation package that would incorporate multiple priorities, including defense supplemental funding, spending cuts targeting fraud, and cost-of-living policies. The absence of these provisions in the current proposal has raised concerns among rank-and-file Republicans.
Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., a member of the House Freedom Caucus, told Fox News Digital he remains “undecided” on the Senate’s approach. “I’ve got issues with it. We believe it should be more expansive,” he explained.
House conservatives have also strongly objected to the Senate’s bipartisan partial DHS funding bill, which carved out ICE and Border Patrol from the normal appropriations process. “The bill the Senate sent over is totally unacceptable to conservatives,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., stated Thursday. “We will never vote or support in any way a bill that puts in a zero” for immigration enforcement.
Senate Republicans, led by Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are largely unified on keeping the package narrow, arguing that a more focused approach will expedite passage. Graham has limited the process to just two committees—the Senate Judiciary and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees.
“The vast majority of Republicans stuck together to do something Democrats are refusing to do: Fully fund the Border Patrol and ICE for three and a half years through the Trump presidency,” Graham said after the Senate adopted the budget blueprint.
However, even within the Senate, some Republicans share their House colleagues’ desire for a more comprehensive package. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., argued on the Senate floor that despite promises of a third reconciliation bill later in the year, “There won’t be a third reconciliation bill. You know it… and I know it. This is the last train leaving the station.”
Meanwhile, DHS has warned it is running short on funds to continue paying its employees through May. Earlier in April, Trump ordered the department to use existing funds to provide backpay to federal employees who had been furloughed or working without salary since the funding lapse began.
As the June 1 deadline approaches, it remains unclear whether the House will modify the Senate’s budget blueprint. Any changes would require the resolution to return to the Senate for another marathon voting session before Congress could officially begin the reconciliation process—further delaying resolution to a funding crisis that has already stretched on for nearly three months.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
Securing our borders and maintaining homeland security are vital national priorities. However, the partisan bickering over DHS funding is concerning. I hope our elected representatives can put politics aside and find a bipartisan solution.
Well said. Homeland security should not be a partisan issue. Hopefully cooler heads can prevail, and Congress can work together constructively.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. The ‘skinny’ plan may be a pragmatic first step, but the House GOP has a point about needing a more comprehensive package. Immigration and defense funding are closely linked.
Definitely a tricky balance to strike. Any solution will likely require give-and-take from all sides to get something passed.
I’m skeptical that the Senate’s ‘skinny’ plan will gain much traction in the House. The GOP factions seem quite divided on this issue. Hopefully they can find common ground before the DHS funding runs out entirely.
You raise a fair point. The divisions within the GOP could make it very difficult to reach a compromise. Tough negotiations likely lie ahead.
It’s interesting to see the political tensions within the GOP over funding priorities for the DHS. Some Republicans seem to favor a more comprehensive package, while others are pushing for a narrower ‘skinny’ plan. Curious to see how this plays out in the House.
Yes, it’s a delicate balancing act. The GOP will need to find a compromise that satisfies both the more hardline conservatives and the moderates in the party.
The DHS shutdown has dragged on for far too long. I hope the Senate’s plan can break the impasse, even if it faces resistance in the House. Securing our borders and maintaining homeland security should be a top priority for both parties.
Agreed. Partisan politics needs to be set aside when it comes to national security. Hopefully cooler heads can prevail and a solution be found.
The ‘skinny’ DHS funding plan may be a pragmatic short-term fix, but the House GOP seems to want a more comprehensive package. I can understand both sides of the argument – it’s a complex issue without easy answers.
Agreed. This is the kind of issue where reasonable people can disagree. Compromise will be essential to break the impasse.