Seven House Democrats just crossed party lines to push forward a funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that keeps U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operational.
On Thursday, the House advanced a DHS appropriations bill by a vote of 220-207 during a committee markup, securing funding for ICE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through September 30.
The measure faced fierce opposition from progressive Democrats, with House Democratic leaders like Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar publicly opposing it due to concerns over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. Despite a narrow 218-213 Republican majority, seven Democrats—Tom Suozzi (New York), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (North Carolina), Laura Gillen (New York), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), and Marie Glusenkamp Perez (Washington)—voted in favor.
The debate has ignited strong opinions on both sides of the aisle. While some see this as a pragmatic move to keep essential services running, others view it as a betrayal of core values amid heightened scrutiny of DHS enforcement tactics.
Before the vote, Democratic leaders faced pressure from rank-and-file members to resist funding ICE, citing aggressive immigration enforcement actions, Newsweek reported. Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, warned that a short-term continuing resolution would hand Trump more control over DHS spending.
Some Democrats also cautioned that letting DHS funding lapse could cripple disaster relief efforts and agencies like the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), while ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would likely keep operating using funds from last year’s Republican-backed tax and immigration law. That legislation allocated tens of billions—$30 billion for ICE operations and $45 billion for detention facilities—ensuring border enforcement stays funded.
The approved bill keeps ICE’s annual congressional appropriation, typically around $10 billion, roughly the same as last year. It also limits DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s ability to redirect funds unilaterally and mandates monthly reports on spending from Trump’s law, alongside $20 million for body cameras for ICE and CBP officers.
During floor debates, several Democrats lambasted ICE’s methods, alleging overreach in enforcement. Representative Betty McCollum (Minnesota) highlighted cases of racial profiling and detentions in her state, painting a troubling picture of federal overreach.
McCollum stated, “Masked federal agents are seizing parents, yes, in front of terrified children.” Her words aim to shock, but they sidestep the broader reality that ICE’s mission, however imperfectly executed, targets unauthorized migration—a persistent challenge lawmakers on all sides have failed to solve with lasting reform.
Henry Cuellar (Texas), one of the seven Democrats who voted yes, admitted, “It’s not everything we wanted.” He’s right—compromise rarely is—but with Republicans holding the House, Senate, and White House, expecting sweeping oversight changes seems more like wishful thinking than strategy.
The broader context shows a House grappling with a $1.2 trillion package of four spending bills to avert another government shutdown after last fall’s record 43-day closure. Three other measures funding the Defense Department, Education, Transportation, and Health and Human Services passed with bipartisan support, while the DHS bill remains contentious.
The Senate now has until January 30 to act on these bills and prevent a partial shutdown. Meanwhile, a late addition to the DHS package—repealing senators’ ability to sue over cellphone data collection tied to Jack Smith’s January 6 investigation—was unanimously blocked by the House.
Critics of the DHS bill argue it fuels an overly harsh immigration stance, but supporters point out that funding ICE doesn’t mean endorsing every tactic. Disaster relief and airport security hang in the balance—hardly issues to gamble with over ideological purity.
Representative Thomas Massie (Kentucky) was the sole Republican to vote against the measure, a curious outlier in an otherwise party-line split. His dissent underscores that even among conservatives, DHS funding isn’t a monolith—some prioritize fiscal restraint over border enforcement boosts.
Ultimately, the seven Democrats who broke ranks may face backlash from their base, but their votes reflect a tough reality: governing often means choosing between imperfect options. With ICE and CBP able to tap into prior allocations, defunding them entirely was never a realistic outcome. The real fight lies in oversight and ensuring enforcement doesn’t trample on basic decency—an uphill battle, but one worth waging.
