Listen to the article
Seven Democrats broke with their party on Thursday to help pass a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, despite significant concerns from Democratic leadership about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The legislation is part of a larger $1.2 trillion federal spending package aimed at preventing a government shutdown before the January 30 deadline.
The House of Representatives voted on two separate packages Thursday. The first combined funding for the Departments of War, Education, Labor, Transportation, and Health and Human Services, passing with broad bipartisan support in a 341-88 vote. The second, a standalone DHS funding bill that includes ICE, passed more narrowly at 220-207, with seven Democrats crossing party lines to support it and only one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voting against.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democratic leaders had urged opposition to the DHS bill, arguing it lacked sufficient restrictions on ICE operations in the wake of a controversial fatal shooting. “Kristi Noem and ICE are out of control. Taxpayer dollars are being misused to brutalize U.S. citizens, including the tragic killing of Renee Nicole Good. This extremism must end,” Jeffries said before the vote.
The incident referenced involved an ICE agent fatally shooting Good in Minneapolis. Republicans claimed she had impeded ICE operations just before her death, but Democrats have characterized the confrontation as part of a broader pattern of aggressive enforcement tactics.
While the final bill does include some new safeguards – such as requiring ICE agents to wear body cameras and undergo additional training on public interactions – Democratic leaders considered these measures inadequate. Rep. Pete Aguilar, the third-ranking House Democrat, expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of such guardrails if “the administration isn’t going to follow the law.”
The passage of these bills represents a significant shift in how Congress approaches government funding. House Speaker Mike Johnson framed the effort as a historic return to regular budget procedures. “This is a big thing,” Johnson told Fox News Digital. “We will be making history this week, having moved 12 [appropriations] bills through the process. A lot of people thought it would be impossible.”
House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole echoed this sentiment, saying, “We aren’t here for just another stopgap temporary fix. We are here to finish the job by providing full-year funding.”
If approved by the Senate, these bills would eliminate the possibility of a government shutdown for the remainder of fiscal year 2026. This would mark the first time in nearly 30 years that Congress has funded the government without resorting to a massive omnibus spending bill or short-term continuing resolutions.
The Senate is expected to take up the package next week as the deadline approaches. However, passage in the upper chamber isn’t guaranteed. Some Senate Democrats, including Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, have already signaled opposition.
Murphy argued in a statement that the bill lacks “meaningful constraints on the growing lawlessness of ICE, and increases funding for detention over the last appropriations bill passed in 2024.” He added, “Democrats have no obligation to support a bill that not only funds the dystopian scenes we are seeing in Minneapolis but will allow DHS to replicate that playbook of brutality in cities all over this country.”
Despite these objections, Senate leadership from both parties appears reluctant to risk another government shutdown after recently emerging from the longest one in U.S. history. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and most Democrats believe the government funding process offers the best opportunity to place checks on the administration’s immigration enforcement actions.
The final outcome remains uncertain as the January 30 deadline approaches, with the fate of government operations hanging in the balance.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
This vote highlights the ongoing challenges around immigration and border security policy. While I understand the Democratic leadership’s reservations, I respect the seven members who felt this funding bill was necessary despite those concerns. These are difficult issues without easy answers.
Well said. These are complex, emotionally-charged topics where reasonable people can disagree. I hope this vote sparks a constructive dialogue about finding the right balance between security needs and civil liberties protections.
This seems like another example of the divisions and tensions within the Democratic party on immigration and homeland security issues. I wonder if the seven defectors felt this bill was a necessary compromise or if they had other specific reasons for breaking ranks.
That’s a good observation. Party unity on these types of bills can often be elusive, especially when there are complex tradeoffs involved. It will be worth watching how this plays out and whether it foreshadows further intra-party rifts.
The mention of the ‘controversial fatal shooting’ is concerning. I hope there is a thorough and transparent investigation into the details of that incident. Maintaining public trust in law enforcement agencies like ICE is crucial.
Absolutely. Any use of lethal force by government agencies needs to be carefully scrutinized. Restoring confidence in these institutions should be a priority, regardless of one’s political leanings.
I’m curious to learn more about the specific concerns the Democratic leadership had around ICE operations and how that factored into their opposition to this bill. The tragic killing mentioned is certainly alarming and underscores the need for proper oversight.
Agreed, the details around the ICE-related concerns will be important to understand. Balancing security needs with civil liberties is always a delicate challenge in these types of funding decisions.
Interesting to see House Democrats split on this DHS funding bill despite leadership’s reservations. I wonder if the seven who voted for it felt the funding was necessary even with the ICE concerns. It’s a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides.
You raise a good point. These types of bipartisan votes often reflect the nuances and tradeoffs involved, even when party lines are drawn. It will be worth watching how this plays out going forward.