Two months ago, House Democrats pledged not to fund immigration enforcement without changes to curb aggressive tactics. But 59 days into a record-long Department of Homeland Security shutdown, those demands have not produced binding policy changes, and President Trump’s immigration enforcement has continued with little interruption.
A major reason is that Republicans had already bolstered Immigration and Customs Enforcement with roughly $75 billion in additional funding last year, largely free of restrictions. That sum was added to ICE’s roughly $10 billion annual budget through a party-line reconciliation package known in Congress as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, making ICE the most well-funded federal law-enforcement agency. Other DHS components, including Customs and Border Protection, received tens of billions more.
Republicans pushed the measure through by using reconciliation, which avoids the Senate filibuster and requires only a simple majority. Democrats, who have used reconciliation in the past, warned the infusion amounted to an open-ended check. Sam Bagenstos, then-general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget under President Biden, described it as a ‘‘massive shoveling of cash to an agency with few if any strings.’’
The timing sharpened scrutiny after immigration officers fatally shot two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis about six months after the bill’s enactment. In response, Democrats vowed to condition future ICE and Border Patrol appropriations on reforms — for example, requiring judicial warrants for home entries and banning masked officers. But with the agency already pre-funded, Congress’s leverage to force changes has been significantly reduced, critics say. Bagenstos and others argue that large, pre-approved budgets let agencies tell lawmakers they don’t need additional money, limiting annual oversight and the ability to press for reforms.
The current DHS shutdown has underscored those practical consequences. Many DHS employees, such as Transportation Security Administration staff, have been forced to work without pay, while much of ICE and Border Patrol’s day-to-day enforcement continued because of the earlier budget surge. The administration also issued an executive order to keep some staff paid during the lapse, another move that sidesteps congressional control.
The funding boost allowed ICE to hire thousands of agents, expand detention space, and acquire additional facilities — including warehouses used to hold detainees. Private prison operators such as CoreCivic and Geo Group were among the beneficiaries; both companies poured millions into lobbying in 2025 and supported the reconciliation approach. Critics contend the large, flexible pool of funds came with too few guardrails, increasing the risk of waste, limited oversight and misconduct.
John Sandweg, who served as acting ICE director and acting DHS general counsel during the Obama administration, said the normal appropriations cycle compels agencies to defend their spending and operations each year, acting as a ‘‘tempering influence’’ that fosters accountability. When Congress ties conditions to funding and demands testimony, lawmakers can press for changes. Broad, front-loaded appropriations blunt that annual check.
Some of how the money was used has drawn specific criticism. Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem spent part of the funding on two luxury jets and awarded a multimillion-dollar advertising contract to a firm with ties to her and several advisers, prompting oversight questions. ICE has increasingly relied on limited-competition or no-bid contracts as it scales operations, raising additional concerns about transparency. Sandweg warned that large sums spent with little scrutiny create vulnerabilities to fraud and misconduct.
DHS’s current secretary, Markwayne Mullin, has moved to roll back some of Noem’s contracting policies. The department says it remains subject to congressional oversight and has pushed back on criticism by blaming Democrats for prolonging the shutdown. Democrats argue the pre-funding maneuver stripped them of the leverage they would normally use to press for policy changes.
Republicans defend the reconciliation route as legitimate and, in their view, necessary because regular appropriations require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Senate Majority Leader John Thune argued Democrats were overreaching by threatening to withhold funding and said Republicans ‘‘prefunded’’ ICE for that reason. Some top Republicans are now weighing using reconciliation again to cover ICE and Border Patrol for the remainder of the administration — a step that would again bypass Democratic demands. Senator Ted Cruz has even floated the idea of using reconciliation to finance the agencies for a decade, asserting Democrats may never support such funding.
Beyond the partisan fight, legal and constitutional questions have emerged. Bagenstos and others warn of a broader trend in which the executive branch sidesteps Congress’s power of the purse. The administration has at times declined to spend funds Congress appropriated — for example on foreign aid — and has at other times spent money without fresh appropriations, such as paying DHS employees during the shutdown. Critics say bypassing the regular appropriations process corrodes the framers’ design that gives Congress primary control over federal spending, a central check on executive overreach.
‘‘If Congress doesn’t stand up,’’ Bagenstos warned, ‘‘I don’t see why every executive in the future isn’t going to follow some playbook like this.’’ The dispute leaves open whether Congress will reclaim leverage over ICE funding and conditions, or whether reconciliation and executive actions will become a recurring route around traditional appropriations and oversight.