Can homeland security funding survive a deeply divided House?
On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a standalone spending bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with a narrow 220-207 vote. Seven Democrats broke party lines to support the measure, while most Democrats opposed it, citing the need for major reforms following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. House Democrat leadership criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and ICE in a statement, while a separate $1.2 trillion spending package for agencies like Defense and Health and Human Services passed overwhelmingly by a 341-88 vote.
According to the Daily Caller, House Democrat leaders had signaled their opposition to the DHS bill during a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, though they allowed members to vote based on district needs. Only Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted against it among Republicans, while Reps. Wesley Hunt of Texas and Andy Harris of Maryland did not cast votes.
Critics argue that the Democratic resistance to funding ICE reveals a troubling prioritization of politics over national safety. The DHS bill supports vital agencies like the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and FEMA, not just ICE.
House Democrat leadership declared, “Taxpayer dollars are being misused to brutalize U.S. citizens, including the tragic killing of Renee Nicole Good.” That’s a heavy charge, but halting funding for an entire security apparatus over one incident risks throwing out essential protections with it. Balance and reform can coexist without defunding critical operations.
An Emerson College Polling survey released Thursday found nearly six in ten likely voters view ICE’s community presence as more harmful than helpful. That public sentiment fuels Democrat opposition, but it shouldn’t overshadow the agency’s role in border security and public safety.
Seven Democrats, including Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, the lead Democrat on the Homeland Security subcommittee, supported the bill. Others joining him were Reps. Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Don Davis, Tom Suozzi, and Laura Gillen. Their votes suggest not all party members buy into the blanket rejection of ICE funding.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries brushed off concerns about party splits, saying, “In a representative democracy, you’re never going to achieve unanimity on every issue if it’s functioning the right way.” Fair enough, but when the issue is homeland security, such fractures signal weakness to adversaries. Voters expect unity on core safety matters, not just district-driven dissent. Democratic Rep. Melanie Stansbury took a harder line, decrying ICE’s actions with strong words. Her call to stop funding an agency she sees as harmful reflects a broader progressive push. Yet, painting an entire organization as the enemy ignores the complexity of its mission.
Republican leaders didn’t hold back in criticizing the Democrat opposition. House Speaker Mike Johnson warned against treating homeland security funding as a political football. Delaying or derailing such bills through continuing resolutions undermines readiness, plain and simple.
The DHS bill also allocates $2.2 billion for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an entity conservatives have eyed warily for its past ties to groups accused of curbing online speech. While cybersecurity is crucial, oversight must ensure taxpayer funds aren’t bankrolling censorship by proxy. That’s a real concern worth addressing.
Regarding the Jan. 7 shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, it’s a tragic event that demands investigation and accountability. But using it as a blanket reason to oppose ICE funding feels like a knee-jerk reaction. Targeted reforms, not wholesale budget cuts, are the answer.
Progressive rhetoric often leans toward dismantling agencies like ICE without offering practical alternatives. That approach leaves communities vulnerable while ignoring the need for structured border policies. A serious discussion on reform can’t start with a funding shutdown.
The separate $1.2 trillion package’s overwhelming passage shows bipartisan agreement is possible on other fronts. Why not apply that spirit to homeland security? Playing hardball with DHS funding risks more than just political points—it risks safety.
Ultimately, the House’s narrow approval of the DHS bill, thanks to a handful of pragmatic Democrats, keeps critical agencies running. But the deep divide over ICE signals tougher battles ahead. Let’s hope lawmakers prioritize protecting Americans over pandering to ideological bases.