Calls to “defund ICE” have resurfaced among Democrats following a deadly shooting by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis, but party leaders are instead working to fund the agency with new restrictions. The approach reflects a central contradiction in congressional power: lawmakers say the only way to restrain ICE is through the very appropriations process that keeps it operating.
As Democrats negotiate fiscal 2026 funding for the Department of Homeland Security with Republicans ahead of a Jan. 30 shutdown deadline, they are pressing for guardrails on Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Proposals include requiring body cameras, limiting the use of masks, expanding training, and strengthening oversight of agents’ conduct.
The talks follow the fatal Jan. 7 shooting of Renee Good, which intensified scrutiny of ICE practices. Polling conducted after the killing shows a plurality of voters support eliminating the agency. Despite that sentiment, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill say their aim is not abolition but tighter control.
“House Democrats want accountability and oversight of ICE,” Rep. Pete Aguilar of California said, adding that agents should testify regularly to Congress and that lawmakers must protect the public.
Similar views are shared among rank-and-file Democrats. Rep. Darren Soto of Florida, a deputy chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said the group backs reforms rather than termination of ICE, citing what he described as a culture of violence that needs to be addressed.
Progressives have adopted a firmer stance. The Congressional Progressive Caucus announced it will oppose new DHS funding unless it includes “meaningful and significant reforms” to immigration enforcement practices.
Republican leaders have criticized Democrats’ demands, framing them as long-standing opposition to ICE. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the recent shooting has given Democrats “more things to yell about,” while accusing them of favoring lax border policies.
Both parties face unappealing alternatives if talks fail. Democrats are wary of relying on a lengthy stopgap funding measure that would preserve current enforcement practices and grant the Trump administration broad discretion over spending. They also warn that allowing DHS funding to lapse could weaken congressional leverage altogether.
“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?” Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security funding panel, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Murphy later signaled flexibility, saying appropriators are not attempting to rewrite immigration law through a funding bill but can shape how money is used to ensure ICE operates legally.
Complicating negotiations, Republicans already approved major ICE funding outside the regular appropriations process. A party-line tax and spending package enacted over the summer included about $75 billion for ICE over the next decade, in addition to nearly $11 billion provided in the most recent fiscal year.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said much of the funding now being deployed did not move through traditional appropriations, limiting Congress’s ability to impose oversight.
Some Republicans have also voiced concern. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska called the Minnesota shooting “deeply disturbing” and urged policy changes to help prevent future tragedies.
This week, both Democrats and Republicans objected to advancing the DHS funding bill, prompting it to be pulled from a planned legislative package, according to House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins said questions about DHS actions remain but expressed optimism that a deal could still be reached.
Even before the shooting, lawmakers agreed on new limits to prevent the administration from shifting DHS funds away from congressionally approved purposes. Rep. Mark Amodei, who chairs the House Homeland Security funding panel, said negotiators are working to make it harder to move money internally, acknowledging that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem would oppose such constraints.
Despite heated rhetoric, few lawmakers expect a fight over dismantling ICE. Instead, the debate centers on whether Congress can use funding to impose rules and oversight on an agency that remains politically divisive but firmly entrenched.
