Seven times, and counting… how a DHS funding fight became a battle over ICE

A month into a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, the strain is beginning to show with long wait lines at airports, missed paychecks pushing TSA workers to quit, and staffing shortages building across agencies. What should have been a routine funding exercise has instead hardened into a political standoff. And according to Sen. Mazie Hirono, Republicans are to blame. Democrats, she said, have tried seven times to fund TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard, and each time Republicans have refused, choosing instead, in her words, to “protect ICE’s lawlessness” rather than fund agencies that protect American communities.

​

Her remarks came after yet another failed vote in the Senate. Last week, the lawmakers for the fourth time were unable to advance a bill to fully fund DHS, falling short of the 60 votes needed, as reported by Politico.

Democrats have been trying to move smaller, targeted bills that would keep key parts of the department running, including TSA, FEMA and the Coast Guard, agencies they argue should not be caught in a broader dispute over immigration enforcement. Republicans have blocked those efforts, insisting instead on passing a single, full funding package for the entire department. The two parties are in a deadlock. Democrats want to fund part of DHS now and negotiate ICE later separately, and they have tried multiple routes to get there, including standalone bills, amendments, and even a discharge petition in the House.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray has said she cannot support a DHS bill “as it stands,” arguing ICE must be brought under tighter control before funding moves forward. Senator Dick Durbin has pointed to recent enforcement incidents as evidence that oversight has weakened and standards need to be restored.

Republicans have rejected this, arguing that DHS was designed to function as an integrated system and that breaking it apart would weaken its core mission, particularly when it comes to border enforcement.

In an attempt to break the stalemate, the Trump administration recently put forward what it described as a “good faith” offer. The proposal included expanding body camera use for immigration agents, limiting enforcement in sensitive places like schools and hospitals, increasing oversight of detention facilities, and requiring clearer identification for officers.

Democrats did not see it that way. They argued the proposal avoided their core demands, particularly requiring judicial warrants before entering private property and placing stricter limits on agents concealing their identities, as reported by The Hill.

On the Republican side, Susan Collins pushed back, criticizing Democrats’ strategy as causing chaos and their actions as lacking urgency. She went on to accuse them of sitting on what she described as a serious offer from the White House.

House Representative Glenn Ivey framed the democratic approach: fund the rest of DHS so workers get paid, but hold off on ICE until it operates with clearer legal guardrails, including reliance on judicial warrants and greater transparency.

What makes this standoff significant is that it is unfolding alongside a noticeable shift in public sentiment. A national survey by Marquette Law School found that a majority of Americans disapprove of how ICE is doing its job, with opposition particularly strong among Democrats and independents. Polling from Reuters and Ipsos similarly suggests that many Americans believe immigration enforcement has gone too far, rather than not far enough. At the same time, an Economist/YouGov survey found support for abolishing ICE has risen to around half of respondents. But the data doesn’t point in just one direction. Other surveys indicate that a significant share of Americans still support deportation policies, especially for those with criminal records, and continue to back strong enforcement in principle.

The discomfort with ICE, but not with enforcement itself, is where the politics becomes complicated. And that complexity is exactly where Democrats are positioning themselves. They are not uniformly arguing against enforcement. Instead, they are making a narrower case that states enforcement has outpaced oversight. And recent incidents, including fatal encounters, allegations of warrantless operations, and concerns around detention conditions, have added urgency to that argument. Republicans see a different risk. Restricting ICE funding, they feel, might weaken enforcement, something that remains central to their policy.

The divide is keeping the process frozen, and the real-world impact is becoming quite visible. Thousands of DHS employees have missed paychecks, and more than 300 TSA workers have reportedly left their jobs, with officials warning that staffing shortages could disrupt airport operations.