Democrats confront an ICE dilemma: To rein it in, they have to fund it

New calls to “defund ICE” are reverberating through the Democratic Party following last week’s deadly shooting by a federal agent in Minneapolis. Behind the scenes, top Democrats are feverishly working to fund the agency — with strings attached.

The mismatch between the anti-ICE rhetoric and the actions of Democratic appropriators reflects a Catch-22 of congressional power: The only way lawmakers can put guardrails on the controversial agency and curb President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda at this moment is to hand it billions of taxpayer dollars.

As they negotiate fiscal 2026 funding for the Department of Homeland Security with Republicans ahead of a Jan. 30 shutdown deadline, Democrats are demanding new rules for DHS agents, such as forcing them to use body cameras, refrain from wearing masks and go through more extensive training.

Even as new polling fielded after the fatal Jan. 7 shooting of Renee Good shows that a plurality of voters back ICE’s elimination, top Democrats on Capitol Hill are seeking to restrain the agency under Trump’s leadership — not disband it.

“House Democrats want accountability and oversight of ICE,” Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, the No. 3 Democratic leader, told reporters Tuesday. “They should have to continue to testify to Congress as to what they are doing. But more importantly, we need to look out for the American people right now. They are terrorizing people in the streets of this country.”

Among the rank-and-file, there is also a deep desire to rein in the agency. Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.), deputy chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said in an interview his group supports “reforms” for the agency.

“It's not the CHC's position that we're terminating ICE,” Soto said. “But there is a culture of violence that's happening that does need to be addressed.”

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, meanwhile, announced Tuesday it had “adopted an official position” opposing new DHS funding “unless there are meaningful and significant reforms to immigration enforcement practices.”

It’s not clear what GOP leaders are willing to accept in return for the Democratic votes that will be necessary to pass any DHS funding bill. They have not publicly ruled out new rules for ICE, despite equating Democrats’ demands with support for lax immigration policies.

“Understand, what happened last week gave them more things to yell about,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told reporters this week, referring to Democrats’ response to the shooting. “But they've been against ICE — and frankly, they've been for open borders, more importantly — for years as well.”

Part of a calculation for both sides is that the alternatives to a negotiated compromise are unsavory for each party. Democratic lawmakers are in no mood to default to a lengthy stopgap funding patch that would maintain the status quo on immigration enforcement and give the Trump administration more leeway to decide how the money is spent. And if Republicans refuse to enact restraints, they warn, funding for DHS could lapse altogether in a few weeks.

“The question is for Republicans: Are they willing to shut down the government simply to endorse the most lawless Department of Homeland Security in the history of the country?” Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security funding panel, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” over the weekend.

Despite the tough rhetoric, Murphy showed a willingness to compromise in comments to reporters this week. Appropriators, he said, are “not going to write a comprehensive immigration enforcement reform bill” within the DHS funding measure.

“But in every bill there's language on how our money is spent. And I want to make sure that our money is spent lawfully,” he continued. “So yes, we're having conversations about how we can pass a bill — but a bill that makes sure that ICE is operating legally.”

One of the challenges for lawmakers is that Republicans already gave ICE billions of dollars within the party-line tax and spending package they enacted over the summer. The “big, beautiful bill” included $75 billion for the agency over the following decade, above and beyond the nearly $11 billion it was granted in the fiscal year that ended in September.

“It's important to understand that a lot of the funding that's being unleashed on the American people in such extreme ways right now was provided not through the traditional appropriations process,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters this week.

In spite of the major roadblocks to clinching a bipartisan funding deal, there are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are interested in putting at least some fetters on immigration enforcement agencies.

The day after the fatal shooting in Minnesota, GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said footage of the killing was “deeply disturbing” and called for “policy changes to help prevent future tragedies” that would ensure ICE agents work “safely — and with empathy and respect for human life.”

Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate objected to moving forward this week with the DHS funding bill, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said, forcing it to be stripped from a planned multibill package at the 11th hour.

“This one's tricky, just simply because of the political situation,” Cole told reporters. “We're trying to work with our colleagues. I know they're trying to get a bill. But I'm very sensitive to the political challenges they have on this particular bill.”

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) also acknowledged this week that “obviously the agency and some of its actions have raised questions lately,” adding that while a deal on DHS funding hasn’t yet been notched, “it doesn’t mean it won't be eventually.”

Even before the shooting in Minnesota, lawmakers in both parties had agreed to new limits on the Trump administration’s ability to redirect DHS money to purposes other than what Congress prescribes.

Rep. Mark Amodei, the Nevada Republican who chairs the Homeland Security funding panel, told reporters last week that House and Senate appropriators are crafting the spending measure to make it “harder to make the money mobile.”

He called the Trump administration’s penchant for shifting around cash “bullshit” and acknowledged that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem would not be fond of the new restrictions.

On Tuesday, Amodei struck an upbeat note on the negotiations, saying the DHS bill is “progressing nicely.”

Calen Razor contributed to this report.