Share and Follow
In the wake of President Trump’s recent military action against Iran, the Democratic Party is steadfast in demanding significant changes to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) before agreeing to its reopening. Party leaders are intensifying calls for stricter regulations over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), reflecting a unified stance among Democratic lawmakers.
This push for reform has gained traction among Democrats, with a crucial House vote on Thursday indicating that the Iran situation has only strengthened their resolve. “My concern about DHS is their absolute disregard of the Constitution and American citizens’ civil rights,” stated Representative Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), who chairs the New Democrat Coalition. He emphasized that accountability for officers violating civil rights and restoring congressional oversight are prerequisites for funding ICE and CBP.
However, this strategy is not without its political risks. Republicans caution that keeping DHS closed during ongoing tensions with Iran could jeopardize national security. In response to the military strikes, GOP leaders have been quick to leverage the situation to pressure Democrats into dropping their reform demands and supporting a Republican proposal to reopen DHS.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) expressed frustration over the Democrats’ stance, stating, “It’s infuriating,” during a press briefing at the Capitol this week. The ongoing debate highlights the deep divisions over immigration policy and national security, underscoring the challenges in resolving these critical issues amid international conflicts.
“It’s infuriating,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters this week in the Capitol.
“The Democrats have shut down the agency responsible for keeping Americans safe.”
Democrats have dismissed those partisan alarms, betting that voter concerns about Trump’s militant approach to immigration enforcement will outweigh any blame they receive for refusing to fund DHS without tougher rules for immigration officers.
“Our view is simple: abandon your my-way-or-the-highway approach,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). “You’re not intimidating anybody.”
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was even more blunt, saying Trump heightened the threat the moment he attacked Iran.
“I don’t want any lectures today about threats to our homeland security. Those threats have increased exponentially because this president chose to unilaterally launch a recklessly misguided regime-change war in the Middle East,” McGovern said.
“Our country is less safe by the hour because of Donald Trump’s chaos and stupidity.”
The partisan fight over DHS funding stems from the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens at the hands of federal immigration officers in Minneapolis in January. In the wake of those deaths, Democrats in both chambers demanded new guardrails for DHS law enforcement as a condition of funding the department — a list that includes a ban on face masks, body camera mandates and new warrant requirements preceding arrests.
The White House and Senate Democrats have traded proposals in search of a compromise, but they haven’t reached a deal.
The Democratic opposition to the DHS funding bill is not unanimous.
Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) questioned why his fellow Democrats would oppose legislation that would liberate funds to pay airport screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and field workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), all while the federal immigration agencies at the center of the controversy are still being funded under a separate law.
“No one’s getting paid but, like, ICE and Border Patrol, right? So what leverage do they think they have?” Golden asked. “I’m not for punishing TSA agents and FEMA employees to go after an agency that’s feeling zero effect.”
“Whether or not this new situation [in Iran] has any bearings is beside the point.”
But Golden is in a small and shrinking minority of House Democrats. When the DHS funding bill came to the floor in January, seven Democrats voted against it. When Republicans put virtually the same bill on the floor on Thursday, the number of Democratic opponents dropped to four.
Part of the Democrats’ confidence that they won’t suffer any political blowback over the impasse stems from the fact that they’ve offered alternative bills to fund TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and the other parts of DHS except ICE and CBP — bills that have been rejected by Republicans.
Democrats have also been boosted by polls showing that voters, even Republicans, have soured on Trump’s deportation agenda in the wake of the Minneapolis shootings. They say they’re merely standing up for what those voters are demanding.
“All Democrats are asking for are guardrails: Don’t go beat up American citizens. No masks. Cameras. And we want to know what kind of training you guys have,” said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.). “That’s commonsense stuff that we’ve had before — stuff that we require from the local sheriff, local police.”
Asked if Democrats are ready to hold that line as long as it takes to get those reforms in place, Correa didn’t hesitate.
“We have to,” he said.
There are several wild cards in the debate.
One of those came Thursday, when Trump fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and nominated Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to replace her. Noem was toxic in the eyes of Democrats, and some are now cautiously hoping that Mullin, who served in the House for a decade before jumping to the Senate, will be less aggressive in his approach to immigration enforcement.
Jeffries emphasized that Democrats won’t drop their demands for DHS reforms just because Noem is gone, but he also characterized the leadership shake-up as “a step in the direction of acknowledging that things at the Department of Homeland Security were broken.”
Other Democrats aren’t so sure. Mullin is a close Trump ally, and some lawmakers predicted he’ll simply adopt whatever position the president demands, thereby preventing any thaw in the DHS funding freeze.
“Maybe with Kristi Noem being fired we’ll see something different,” said Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.). “But I’ve known Markwayne for a while. I think he’ll toe the president’s line.”
Another major wild card is the simple question of how long the Iran conflict will last. Some top administration officials have insisted there will be no protracted fight, but Trump and others have left plenty of space for a more open-ended operation.
“We have objectives,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week. “We will do this as long as it takes.”
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) acknowledged that a drawn-out conflict might put “more pressure on us than it does them” to reopen DHS. But the more likely scenario, Lynch said, is that a lengthy fight would result in a series of unsavory developments — including more U.S. casualties and higher gas prices — that would overtake the DHS debate and create big challenges for Trump and Republicans.
“The pressure points will be elsewhere,” Lynch said. “Gas continues to go up. We start to see more casualties. We get people on the ground, and the president hasn’t yet come before Congress or come before the American people to explain the strategy here — I think that becomes more important, or more urgent, than some of the other questions about whether TSA screeners are getting paid or not.”