Senate Democrats are weighing whether to support a short-term funding extension for the Department of Homeland Security as a Friday deadline approaches and negotiations over immigration enforcement remain stalled.
Senate Democrats who helped bring the fall government shutdown to an end are again confronting a difficult decision, whether to back a short-term funding extension for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ahead of a Friday deadline.
Lawmakers remain far from a long-term agreement on DHS funding, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune has signaled plans to move forward with a second continuing resolution (CR) to keep the department operating.
DHS is the only federal agency without full-year funding for fiscal 2026 after Democrats demanded that any deal include changes to immigration enforcement practices, following backlash over the administration’s crackdown in Minneapolis.
Skepticism over another stopgap
Democrats say support for another stopgap measure is far from certain, arguing they need meaningful progress toward a broader deal before approving a temporary fix.
“My first reaction is not only ‘no,’ but ‘hell no,’” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said of another CR, though he left the door open to reconsider if talks show real momentum. Durbin is among eight Democrats — largely centrists, retirees and members from swing states — who previously broke with party leadership to end the 43-day shutdown in November, a group Republicans are likely to target again.
White House proposal rejected
Tensions escalated late Monday after Democratic leaders dismissed a White House counterproposal as “incomplete and insufficient.” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said the response lacked legislative text and failed to address concerns over what they described as ICE’s “lawless conduct.” The proposal was not released publicly.
With DHS funding set to expire and a partial shutdown possible as early as Saturday, Democrats are pressing for reforms including judicial warrant requirements, clearer identification for DHS officers, stricter use-of-force standards and a ban on racial profiling. They say the demands are driven in part by two fatal shootings of protesters by federal agents in Minneapolis last month.
GOP pushback and competing demands
Thune struck a more optimistic tone earlier Monday, saying negotiations with the White House showed “forward progress,” though he acknowledged that reaching agreement on immigration enforcement would be difficult. Rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties remain skeptical.
Republicans have pushed back sharply against Democratic demands and are advancing priorities of their own, including legislation requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and restrictions on cities they accuse of failing to crack down on illegal immigration.
Meanwhile, many Democrats say they will not support additional DHS funding unless immigration enforcement is significantly scaled back.
“Dramatic changes are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a DHS funding bill moves forward,” Jeffries said. “Period. Full stop.”
How the standoff emerged
The renewed impasse follows President Donald Trump’s agreement to separate DHS funding from a broader spending package passed last week, which extended DHS funding only through Feb. 13. The move created a brief window for negotiations focused on ICE and other federal enforcement agencies.
The issue gained urgency after ICU nurse Alex Pretti was killed by a US Border Patrol officer on Janunary 24, and after Renee Good was shot by ICE agents earlier in the month. While Trump agreed to separate the funding, he has not publicly responded to Democrats’ specific demands.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration is open to discussing some proposals but described others as “nonstarters.”
Democrats’ reform demands
Democrats are calling for a wide range of changes, including requiring immigration officers to remove masks, display identification and better coordinate with local authorities. They also want stricter use-of-force standards, legal safeguards at detention centers, limits on warrantless arrests, explicit bans on entering private property without judicial warrants and a prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras.
End of Article
