With a critical funding deadline fast approaching, congressional Democrats see a narrow window to impose new constraints on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agency, a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), faces heightened scrutiny following a fatal shooting by an agent in Minneapolis, fueling protests and political pressure.
The Funding Deadline and Democratic Leverage
The Department of Homeland Security, along with other federal agencies, is set to run out of funding by January 30. Lawmakers are working through the weekend to broker a deal. The recent Minneapolis incident has intensified Democratic demands, with party leaders insisting on ICE reforms as a condition for their support on any new DHS spending bill.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) stated bluntly on Wednesday, "Right now, there’s no bipartisan path forward for the Department of Homeland Security." Democrats hold leverage in both chambers. In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) can afford very few GOP defections, giving Democrats collective power. In the Senate, Republicans need at least seven Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster on any DHS funding bill.
Three Paths Forward for Homeland Security
According to Capitol Hill aides, Congress faces three primary options. The first is passing a full-year DHS funding bill that includes limited ICE reforms agreed to by Republicans. The second is a temporary "continuing resolution" (CR) that simply extends current funding levels with no policy changes. The final, and most controversial, option is to not fund DHS at all, a move that would impact other critical agencies like FEMA and the TSA.
None of these paths are expected to deliver the major reforms some Democrats advocate for, such as ending qualified immunity for ICE agents or abolishing the agency. However, the yearlong funding bill represents the only viable legislative avenue for imposing any new guardrails on ICE operations in the near future.
Why Defunding DHS Won't Stop ICE
A significant hurdle for reformers is that simply blocking DHS funding will not curtail ICE's activities. As a Senate aide highlighted, Republicans passed a law last year allocating $75 billion to ICE, leaving the agency financially flush regardless of the current appropriations fight.
Furthermore, because DHS is currently operating under a continuing resolution, Secretary Kristi Noem has broad discretion over how that massive budget is spent, with minimal oversight. Another CR would allow this pattern to continue unchecked. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) criticized this approach, saying a CR "doesn’t do anything to constrain the way that they’re acting lawlessly."
This reality makes the yearlong appropriations bill the last, best chance for Democrats to attach specific spending directives that would limit Noem's discretion and mandate certain reforms.
Democratic negotiators are already holding a firm line, refusing to include any new funding for ICE in any DHS bill. The challenge now is identifying which reforms might gain Republican acceptance. Proposals floated include requiring ICE agents to wear body cameras, implementing de-escalation training, and barring agents from wearing masks during operations.
Some Republican appropriators also prefer a yearlong bill, aiming to reassert congressional spending power after ceding control to the Trump administration and the Office of Management and Budget. "I feel cautiously optimistic," said House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.). Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) echoed the sentiment, stating a goal of signed bills, not continuing resolutions that "lock in previous priorities."
However, at least one anonymous Republican House appropriator predicted the party would choose the path of least resistance: a continuing resolution. As the January 30 deadline nears, the outcome of this high-stakes negotiation will determine the scope of ICE's authority and oversight for the coming year.
