Congress

Democrats confront an ICE dilemma: To rein it in, they have to fund it

Published

2 months ago

January 14, 2026

New calls to “defund ICE” are reverberating through the Democratic Party following last week’s deadly shooting by a federal agent in Minneapolis. Behind the scenes, top Democrats are feverishly working to fund the agency — with strings attached.

The mismatch between the anti-ICE rhetoric and the actions of Democratic appropriators reflects a Catch-22 of congressional power: The only way lawmakers can put guardrails on the controversial agency and curb President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda at this moment is to hand it billions of taxpayer dollars.

As they negotiate fiscal 2026 funding for the Department of Homeland Security with Republicans ahead of a Jan. 30 shutdown deadline, Democrats are demanding new rules for DHS agents, such as forcing them to use body cameras, refrain from wearing masks and go through more extensive training.

Even as new polling fielded after the fatal Jan. 7 shooting of Renee Good shows that a plurality of voters back ICE’s elimination, top Democrats on Capitol Hill are seeking to restrain the agency under Trump’s leadership — not disband it.

“House Democrats want accountability and oversight of ICE,” Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, the No. 3 Democratic leader, told reporters Tuesday. “They should have to continue to testify to Congress as to what they are doing. But more importantly, we need to look out for the American people right now. They are terrorizing people in the streets of this country.”

Among the rank-and-file, there is also a deep desire to rein in the agency. Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.), deputy chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said in an interview his group supports “reforms” for the agency.

“It’s not the CHC’s position that we’re terminating ICE,” Soto said. “But there is a culture of violence that’s happening that does need to be addressed.”

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, meanwhile, announced Tuesday it had “adopted an official position” opposing new DHS funding “unless there are meaningful and significant reforms to immigration enforcement practices.”

It’s not clear what GOP leaders are willing to accept in return for the Democratic votes that will be necessary to pass any DHS funding bill. They have not publicly ruled out new rules for ICE, despite equating Democrats’ demands with support for lax immigration policies.

“Understand, what happened last week gave them more things to yell about,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told reporters this week, referring to Democrats’ response to the shooting. “But they’ve been against ICE — and frankly, they’ve been for open borders, more importantly — for years as well.”

Part of a calculation for both sides is that the alternatives to a negotiated compromise are unsavory for each party. Democratic lawmakers are in no mood to default to a lengthy stopgap funding patch that would maintain the status quo on immigration enforcement and give the Trump administration more leeway to decide how the money is spent. And if Republicans refuse to enact restraints, they warn, funding for DHS could lapse altogether in a few weeks.

“The question is for Republicans: Are they willing to shut down the government simply to endorse the most lawless Department of Homeland Security in the history of the country?” Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security funding panel, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” over the weekend.

Despite the tough rhetoric, Murphy showed a willingness to compromise in comments to reporters this week. Appropriators, he said, are “not going to write a comprehensive immigration enforcement reform bill” within the DHS funding measure.

“But in every bill there’s language on how our money is spent. And I want to make sure that our money is spent lawfully,” he continued. “So yes, we’re having conversations about how we can pass a bill — but a bill that makes sure that ICE is operating legally.”

One of the challenges for lawmakers is that Republicans already gave ICE billions of dollars within the party-line tax and spending package they enacted over the summer. The “big, beautiful bill” included $75 billion for the agency over the following decade, above and beyond the nearly $11 billion it was granted in the fiscal year that ended in September.

“It’s important to understand that a lot of the funding that’s being unleashed on the American people in such extreme ways right now was provided not through the traditional appropriations process,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters this week.

In spite of the major roadblocks to clinching a bipartisan funding deal, there are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are interested in putting at least some fetters on immigration enforcement agencies.

The day after the fatal shooting in Minnesota, GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said footage of the killing was “deeply disturbing” and called for “policy changes to help prevent future tragedies” that would ensure ICE agents work “safely — and with empathy and respect for human life.”

Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate objected to moving forward this week with the DHS funding bill, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said, forcing it to be stripped from a planned multibill package at the 11th hour.

“This one’s tricky, just simply because of the political situation,” Cole told reporters. “We’re trying to work with our colleagues. I know they’re trying to get a bill. But I’m very sensitive to the political challenges they have on this particular bill.”

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) also acknowledged this week that “obviously the agency and some of its actions have raised questions lately,” adding that while a deal on DHS funding hasn’t yet been notched, “it doesn’t mean it won’t be eventually.”

Even before the shooting in Minnesota, lawmakers in both parties had agreed to new limits on the Trump administration’s ability to redirect DHS money to purposes other than what Congress prescribes.

Rep. Mark Amodei, the Nevada Republican who chairs the Homeland Security funding panel, told reporters last week that House and Senate appropriators are crafting the spending measure to make it “harder to make the money mobile.”

He called the Trump administration’s penchant for shifting around cash “bullshit” and acknowledged that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem would not be fond of the new restrictions.

On Tuesday, Amodei struck an upbeat note on the negotiations, saying the DHS bill is “progressing nicely.”

Calen Razor contributed to this report.

Congress

House Ethics trial for Cherflius-McCormick postponed as lawmaker seeks new lawyer

Published

54 minutes ago

March 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Ethics Committee has postponed its planned public trial for Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick — the Florida Democrat facing accusations that she stole millions in FEMA funding — to later this month.

A hearing of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Ethics panel was pushed from this Thursday to March 26 after the lawmaker’s “counsel in the matter withdrew from representing her before the adjudicatory subcommittee,” according to a committee press release.

“Representative Cherfilus-McCormick asked for a brief continuance to allow her to retain new counsel,” the statement continued.

Lawmakers on the Ethics Committee, which adjudicates allegations of misconduct against House members and staff, were poised to meet to determine whether the allegations against Cherfilus-McCormick have been proven by “clear and convincing evidence.” There, the committee’s counsel and Cherfilus-McCormick’s counsel could have made their respective cases.

It’s highly unusual for the panel to operate in the open, let alone convene a trial. The last time House Ethics met in such a capacity was in 2010 to consider the case of late-Rep. Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat accused of a number of charges, including inappropriately soliciting funds and financial disclosure violations.

Rangel’s situation had parallels to that of Cherfilus-McCormick. At the time, Rangel was irate over the Ethics Committee’s handling of the matter, claiming he was denied due process because he could not hire a lawyer in time for the hearing. At one point, he threatened to exit the room and left.

“I don’t think it’s fair that I participate in any type of proceeding if in fact what you are basically telling me that the political calendar will not allow you enough … time to allow me to get a lawyer at this crucial point in my life,” Rangel said, alluding to the fact that the Ethics Committee was rushing to conclude its business before the end of the legislative session.

The panel nearly unanimously voted to censure Rangel for his conduct, which the House approved shortly afterward.

Cherfilus-McCormick, like Rangel, had previously asked for the proceedings against her to be delayed. Her then-lawyer argued that the Justice Department’s criminal proceedings necessitated a stay in the Ethics Committee’s work. The Florida Democrat cited, among other examples, former Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, whose own case pending before House Ethics case was paused after a request from DOJ.

Congress

House Democrats introduce alternative war powers resolution

Published

1 hour ago

March 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Half a dozen moderate House Democrats have introduced their own war powers resolution as the chamber barrels towards a floor vote later this week on a bipartisan measure to curb President Donald Trump’s use of force in Iran.

It’s a sign of how some Democrats are struggling to reconcile their opposition to the Trump administration’s military action with a desire to appear hawkish on national security — even in a largely symbolic capacity.

The new proposed resolution from the six lawmakers would call for an end to military operations in Iran within 30 days unless Congress provides authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war. In contrast, the resolution that is being forced for consideration Thursday from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) would require the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iran.

The co-sponsors of the alternative resolution are Democratic Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Greg Landsman of Ohio, Henry Cuellar of Texas and Jared Golden of Maine, alongside Reps. Jim Costa and Jimmy Panetta of California.

The Massie-Khanna resolution has little chance of becoming law, even if it makes it through the House — which is no guarantee. Still, there’s pressure on Democrats to take a unified stance in support of the bipartisan proposal and against the Trump administration’s actions, with Democratic leadership and ranking members of key committees urging a “yes” vote to rein in the president.

Asked about the new war powers resolution from members of his caucus, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries during a Tuesday news conference said he had not yet seen the legislative text.

“Our focus is on the resolution that will be on the floor this week,” the New York Democrat said.

Jeffries also said House Democrats will discuss the matter Wednesday afternoon, following an all-member House briefing scheduled for Tuesday evening with Trump administration officials on the unfolding situation in Iran.

“We’ll continue to make the strongest possible case,” Jeffries said. “There is going to be very strong Democratic support for the War Powers Resolution across the ideological spectrum.”

Bipartisan members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, of which Gottheimer is a co-chair, have discussed the matter during their own meetings in recent days. Many have shared concerns that the Massie-Khanna resolution is overly broad and would hamstring the administration regarding key national security efforts, according to three people with direct knowledge of the matter.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Mike Rounds seeks Pentagon briefing on Anthropic spat

Published

1 hour ago

March 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A top lawmaker on the Senate Armed Services Committee has requested a briefing from the Pentagon on its escalating feud with AI startup Anthropic, which has prompted the Trump administration to threaten to declare the company a supply chain risk.

“I’ll withhold judgment until I’ve had my briefing,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chair of the panel’s cybersecurity subcommittee, told reporters Tuesday, in response to questions from Blue Light News about the unprecedented move.

A supply chain risk designation would result in Anthropic being blacklisted from government contracts — something typically reserved for firms with ties to U.S. foreign adversaries. The technology company is expected to challenge such a designation in court.

The Defense Department and Anthropic did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Negotiations with the Pentagon over use of Anthropic’s AI systems hit a roadblock last week when the firm refused to lift restrictions on the military’s unfettered access to its technology. The startup had sought to stop its systems from being used in fully autonomous weapons systems or for domestic surveillance.

President Donald Trump, roughly one hour before the deadline to meet the Pentagon’s demands, directed all federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic’s AI and declared a six-month phase-out period in a post on Truth Social. Trump threatened “major civil and criminal consequences,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in an X post accused the company of endangering national security.

Last week, key defense policy lawmakers on Blue Light News urged a ceasefire as tensions between Hegseth and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei escalated. Top Senate defense appropriators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), as well as Senate Armed Services Committee leaders Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), sent a letter to the two men expressing “concern over the escalatory direction of negotiations between the Department of Defense and Anthropic.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who is retiring at the end of his term in 2027, also weighed in Tuesday, telling reporters: “They’re telling Anthropic that they should compromise their code of conduct to facilitate whatever it is Hegseth or somebody wants.” He added that this will give other AI upstarts the “green light” to cast aside imposing their own codes of conduct.