Republicans Forge Ahead With Partisan Plan to Fund Homeland Security

GOP leaders aim to bypass Democrats and fully fund ICE and Border Patrol through budget reconciliation process.

Apr. 14, 2026 at 11:04pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A dimly lit, empty government office with a lone desk bathed in warm, diagonal sunlight and deep shadows, conveying a sense of solitude and uncertainty.As partisan gridlock over immigration enforcement continues, the empty halls of the Department of Homeland Security reflect the ongoing political standoff.Minneapolis Today

Republicans in Congress are moving forward with a risky go-it-alone strategy to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, which has been shut down for nearly two months. After bipartisan negotiations stalled, GOP leaders plan to use the budget reconciliation process to pass a partisan bill that would provide funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), bypassing Democrats who want to impose reforms on the agencies.

Why it matters

The prolonged shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security has disrupted critical security operations, and the partisan standoff over immigration enforcement tactics has further polarized Congress. Republicans' decision to pursue a unilateral funding approach could lead to a messy legislative process and fails to address Democrats' concerns about reining in federal immigration authorities.

The details

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Republicans will try to pass funding for ICE and CBP through the complicated budget reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority vote. This would allow them to sidestep Democrats, who are demanding changes to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies as a condition of supporting a DHS funding bill. Thune hopes to keep the bill narrow and focused solely on the two agencies, but some GOP colleagues may push to add other unrelated priorities. Democrats have vowed to continue insisting on reforms to ICE and Border Patrol.

  • The Department of Homeland Security has been shut down since mid-February.
  • In March, the Senate passed a bill to fund most of the department but exclude ICE and CBP, but House Republicans refused to support it.
  • President Trump has set a June 1 deadline for Congress to send him a 'focused reconciliation bill' funding ICE and Border Patrol.

The players

John Thune

Senate Majority Leader, a Republican from South Dakota who is leading the GOP's partisan funding strategy.

Chuck Schumer

Senate Democratic Leader from New York, who says Democrats will continue to demand reforms to ICE and Border Patrol.

John Barrasso

Republican Senator from Wyoming and the No. 2 GOP leader, who discussed the funding strategy with President Trump.

Lindsey Graham

Republican Senator from South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who also met with Trump about the funding plan.

Mike Johnson

Republican Speaker of the House, who will need to persuade his members to support the GOP's two-track funding approach.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Americans want ICE and Border Patrol reined in.”

— Chuck Schumer, Senate Democratic Leader

“President Trump set a deadline of June 1 to get to his desk a focused reconciliation bill that funds ICE and Border Patrol.”

— John Barrasso, Republican Senator

“We are moving FAST and FOCUSED in keeping our Border SECURE!”

— Donald Trump

What’s next

Republicans plan to use the budget reconciliation process to pass a partisan bill funding ICE and CBP, which could face challenges from members seeking to add other priorities. Democrats will continue to push for reforms to the immigration agencies as a condition of supporting any DHS funding legislation.

The takeaway

The partisan standoff over Homeland Security funding highlights the deep divisions in Congress over immigration enforcement and the Trump administration's hardline policies. Resolving the impasse will require bipartisan compromise, but Republicans' decision to pursue a unilateral approach risks further inflaming tensions and failing to address Democrats' core concerns.