WASHINGTON — Democrats are wrestling with whether to use a key Jan. 30 deadline to demand constraints on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed an American woman in Minneapolis.
Progressives in the House and Senate are calling on their party to hold firm in opposition to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security unless it comes with conditions — such as requiring agents to wear identification, limiting Customs and Border Protection agents to the border and requiring judicial warrants to arrest suspects in immigration cases.
They say Trump is using autocratic tactics by deploying masked agents in cities to intimidate Americans who don’t support him.
“Democrats cannot vote for a DHS budget that doesn’t restrain the growing lawlessness of this agency,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing DHS, wrote on X after the Minneapolis shooting.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus announced Tuesday that its members have formally voted to oppose any bill to fund DHS “unless there are meaningful and significant reforms to immigration enforcement practices.”
The blowback from Democrats to the Minnesota ICE shooting, which Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the White House have defended, may pose a problem for Republicans in Congress who will need at least some Democratic votes to fund the government — including DHS — before Jan. 31 or risk a shutdown.
Democratic opposition has already frozen a DHS measure that was slated to be added to an appropriations package getting a Senate vote this week. Republicans control Congress and have largely stood by Trump on ICE deployments across the country, but such a bill requires 60 votes to pass the Senate.
Congress may have to fall back on a stopgap bill to prevent a funding lapse for DHS. That’s where things get trickier for Democrats. If House Republicans pass a continuing resolution on their own, which would keep DHS running on autopilot, Senate Democrats would again have to choose between accepting it and forcing a partial shutdown.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., wouldn’t say whether he’s open to guardrails on immigration enforcement when asked Tuesday by NBC News.
But he called on Democrats not to allow another shutdown.
“I think government shutdowns are stupid. I don’t think anybody wins. I hope the Democrats share that view,” he said, while acknowledging that DHS funding is “the hardest one” and it’s possible that if we can’t get agreement, there could be some sort of a CR that funds some of these bills into next year.”
The record-long shutdown last fall, triggered over a health care dispute, yielded no concessions for Democrats. And unlike the Affordable Care Act, a winning issue for Democrats, some in the party are more leery of a standoff over immigration. The center-left group Third Way is encouraging Democrats to steer clear of reviving the “abolish ICE” discourse.
And some Democrats note that the $170 billion infusion of funding for immigration enforcement was approved by Republicans on a party-line basis in Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” last summer. That wouldn’t be affected even if DHS funding through the normal appropriations process expires.
One Democratic aide, discussing the sensitive topic on condition of anonymity, noted that a stopgap funding bill for DHS would provide fewer guardrails and more flexibility for Noem to move money around as she sees fit.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sidestepped questions about whether he favors withholding DHS funding to slap restrictions on ICE, calling it “one of the major issues that appropriators are confronting right now.”
“The appropriators are working on that right now with the four corners and trying to come up with an agreement,” he said.
House Democrats’ strategy on ICE was a major topic of conversation during a closed-door party meeting Tuesday, according to attendees. But the conversation focused more on finding ways to hold the Trump administration accountable, other than withholding money for the agency.
One example of how they plan to do that: Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee will hold a field hearing in the Minneapolis area on Friday, where they plan to highlight the impact of ICE in the community.
“That was a big bulk of what we talked about,” said Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., who plans to attend the hearing. “The plea was to the caucus was that we have to hold people accountable. We have to do oversight when our colleagues won’t do it.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the ranking member of the House Judiciary subcommittee overseeing immigration and former Progressive Caucus chair, said that if Democrats wait until next year, “a lot of people are going to die between now and then, because this is now a federalized military force that’s being unleashed.”
“Obviously, the Senate has more leverage than the House, but I do think it’s also critically important for us to be on the record against this amount of funding, number one, and funding without any accountability or guardrails,” she said. “So we have a list of guardrails that we have been working with our leadership and the Senate.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., slammed ICE and Noem as “totally out of control” and in need of “commonsense” restraints that reflect law enforcement conduct.
“What’s in front of us right now is a spending bill that will go either one of two ways,” he told reporters. “Either Republicans will continue their ‘my way or the highway’ approach as it relates to the Homeland Security bill, and if that happens, then it’s going to be on them to figure out a path forward.”
Before the Minneapolis shooting, a national poll by The Associated Press found last month that just 38% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, while 60% disapprove.
A YouGov/Economist poll taken Jan. 9-12, after the Minneapolis shooting, found that 69% of American adults said they saw video of it, while another 22% said they had heard about it. Seventy-three percent said ICE agents should wear uniforms during arrests, and 56% said they shouldn’t be allowed to wear masks while arresting people. A plurality said ICE was making the U.S. “less safe.” And respondents said 46%-43% they support “abolishing ICE,” within the survey’s margin of error.