To fund or to defund ICE?

HUNT VALLEY, Md. (TNND) — Capitol Hill is just coming off the heels of the longest government shutdown in American history, sparked last fall by a vicious battle over health care subsidies.

But lawmakers are staring down another deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown – Jan. 31.

And this time, they have to decide how much money to give the Department of Homeland Security, an agency currently under intense scrutiny. The bulk of which stems from last week’s fatal shooting of a mother of three by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis. Just days later, there was an ICE-involved shooting that injured a couple in Portland. The Justice department charged the man and woman, accusing them of having ties to the Tren de Aragua gang. Portland police confirmed they do appear to have connections to the gang.

The department was just slapped with lawsuits from two states over its immigration crackdowns, and has been both criticized and defended for months over its border enforcement and detention numbers.

Many of the lawmakers criticizing the agency are now tasked with funding it. And some Democrats aren’t so keen on doing so.

Calls to “defund ICE” or “abolish ICE” have been reverberating through the Democratic Party.

“What we’ve seen in Minneapolis and in Portland is what happens when we militarize against our own people,” said Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif. “We’ve got a level of funding that makes ICE bigger than a lot of militaries around the world.”

It’s not just progressives floating the idea, but also some members in the more moderate and establishment flanks.

But centrist Democrats caution they don’t have the votes to defund or abolish ICE.

“I think it is not politically viable and I don’t believe in it substantively,” said Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine. “I don’t believe in defunding an entire law enforcement agency over the actions of a few of them.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reminded lawmakers Monday “a lot of the funding for ICE that is currently being unleashed on the American people” was provided in President Donald Trump’s and Republicans’ Big, Beautiful Bill, not through the traditional appropriations process. That bill nearly tripled ICE’s funding, and wouldn’t be affected even if lawmakers can’t pass a new funding bill.

But, the Democratic Party seems united against sticking with the status quo and passing typical funding levels for DHS; they want a fight over the issue.

Many are actually suggesting to hand the agency more funding, but funding that would pay for guardrails.

They are calling on the party to refuse to vote in favor of a funding bill unless it includes new rules for ICE agents: they have to wear body cameras and identification; they can’t wear masks; they must go through more extensive training; they’re limited to operating on the border; and they need judicial warrants before arresting suspects in immigration cases.

DHS maintains that ICE officers must mask their faces over fears of being doxed by online sleuths for harassment.

“Democrats cannot vote for a DHS budget that doesn’t restrain the growing lawlessness of this agency,” said Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

Republicans have largely stood behind the Trump administration in its immigration enforcement and deployments across the country.

Still, they need 60 votes to pass the funding bill in the Senate, so they need some Democrats on board, even if it’s just a stopgap measure.

Republicans so far haven’t publicly spoken out for or against new rules for ICE, but they still support Trump’s immigration agenda, and may see the rules as hampering operations.

“What happened last week gave them more things to yell about,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. told reporters this week. “But they’ve been against ICE – and frankly, they’ve been for open borders, more importantly – for years as well.”

The swing GOP Senate voters appeared to express openness to regulating ICE officers in the aftermath of last week’s shootings.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, called for “policy changes to help prevent future tragedies” and to ensure officers work “safely, and with empathy and respect for human life.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, also raised questions about the agency’s actions.

And, lawmakers in both major parties had already agreed to limit the White House’s ability to redirect DHS money to things other than what Congress allows.

But not all Democratic leadership has committed to the plan to vote against any DHS funding without the new rules yet, and reports indicate they’re also trying to come up with other ways to hold the administration accountable without wading into a funding fight.

When asked this week about a party revolt to secure more ICE rules, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called it “one of the major issues that appropriators are confronting right now.”

Recent polling suggests Americans are largely in favor of the proposed rules for ICE agents.

According to a poll by The Economist/YouGov taken Jan. 9-12 after the Minneapolis shooting, 91% of U.S. adults said they either saw videos of the woman being shot or heard about it.

Nearly three-quarters say they think ICE officers should have to be in uniform when making arrests, and more than half don’t think they should be allowed to wear masks to hide their identities.

On the issue of abolishing ICE as a whole, 46% say they’re in support, while 43% are in opposition.