As a Friday deadline to fund the federal government draws closer, Senate Republicans are asking Democrats to clarify their expectations around funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to find a compromise.
The atmosphere on Capitol Hill on Tuesday was one of uncertainty as Democrats unite against funding DHS without substantial reforms—though Democrats haven’t put forward a unified proposal on what these would look like.
Last week, the House passed the $1.2 trillion spending package at issue. It would fund the departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and DHS.
Until a few days ago, this so-called “minibus” spending package—including the DHS funding bill—seemed on track to pass the Senate, as leaders in both parties expressed their hopes to avoid a repetition of the 43-day government shutdown seen in 2025.
That changed in the wake of the shooting of Alex Pretti, an American citizen, in Minneapolis by Customs and Border Patrol agents.
In the aftermath, Senate Democrats led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed to oppose the DHS component of the six-part funding package passed by the House last week.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for a “very honorable and honest investigation” into the incident, and has expressed a desire to reduce tensions in Minnesota. The administration has withdrawn Greg Bovino, a controversial immigration leader overseeing operations in the Twin Cities, in favor of border czar Tom Homan.
However, Democrats say that they’re unswayed by promises offered by the administration and are demanding legislative changes before they'll back any bill containing DHS funding.
For now, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has indicated that Republicans plan to move forward on their original plan to advance a $1.2 trillion spending bill as a single package.
“What happens ... if the bill fails?” a reporter asked Thune outside the Senate chamber.
“Well, we will obviously go to Plan B,” Thune said, though he didn’t elaborate.
On Tuesday, it was obvious on Capitol Hill that such a “Plan B” may become necessary to avoid a government shutdown—but the shape and contents of that alternative remain unclear.
In the interim, Thune—and other Republicans—say they need clarity on what Democrats expect.
“If Democrats can define what it is they want—and right now that seems to be kind of a moving target—but it would be very helpful if they could describe, or at least give some definition of what it is they want,” Thune said.
Schumer has indicated that his preference is that the DHS funding bill be separated from the broader package, allowing standalone votes on funding for each sector rather than wrapping the legislation into a single package.
When he first announced his opposition to the measure, Schumer wrote that Senate Democrats “will not provide the votes to proceed to the appropriations bill if the DHS funding bill is included.”
In a Tuesday speech on the Senate floor, Schumer expanded on his position.
“In the wake of ICE’s abuses and the administration’s recklessness, the Senate must not pass the DHS budget as currently written. It must be reworked to rein in and overhaul ICE to ensure the public’s safety."
“In the meantime, I will vote no on any legislation that funds ICE until it is reined in and overhauled,“ Schumer continued. He said that Senate Democrats are ”overwhelmingly united” on this issue.
He called on Thune to allow standalone votes on the five non-controversial spending items, noting that passing these would leave “96 percent of the federal government ... funded.”
“If Leader Thune agrees to split the bills just as Speaker Johnson split them in the House and puts the five on the floor, I’m confident they will sail, sail through the chamber,” Schumer said.
Under this proposal, DHS funding would lapse until lawmakers could work out a compromise.
Thune, meanwhile, characterized Schumer’s proposal as “risky.”
“I would prefer that there be a way that we keep the package together. I think it becomes really complicated and frankly, risky for that matter,” he said, likely referencing the risk that the bill could fail to pass muster in the House if brought back for another vote.
That comment comes as some House moderate Democrats who helped pass the bill initially—including Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Vincente Gonzalez (D-Texas) —have moved to distance themselves from that initial vote.
Amid the outrage over Pretti’s shooting, the same bill could struggle to garner Democratic votes if an amended version were returned to the House.
While no unified message has emerged, several Democratic senators suggested potential reforms that could be implemented as part of an agreement to fund the agency—including some members who say they’re working on drafting legislative language for these proposals.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) provided several potential reforms, giving his appraisal of where Senate Democrats’ thinking on the issue is.
“The things that we care most about are getting an independent investigation [into Pretti’s shooting] and ending the roving patrols that are terrorizing Minneapolis, ... getting some education, body cams. So I think those are the things that matter most to folks.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said that he’s been “drafting language” for potential reforms, “particularly on the warrants.”
—Joseph Lord, Nathan Worcestor
BOOKMARKS
A federal judge in Oregon has tossed out a suit by the Justice Department seeking the state’s voter rolls. U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has not yet issued a written opinion explaining his decision.
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) will depart Congress after nearly two decades in the House of Representatives. “After 20 years of service, I believe it’s the right time to pass the torch and begin a new chapter in my life,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) is appealing a court decision that ordered her congressional district be redrawn. Justice Jeffrey Pearlman of the New York Supreme Court previously ruled the district had been drawn in a way that resulted in a “denial or abridgement of racial or language minority voting rights.”
U.S. Census Bureau estimates show a drop in immigration numbers from July 2024 to June 2025. The agency estimated that net international migration declined from a high of 2.7 million in 2024 to 1.3 million in 2025; those estimates don’t differentiate between legal and illegal migration.
—Stacy Robinson
