

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The US has become a deeply polarized nation. One idea to overcome this is to pay people to disagree.
America is a polarized nation. Recent polls find that nearly half of us consider members of the opposing party to be “downright evil.” Perhaps this helps explain why more and more of us are choosing to live in towns and cities that match our political leanings—a phenomenon known as “the Big Sort.” Adding to this split is a media landscape where we choose news outlets that confirm our views, and the feeds we scroll offer up more of the same. The result is an American public increasingly sealed off from opposing views. Think about it: When was the last time you had a political conversation where you disagreed with someone? And more importantly, how did it go? You most likely found it stressful rather than informative.
I believe this is because we have lost a core American skill: the ability to disagree well. Not the faceless, angry kind we do online, but the kind that happens when people who disagree come together with the intention to understand one another and compromise. Our country was built on this. A summer of argument produced our Constitution. Four more years of it produced the Bill of Rights. This tradition endured in the form of New England town meetings and union halls. We’ve let this tradition lapse, and it’s costing us.
So here’s a simple idea to point us back in the right direction: We should pay people to disagree.
This isn’t as strange as it sounds. Organizations like Braver Angels have already built a framework for this, borrowing techniques from family conflict resolution and applying them to a country in conflict. I (Natasha, 21) have seen it work firsthand. In high school, one of my classes partnered with a school in Louisiana to run a Red-Blue Workshop—several weeks of facilitated dialogue between my liberal classmates and our conservative counterparts. As is usual in this program, we became fast friends, comfortable talking through the very topics that were supposed to divide us.
America’s problem is not that Americans disagree. It's that we’ve stopped seeing people who disagree with us as fellow citizens with different ideas about what's best for the country and started seeing them as enemies to be vanquished.
We learned what successful dialogue looks like. We learned that the goal isn’t to change the other person’s mind or to completely humiliate them, as is often modeled online (open YouTube, click one political video, and you’ll be recommended hundreds more with titles like “liberal DESTROYS conservative” or vice versa). Instead, the goal is to explore each other’s lived experiences and backgrounds to form a deeper understanding of what our peers believe and why. We left the program with more empathy for one another. We were no longer competitors trying to “win” and prove our side was right, but fellow citizens united by the shared goal of bettering our country.
Now imagine this at scale: a national program teaching Americans how to have effective civil dialogue and demonstrating that the villainous way the other side is depicted online is largely untrue. Who’s to say what would come of this? Maybe we would realize that over 80% of us favor stock trading bans for members of Congress. Or that over 70% of us favor term limits for Supreme Court justices. Maybe we would realize that much of the anger we are taught online is convenient for people in power. Maybe we would conclude that our power lies in looking past the differences we are sold and uniting to fight for issues that matter to us.
Paying people to participate in such a program isn’t completely unheard of either. AmeriCorps has paid Americans for civic work for decades. New York recently paid its residents to shovel snow after this winter’s blizzards. No one regarded either policy as a handout. The work was viewed as an investment in what a functioning city or country needs. Structured dialogue between political opposites belongs on that list of vital infrastructure. This would likely begin as a pilot program in a few cities, but national experiments abroad prove that such dialogue is scalable.
And it would be a bargain! We are already paying a high price for polarization. The most obvious cost is to the health of our democracy. But there’s a literal price tag too. When our government can’t compromise, it shuts down: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that in 2025, a single government shutdown cost the economy between $7 billion and $14 billion. Polarization affects the private sector, too. Research on private companies found that more polarized states see meaningfully less business investment overall. Investing in civic infrastructure would pay dividends. And the money is there. If $37 billion of our tax dollars can fund an aimless war in the Middle East, then surely a fraction of that can be used to repair our democracy at home.
America’s problem is not that Americans disagree. It's that we’ve stopped seeing people who disagree with us as fellow citizens with different ideas about what's best for the country and started seeing them as enemies to be vanquished. Of course, paying Americans to sit down together won’t fix this problem overnight. But it’s a start. With it, we can begin the slow work of democratic reconciliation. Doing so will remind us that disagreeing with one another never hurts our country. It is forgetting how to disagree well that does.
“ICE and other federal agents have already shown the cost to us all when the president deploys them on his whim to act as a domestic policing force.”
Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates are warning that President Donald Trump’s decision to send US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to airports across the country could have disastrous consequences, particularly given the agency’s deadly conduct on the ground in American cities in recent months.
Trump announced on Sunday that he would be sending ICE agents to airports to assist in security operations, as many Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers have been either quitting or calling out amid a partial US government shutdown that has left them to work without pay.
Naureen Shah, director of policy and government affairs for immigration at the ACLU, expressed significant concerns about sending ICE to airpots, and she said it could further harm Americans' civil liberties.
"Never in our history has a president deployed armed agents to the airport to inspire fear among families," said Shah. "The American people don’t want to live in White House advisor Stephen Miller’s dystopian police state. ICE and other federal agents have already shown the cost to us all when the president deploys them on his whim to act as a domestic policing force."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also warned of potentially disastrous consequences from having ICE conduct airport security.
"ICE agents at airports will only aggravate delays and lines—disrupting checks, interrogating travelers, dragging parents from children, detaining citizens, brutalizing families, shooting, and even killing," he wrote. "Brutal, lawless tactics common in communities across the country by masked, unidentified agents, violating basic rights—no way to help TSA or travelers."
While Democratic lawmakers publicly condemn the move, journalist Rachel Bade reported on Monday that some Democrats believe that the optics deploying ICE agents at US airports will be terrible for the White House and will simply add to the chaos and turmoil experienced by American fliers.
"Great—do it!” one senior Democratic official told Bade. “Let’s fuck around and find out.”
A second Democratic source predicted to Bade that "armed agents at airports will crush tourism and freak people out," while a third sarcastically requested that the president send fully masked ICE agents to handle airport security.
Bade added that Democrats see the decision to send ICE agents to airports as a panic move by a White House that wants to try anything to get videos of long airport check-in lines out of the news.
Because of this, Bade said, they feel "emboldened" to further squeeze Republicans on making reforms to ICE.
"Democrats say the move shows they’re winning," wrote Bade. "In past shutdowns, presidents have tried to ramp up the pain during closures, thus putting pressure on the opposition party causing the shutdown. Here, Trump has done the exact opposite, seeking a workaround to alleviate concerns."
Democratic lawmakers aren't the only ones predicting Trump's ICE gambit will blow up in his face.
Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, told NPR on Sunday that it was likely that ICE agents would make the situations at airports even worse.
"ICE agents are not trained or certified in aviation security," said Kelley, who added that TSA workers "deserve to be paid, not replaced by untrained, armed agents who have shown how dangerous they can be."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, also welcomed the move to deploy ICE to airports, as he said it would leave fewer masked agents roaming the streets to round up immigrant families.
"To me, this does a lot more to slow down ICE than anything," he wrote in a social media post. "I'll take that deal."
Although Trump has tried to pin blame for chaos at US airports solely on Democrats, Punchbowl News reported that the president on Sunday shot down a proposal from Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to fund all of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) except for ICE, a move that would at least get TSA agents paid and end chaos at airports.
"Trump said no, according to multiple sources," wrote Punchbowl News. "The president wants Republicans to stay in DC and keep fighting with Democrats over DHS funding and the SAVE America Act, the GOP’s voter ID and proof-of-citizenship bill. Not only that, Trump warned that he’d publicly slam Senate Republicans if they left town for the upcoming recess."
"Trump's paramilitary army of ICE agents does not belong in our airports and is not properly trained to do this work," said one Democratic congresswoman.
As Senate Republicans on Saturday voted against advancing a Democratic bill to pay Transportation Security Administration workers during talks over Department of Homeland Security funding, GOP President Donald Trump tried to pin the blame for the partial DHS shutdown on Democrats and threatened to flood US airports with immigration agents.
The conduct of immigration agents under DHS—which oversees Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement—in US communities, particularly Minnesota's Twin Cites, led to the partial shutdown last month, with Democrats demanding reforms after CBP and ICE agents killed Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
While CBP and ICE can use the extra money they got last year in Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, other DHS agencies are more impacted by the shutdown, including TSA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Secret Service, and the Coast Guard. Some essential government employees have been working without pay for over a month.
Congress' April recess is rapidly approaching. The largest federal workers union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), warned Friday that "on March 27, about 47,000 TSA officers, 22,000 FEMA employees, 8,900 Coast Guard civilian staff, and hundreds of Border Patrol administrative personnel will miss another paycheck."
AFGE national president Everett Kelley said that the House of Representatives and Senate "have had weeks to fix this, and they have barely been in the same building."
"Members of Congress have walked past our TSA members at airport security checkpoints more often than they've met to negotiate an end to this stalemate," he continued. "Those officers deserve to be paid for the work they do to keep those members safe. The least Congress can do for these patriotic American workers is act before legislators leave town for the weekend, or, worse, head off on a weeks-long recess."
The Senate did meet on Saturday, when Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argued that "it is unacceptable, unacceptable to say we will only pay TSA workers if it is attached to a bill that funds ICE with no reforms. But that's what Republicans have done. Democrats want to pay TSA workers ASAP, no strings attached. A yes vote on my motion would start doing that."
The vote was 41-49, with every GOP senator present voting "no." In response, Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) declared that "Senate Republicans voted against paying TSA agents because they insist on tying TSA funding to their push to give even more money to ICE—without basic reforms."
"That is not how this should work—and it is just plain wrong that Republicans are preventing TSA agents from getting paid while airport lines grow longer across the country," she said. "We could fund TSA and other important parts of DHS today—while we press ahead with negotiations on ICE and Border Patrol—if Republicans stopped standing in the way."
Meanwhile, as Americans at various airports contend with long lines due to TSA workers quitting or calling out, Trump said on his Truth Social platform Saturday that "the Radical Left Democrats have hurt so many people with their vicious and uncaring ways. What they have done to the Department of Homeland Security, our fantastic TSA Officers, and, most importantly, the great people of our Country, is an absolute disgrace. If the Democrats do not allow for Just and Proper Security at our Airports, and elsewhere throughout our Country, ICE will do the job far better than ever done before!"
"The Fascist Democrats will never protect America, but the Republicans will," he added. "Just like the Radical Left allowed millions of Criminals to pour into our Country through their ridiculous and dangerous Open Border Policy, the Republicans closed it all down, and we now have the Strongest Border in American History. Likewise, I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, 'GET READY.' NO MORE WAITING, NO MORE GAMES!"
Responding in a statement, Congresswoman Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said: "Republicans, we need you to speak up now. This is a national security nightmare. Democrats have been trying for weeks to get TSA funded. The votes to get that done have been there since before the shutdown began. ICE has continued to have access to a massive slush fund throughout this entire shutdown, which is why they're so readily available. Stop trying to tie additional funding for ICE to funding the rest of DHS."
"Trump's paramilitary army of ICE agents does not belong in our airports and is not properly trained to do this work," added Balint. "I ask my Republican colleagues: Stop submitting to the whims of this out-of-control president. You are risking national security by your silence and complicity. YOU can put an end to this. Say something. Fund TSA. For the sake of our country, show some damn courage!"
Apparently undeterred, Trump added Sunday that "on Monday, ICE will be going to airports to help our wonderful TSA Agents who have stayed on the job despite the fact that the Radical Left Democrats, who are only focused on protecting hard line criminals who have entered our Country illegally, are endangering the USA by holding back the money that was long ago agreed to with signed and sealed contracts, and all. But watch, no matter how great a job ICE does, the Lunatics leading the incompetent Dems will be highly critical of their work. THEY WILL DO A FANTASTIC JOB. The great Tom Homan is in charge!!!"
AFGE's Kelley said in a Sunday statement that "ICE agents are not trained or certified in aviation security. TSA officers spend months learning to detect explosives, weapons, and threats specifically designed to evade detection at checkpoints—skills that require specialized instruction, hands-on practice, and ongoing recertification. You cannot improvise that. Putting untrained personnel at security checkpoints does not fill a gap. It creates one."
"Our members at TSA have been showing up every day, without a paycheck, because they believe in the mission of keeping the flying public safe. They deserve to be paid, not replaced by untrained, armed agents who have shown how dangerous they can be," he added. "Congress has the power to fund TSA today. It's time for them to stop playing politics and do their jobs."
This article has been updated with additional comments from President Donald Trump and AFGE national president Everett Kelley.
One Democrat had called the halt during the department's partial shutdown a case of "Trump and Kristi Noem purposely punishing the American people and using them as pawns for their sadistic political games."
After a flurry of overnight outrage, President Donald Trump's administration reversed plans to suspend the Transportation Security Administration's PreCheck program during a partial shutdown of the US Department of Homeland Security.
"At this time, TSA PreCheck remains operational with no change for the traveling public. As staffing constraints arise, TSA will evaluate on a case-by-case basis and adjust operations accordingly," the agency said Sunday morning. "Courtesy escorts, such as those for members of Congress, have been suspended to allow officers to focus on the mission of securing America's skies."
The Washington Post reported that a DHS official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the reversal was "based off of conversations the secretary had with the White House and TSA."
DHS partially shut down last week amid a funding fight in Congress, with Democrats demanding reforms in response to agents with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) openly violating the rights of immigrants and US citizens alike, and even killing Renee Good and Alex Pretti last month in Minnesota.
The department said late Saturday that it would close PreCheck lanes, which allow travelers at US airports to move through security more quickly; halt the CBP Global Entry service, which allows expedited clearance for arriving in the United States; and pause all non-disaster-related Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) response efforts.
"Shutdowns have real-world consequences, not just for the men and women of DHS and their families who go without a paycheck, but it endangers our national security," said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, blaming the changes on Democrats in Congress. "The American people depend on this department every day, and we are making tough but necessary workforce and resource decisions to mitigate the damage inflicted by these politicians."
Critics in journalism, politics, the travel industry, and beyond quickly highlighted how PreCheck and Global Entry reduce the strain on not only air travelers but also federal workers across multiple DHS agencies.
"These nitwits are at it again," said House Committee on Homeland Security Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). "This is Trump and Kristi Noem purposely punishing the American people and using them as pawns for their sadistic political games. TSA PreCheck and Global Entry REDUCE airport lines and ease the burden on DHS staff who are working without pay because of Trump's abuse of the Department and killing of American citizens."
"Trump and Kristi are making your lives harder—and your travel less safe—all on purpose because they know you don't trust them," he continued. "They pulled these games with FEMA disaster response last week, now this madness. They would rather force Americans to miss their travel waiting in long lines at the airport than stop Trump's secret police from shooting our neighbors. The American people—who want ICE reined in—will not fall for this bullshit. The administration must reverse this decision immediately."
While the Trump administration reversed course on PreCheck, the Global Entry suspension and FEMA restrictions remain in effect as a major snowstorm hit the East Coast.
"Everyone knows Donald Trump and DHS use bullying tactics—this is another one of them," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in a Sunday statement about Global Entry. "The Trump administration is choosing to inflict pain on the public instead of adopting commonsense ICE reforms."
"In the 43-day historic Trump government shutdown DHS never changed the Global Entry program's status," Schumer said, referring to the funding battle that ended in November when a short list of Democratic senators gave in. "Democrats are fighting against this exact kind of abuse."
"We need massive reforms in DHS with real accountability before we send another dime their way," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
The US Department of Homeland Security partially shut down on Saturday at midnight after Congress failed to reach an agreement to reform its immigration agencies, which have faced mounting scrutiny after the killings of multiple US citizens and rampant civil rights violations.
A shutdown was virtually assured when lawmakers left town for a recess on Thursday without a deal that included Democrats' key demands to rein in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Sixty votes are needed to pass any deal through the Senate, meaning seven Democrats would need to join every Republican to break the stalemate.
Democrats have demanded that agents around the nation wear body cameras, carry identification, and stop hiding their identities with masks. They said agents must adhere to the Constitution by obtaining judicial warrants before entering private property and ending the use of racial profiling.
Senate Republicans on Thursday attempted to pass another short-term funding measure that would keep the agency running while negotiations play out. But without adopting any of the Democrats' reforms, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said his party would "not support a blank check for chaos."
The bill was voted down 47-52, with only one Democrat, the ICE-defending Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) voting in support.
The lapse in funding comes amid a whirlwind of scandals surrounding DHS, most notably the fatal shootings in Minneapolis of two US citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, last month. DHS officials, including Secretary Kristi Noem, immediately leapt to justify the killings in contradiction to video evidence, which smeared the victims as "domestic terrorists" before any investigation took place.
Earlier this week, unsealed body camera footage showed definitively that the agency also lied about the shooting of 30-year-old US citizen Marimar Martinez in Chicago in October.
On Friday, it was reported that two ICE agents are under investigation for making false statements about the events leading up to yet another shooting of a Venezuelan national, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, in Minnesota last month.
In a rare acknowledgement of wrongdoing by his agency, ICE's acting director, Todd Lyons, said on Friday that the agents appear “to have made untruthful statements” about what led to his shooting.
An explosive Wall Street Journal report also recently put Noem further under the microscope, revealing an alleged romantic relationship with top Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski, who insiders said has been put in charge of the agency's contracting despite being only a temporary "special government employee" and has reportedly doled out contracts in an "opaque and arbitrary manner."
The DHS shutdown will not affect funding for immigration agencies, since both ICE and CBP received more than $70 billion from Congress last summer as part of the GOP's massive tax and spending bill.
Their activities are expected to continue normally during the shutdown. But other functions of the agency may see delays and funding lapses.
While most Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees are considered essential and expected to stay on the job, more may begin to stay home if the shutdown drags on and they miss paychecks. Some Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding for states' disaster recovery may also be delayed as a result of the shutdown, and employees may be furloughed, slowing the process.
Congress is expected to reconvene on February 23 after a weeklong recess, but may return earlier if a deal is reached during the break.
Democrats have appeared largely united on holding out unless significant reforms are achieved, though party leaders—Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) have faced a crisis of confidence within their own caucus, as they've appeared willing to taper back some demands—including masking requirements—in order to find a compromise.
As the clock inched toward midnight on Friday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, emphasized the existential stakes of the fight ahead.
"If the government shuts down, it will be because Republicans refuse to hold DHS and their deplorable actions accountable," she said. "The reality is if we start to erode the rights of some, we start to erode the rights of all—and I will not stand for it. We need massive reforms in DHS with real accountability before we send another dime their way."
As some Democrats suggest compromising in order to reform the agency, Rep. Rashida Tlaib said that “ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change.”
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a bill to end a brief government shutdown after the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the $1.2 trillion funding package.
While the bill keeps most of the federal government funded until the end of September, lawmakers sidestepped the question of funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Democrats have vowed to block absent reforms to rein in its lawless behavior after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and a rash of other attacks on civil rights.
The bill, which passed on Tuesday by a vote of 217-214, extends funding for ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for just two weeks, setting up a battle in the coming weeks on which the party remains split.
While most Democrats voted against Tuesday's measure, 21 joined the bulk of Republicans to drag it just over the line, despite calls from progressive activists and groups, such as MoveOn, which Axios said peppered lawmakers with letters urging them to use every bit of "leverage" they can to force drastic changes at the agency.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who voted for the bill, acknowledged that it was "a leverage tool that people are giving up," but said funding for the rest of the government took precedence.
The real fight is expected to take place over the next 10 days, with DHS funding set to run out on February 14.
ICE will be funded regardless of whether a new round of DHS funding passes, since Republicans already passed $170 billion in DHS funding in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Democrats in both the House and Senate have laid out lists of reforms they say Republicans must acquiesce to if they want any additional funding for ICE, including requirements that agents nationwide wear body cameras, get judicial warrants for arrests, and adhere to a code of conduct similar to those for state and local law enforcement.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against Tuesday's bill reiterated that in order to pass longterm DHS funding, "there must be due process, a requirement for judicial warrants and bond hearings; every agent must not only have a bodycam but also be required to use it, take off their masks, and, in cases of misconduct, undergo immediate, independent investigations."
Some critics have pointed out that ICE agents already routinely violate court orders and constitutional requirements, raising questions about whether new laws would even be enforceable.
A memo issued last week, telling agents they do not need to obtain judicial warrants to enter homes, has been described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Tuesday that Republicans will not even consider negotiating the warrant requirement, calling it "unworkable."
"We cannot trust this DHS, which has already received an unprecedented funding spike for ICE, to operate within the bounds of our Constitution or our laws," Jayapal said. "And for that reason, we cannot continue to fund them without significant and enforceable guardrails."
According to recent polls, the vast majority of Democratic voters want to go beyond reforms and push to abolish ICE outright. In the wake of ICE's reign of terror in Minneapolis, it's a position that nearly half the country now holds, with more people saying they want the agency to be done away with than saying they want it preserved.
"The American people are begging us to stop sending their tax dollars to execute people in the streets, abduct 5-year-olds, and separate families," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who gathered with other progressive lawmakers in the cold outside DHS headquarters on Tuesday. "ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change... No one should vote to send another cent to DHS."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who comes from the Minnesota Somali community targeted by Trump's operation there, agreed: "This rogue agency should not receive a single penny. It should be abolished and prosecuted."
“We need a strong, unflinching opposition party that is united against the president’s personal paramilitary force," said Justice Democrats.
Even as opposition to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement reaches a fever pitch among voters and within the Democratic caucus amid report after report of abject lawlessness by the agency, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is refusing to whip the votes that would be necessary to stop the funding bill from passing as it heads to a vote on Thursday.
Democratic negotiators on the House Appropriations Committee have pushed their colleagues to accept a "compromise" bill that keeps agency funding flat while supposedly adding new "guardrails" on the agency's actions.
However, as David Dayen explained on Wednesday for the American Prospect, the bill "falls short of imposing true accountability on ICE in the wake of the murder of Renee Good in Minneapolis."
It “flat-funds” ICE at current levels for the fiscal year, although in real terms it’s an increase to the budget, because the previous year included a one-time “anomaly” of additional spending. It restricts spending on detention that could theoretically lower capacity to 41,500 beds from a proposed 50,000. And there are some limitations on what DHS can shift from other agencies into ICE. But because the bill includes no penalties or enforcing mechanisms to ensure that its funding directives are actually adhered to, these funding boundaries are not terribly meaningful.
Democratic lawmakers forced other “guardrails” into the bill, like funding for oversight of detention facilities and mandatory body cameras for ICE agents. And additional training is mandated for agents who interact with the public. But other measures, like blocking the detention and deportation of U.S. citizens or borrowing enforcement personnel from other agencies, weren’t added to the bill. And the funding, once again, is not guaranteed, given that the Trump administration has routinely withheld or shifted around funding without pushback from Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, who served as the chief negotiator for the bill, has struggled to defend it in the face of reports that ICE is abducting young children, harassing and detaining US citizens, and has been directed to break into homes without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment as a matter of policy.
“It is complicated,” DeLauro admitted during a meeting of the House Rules Committee, “when you’re both trying to govern, and you’re trying to resist what may be infringements, to thread that needle and try to be able to move forward.”
However, heading into Thursday's vote, she has maintained that a government shutdown affecting other critical agencies would be more damaging.
“I understand that many of my Democratic colleagues may be dissatisfied with any bill that funds ICE,” she said. “I share their frustration with the out-of-control agency. I encourage my colleagues to review the bill and determine what is best for their constituents and communities.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has been one of Congress' most outspoken opponents of the bill from the beginning, said that while he understands his colleagues' objections, he believes that "the political police force Trump is building at DHS—and their daily violation of the law—threatens to unwind our republic."
"It's not just Minnesota. DHS is ignoring the law everywhere," he wrote in a lengthy post on social media. "I'm just back from Texas, where DHS is thumbing their nose at the law, disappearing legal residents and kids. Why? Because there are no consequences, they think they will get a bipartisan vote to fund their illegality."
He said Democrats should be demanding more for their votes, including "stopping DHS from moving personnel—e.g. [Customs and Border Protection]—out of their budgeted missions; requiring warrants for arrests; restoring training and identification protocols." While he acknowledged that the party “had a hard job,” he said, “there are no meaningful new restraints in this bill.”
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) joined in, saying, "I will not facilitate the lawlessness of an agency that is murdering young mothers, threatening peaceful protestors with assault rifles, and kidnapping elderly Americans out of their homes."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who said he was "leading the opposition" to the bill, explained in a video posted to social media that "the ICE budget under [former President Joe Biden] was $10 billion a year. Donald Trump's Big Ugly Bill increased it by $18 billion a year for the next four years. Today, they want to memorialize that and triple ICE's budget."
"No Democrat should vote yes on this bill," he continued. "Frankly, we need to tear down the ICE agency and have a new federal agency to enforce immigration law under the Justice Department."
Acknowledging that there is not yet sufficient support on Capitol Hill to outright abolish or defund the agency, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has also called for blocking the funds and introduced its own legislation that would limit the use of force by agents.
According to the Guardian, the majority of the 213 Democratic members of the House are expected to vote against the funding bill. But for it to stand any chance of being blocked, total party unity would be necessary, and some of the 218 Republicans would either need to defect or fail to show up for the vote.
Jeffries has personally stated that he will vote against the bill, and according to two congressional sources who spoke to the Prospect, has "recommended" that other members vote against it. However, the party whip, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and her deputies have not been directed to bring the rest of the caucus into line with that position.
In a statement issued Thursday, Jeffries, Clark, and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) again said they personally planned to vote no on the appropriations bill but gave no guidance to their colleagues.
A source tracking the legislation on Capitol Hill told the Prospect that many Democrats in swing districts are planning to vote for the legislation because "they’re terrified of being labeled anti-law enforcement" and "want this to go away so they can talk about the cost of living more. Problem is, it’s not going away.”
Their hesitation comes despite public outrage toward ICE reaching an all-time high, with more of the public now wanting to abolish the agency outright than to keep it, according to a poll conducted earlier this month by YouGov.
Murphy has contended that "the public wants us to make a real fight to stop Trump's abuse of power and to restore humanity and legality to ICE operations," adding, "I don't think a no vote would be out of step with the public. In fact, it's what they demand: accountability for what's happening."
New Republic editor Aaron Regunberg echoed this, encouraging Democrats to "pick the goddamn fight!"
"Americans don’t like what ICE is doing," he said. "This is clearly the kind of playing field in which a fight—which drives further attention towards ICE’s abuses—is advantageous.
In a statement to Common Dreams, the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats described Jeffries' refusal to push against the bill as "cowardice in the face of fascism."
"We need a strong, unflinching opposition party that is united against the president’s personal paramilitary force," the group said. "Instead, Jeffries is willing to let multiple Democrats vote with Republicans to pass this funding, funneling even more of our tax dollars into state-sponsored terrorism."
"Primary every Democrat who wants to fund and still support ICE," said journalist Mehdi Hasan.
Americans across the country are protesting federal agents' violent crackdown on immigrant communities and on dissent, support for doing away with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement entirely is at an all-time high in the wake of an officer's killing of a legal observer, and the outrage is intensifying just as the Democratic Party has negotiating power ahead of a January 30 deadline for funding the government.
A number of Democrats, however, are hesitant to leverage their position in the appropriations fight to rein in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the agencies it controls, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which oversees Border Patrol.
That reluctance, said journalist Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo, should result in primary challenges for "every Democrat who wants to fund and still support ICE."
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which includes nearly 100 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives, said clearly that it would "oppose all funding" for federal immigration enforcement agencies in the upcoming appropriations bills unless, as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said, "meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices.”
The House and Senate are currently negotiating a dozen spending bills to keep the government running past the January 30 deadline, and each bill must garner at least 60 votes to pass in the Senate.
A DHS funding bill was already excluded from a spending package earlier this week amid outcry over the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis and the agency's violent treatment of demonstrators, bystanders, and even residents who are not involved in protests against President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign.
But at the Bulwark, Joe Perticone reported Tuesday that a number of Democrats in the Senate expressed doubt that they would treat ICE funding in appropriations bills as a red line to force the administration to drastically change its approach to immigration enforcement.
“I certainly don’t want see funding increases,” Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) told the Bulwark. “We’re going through these negotiations right now. I don’t want see that funding... I don’t ever make predictions about where my vote’s coming down on, but what I will say is that I’m certainly gonna fight to stop it.”
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) told the Bulwark that she would not want to increase ICE's budget, which includes $75 billion it was given in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) last year, but said Republicans were "taking the lead on these [appropriation bills]."
“Is this what they want to rubber-stamp for residential neighborhoods across this country?" she asked. "Thousands of masked, armed agents coming into their communities?”
But while criticizing the agency's practices, she told the Bulwark that discussions about reforming ICE's enforcement should be separate from the appropriations debate.
“That’s obviously—I don’t wanna get in the weeds—that’s obviously an authorizing committee issue,” she said. “When we’re talking about appropriations, I call on my Republicans... Do they wanna rubber-stamp this or what?”
Organizer and attorney Aaron Regunberg compared the comments—which echoed earlier remarks from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—to saying: "We are the resistance. We are also negotiating furiously to figure out how to fully fund the Gestapo."
Sens. Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto, both Democrats from Nevada, announced their own proposal on Thursday to redirect some of the OBBBA funding to local law enforcement agencies—many of which work with ICE.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, did not make any specific policy commitments regarding what changes ICE and DHS would need to make to ensure funding for immigration enforcement continues, but has suggested that Border Patrol agents should return to the border instead of being unleashed in communities with ICE, agents should be banned from wearing masks and required to wear identification, and federal officers must obtain warrants for immigration arrests.
“You should demand that we make sure that this appropriations process is used to make ICE comply with the law,” Murphy told Time magazine. “And I see a lot of signs out there—not one additional dime for ICE in this budget.”
Murphy also told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that Republicans must decide if they are "willing to shut down the government simply to endorse the most lawless Department of Homeland Security in the history of the country."
Last fall, the federal government saw its longest shutdown in US history, with funding lapsing for 43 days after Democrats refused to approve a spending package that would have allowed Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire and threatened healthcare for millions. Ultimately, some Democrats caved, and the subsidies lapsed.
Journalist Aaron Rupar said that ahead of the January 30 deadline, "Senate Democrats absolutely have to shut the government down to stop this ICE insanity in the Twin Cities."
"This is not sustainable and cannot be normalized," said Rupar. "Any Democratic vote to provide money to the thugs who are brutalizing this community is a grave betrayal to the people here. Accountability can't wait."
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis this week came as Republicans in Congress were planning to bring a homeland security spending bill to the House floor, deciding on whether the agency that's surged thousands of armed agents into communities across the country should have increased funding—and progressive lawmakers are demanding that the Democrats use the upcoming government funding deadline to hopefully reduce the department's ability to wreak further havoc.
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told CNN Thursday. "I know we can’t fix everything in the appropriations bill but we should be looking at ways we can put some commonsense limitations on their ability to bring violence to our cities."
But the top Democratic leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) both appeared to have little interest in discussing how their party can use the appropriations process as leverage to rein in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that have taken part in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operation.
Both Schumer and Jeffries sharply criticized Wednesday's shooting and the Trump administration's insistence that, contrary to mounting video evidence, the ICE agent who shot Good was acting in self-defense.
But Jeffries said Thursday that he was focused on passing other appropriations bills that were ultimately approved by the House.
“We’ll figure out the accountability mechanisms at the appropriate time," Jeffries told reporters.
With Congress facing a January 30 deadline for approving government spending packages—and with public disapproval of ICE at an all-time high—several lawmakers have said this week that right now is the "appropriate time" to rein in the agency in any way the Democrats can.
"Statements and letters are not enough, and the appropriations process and the [continuing resolution] expiring January 31 is our opportunity," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios.
Schumer also refused to say whether the Democrats would use the appropriations process as leverage to cut funding to ICE, whose budget is set to balloon to $170 billion following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year. Republicans will need Democratic support to pass a spending bill in the Senate, where 60 votes are required.
The Senate leader said only that he has "lots of problems with ICE" when asked whether he would support abolishing the agency—a proposal whose support has gone by 20 percentage points among voters in just one year, according to a recent survey. Both leaders also would not commit to slashing the homeland security budget should the Democrats win back majorities in Congress this year.
"It’s hard to be an opposition party when you refuse to oppose the blatantly illegal and immoral things being done by the opposition," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health.
Sharing a clip of Jeffries' remarks to reporters about the agency's funding, historian Moshik Temkin said that "people need to understand that at its core ICE is a bipartisan project, increasingly funded and normalized over multiple Democratic administrations and congressional majorities, and a few of them (not this guy) are starting to realize how foolish, weak, and misguided they were."
Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are among the progressive lawmakers calling on the Democrats to demand reduced funding for ICE—even if it means another government shutdown months after the longest one in US history late last year, which began when the Democrats refused to join the GOP in passing a spending bill that would have allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire. Ultimately, some Senate Democrats caved, and the subsidies lapsed.
"We can't just keep authorizing money for these illegal killers," Jayapal told Axios. "That's what they are, this rogue force."
Ocasio-Cortez told the Independent that Democrats should "absolutely" push to cut funding.
“This Congress, this Republican Congress, while they cut a trillion dollars to Americans’ healthcare, and they exploded the ICE budget to $170 billion making it one of the largest paramilitary forces in the United States with zero accountability as they shoot US citizens in the head—absolutely,” she said.
On the podcast The Majority Report, Emma Vigeland and Sam Seder called on progressive Democrats to demand Schumer's ouster in light of his refusal to take action to rein in ICE as its violence in American communities escalates.
It's time for Democrats to oust Chuck Schumer from leadership pic.twitter.com/ByWMJ495zb
— Majority Report (@majorityfm) January 9, 2026
"Change the news cycle and show that you'll be an opposition party," said Vigeland. "Call for his ouster."
Seder added that Schumer "has the ability to wage a fight to prevent the funding of DHS. He has the ability to do that and he doesn't want it. He's running away from any leverage he has, deliberately."
What are the systems that we need to build to replace the distinctly broken and shattered ones in this world of ours?
Do you have a silver card? I do. I live in New London, Connecticut, and while I don’t get EBT, or Electronic Benefit Transfers, anymore, I still carry the card as a talisman. It’s nestled in my wallet right behind my driver’s license. It reminds me that there was a time when I needed help and was able to get it. It’s the kind of reminder we all need—and one that’s in ever shorter supply these days.
When I was poorer, that card filled every month with money I could spend on food—fruits and vegetables, oil, spices, and cheese at the grocery store. I marshalled my resources carefully then, never taking them for granted.
When Congress and the Trump White House shut the government down recently, they hit 42 million Americans right in their wallets. They took that stability away. They hit mine too, after a fashion, because suddenly my neighbors and friends had empty cards and wallets. People rushed in to help. The little libraries in our neighborhood were suddenly filled with canned goods and jars of peanut butter and jelly. All the downtown businesses started offering discounts or free things if you showed your silver card. A teenager gave out free hot dogs in a local park, and our food co-op started a drive to pay for $20 gift cards to offer struggling shoppers.
After about a week and in response to calls, emails, and letters—a clamor from so many in the Nutmeg State—Connecticut did the right thing. Hartford used its “rainy day fund” to fully fund cards for residents. Our millionaire governor, who recently announced that he’s running for a third term, insisted that he’d bill the federal government for the cost of the stolen benefits.
Of course, I want to do more than just volunteer. I want the whole system to change.
And the goodwill is still going strong. This was shaping up to be a bountiful Thanksgiving for food pantries and soup kitchens in our area, and I’m already planning my outfit for directing traffic at our local food pantry next Friday. I’ll be head-to-toe in high viz.
This is all beautiful. It’s heartening—and we need more of it. It’s an all-too-human response to the Trump administration’s assault on what was left of good government. His graft machine came into power promising to make the government small enough to drown in a toilet. He unleashed Elon Musk and his army of young bros to smash and trash the bureaucracy. In the first weeks of his new administration, a century—whoops, I mean months—ago, more than 200,000 federal employees were pink-slipped, shown the door, or simply locked out. Foreign aid to the globally needy was left to moulder. Contraception bound for the Global South was incinerated. Effective, long-standing programs were shuttered without warning.
I struggled through all of that, feeling small and far from the power centers where good people were being shown the door. I tried to keep my eyes focused on what my own community needed most and did indeed find a modest way to be useful.
On Mondays and Wednesday mornings, I bundle up, don a high-viz vest, and head out to a nearby corner. For an hour, I walk that intersection, accompanying middle schoolers across the street and standing with little kids waiting for buses. I chat with parents and wave at cars, the trucks of contractors, and city buses. People toot their horns or shout my name from open car windows, waving good morning as they head to work.
I give speeders the stink eye and, when there are lulls, I pick up garbage and think about the day ahead. And then I see more kids coming and plan to casually help without letting them break stride. I greet them with warm respect. It hasn’t taken me long to recognize them all.
You may wonder: How did I get here? Let me back up and tell you the story because it connects to how our community is bulking up its care response network in the age of Trump.
During the last budget session, our town was in a fiscal crisis. Inflation, health insurance increases, and rising costs made for major belt tightening. The People’s Budget Coalition, a network of organizations and individuals I work with, turned out scores of people to fill City Council chambers through the budget season. We signed up dozens of people to speak to the City Council and wrote emails to or button-holed councilors at public events. We had marches and rallies. We met one-on-one with school board members and city councilors. We went to Hartford and demanded more money from the state. We worked so hard!
Sometimes, my two kids, 11 and 13, came with me to those City Council meetings, drawing, reading, and shifting around constantly in those uncomfortable seats as their teachers spoke passionately about the work they did. Again and again, people made the point that it isn’t just a school budget, it’s a community budget. After all, the schools provide breakfasts and lunches, before and after care, health and special-ed services, as well as support for more than a dozen languages. And if that isn’t enough to deal with, there are 300 to 400 kids in our school system who are homeless on any given night, and our schools have to contend with the disruptions such instability wreaks on families and so the ability of their kids to learn.
We went back and forth on this for months, but sadly the upshot was that the City Council flat-funded the schools, while the Board of Education had to cut positions and shave costs. One cut was to eliminate all but one crossing guard position, pushing five guards out of their jobs. Amid the massive disruptions at the federal level, this may seem like small potatoes. But it was an obvious and impactful cut, visible evidence of the whole system under attack.
We live between two schools, and I’ve always admired crossing guards for being steady and stalwart in the heat and the cold. I was ready to help out and the People’s Budget Coalition stepped in to organize us into a volunteer crossing-guard cadre.
Of course, I want to do more than just volunteer. I want the whole system to change. While the school board shaved positions, the city offered early retirement to people in key jobs, and everyone was called on to economize, there is a gold-plated example of a tax scofflaw right in our neighborhood. General Dynamics is the fourth-largest weapons manufacturer in the United States, with a huge complex in New London. In 2024, it reported profits of $3.8 billion, up 14.1% from 2023. Its CEO, Phebe Novakovic, made more than $23 million in 2024 (with all her stocks and options). However, the company shortchanges its workers, even as it rakes in record profits.
In 2021, General Dynamics-Electric Boat took the city of New London to court to contest its tax bill, according to documents uncovered by the War Resisters League. The city had assessed its New London office park at $78 million, but the company wanted it lower. They eventually settled in court on an assessment of $57 million. That big break saved the company $563,000 a year in local taxes! Add that up for the five years since that decision was made, and you get $2.8 million!
If our tax system were fair, New London would get $6 million more in taxes.
It could have been even more. As local Patch news site reported, General Dynamics bought the complex for $55 million in July 2010—a fire sale price, given that the previous owner, pharmaceutical behemoth Pfizer, had spent $300 million to build it less than 10 years earlier. When General Dynamics moved in, the fair market value for the property was $309 million, putting the tax assessment on the property at something like $216 million. So, the company’s fair tax burden to the City of New London should be nearly $6 million a year! How different life would be for New Londoners if General Dynamics were paying that annually.
After laying that out before the City Council, I concluded (all in less than three minutes) by saying: “I offer for your consideration that you stop cutting positions, stop threatening to flat-fund the schools and our kids, and that you tax General Dynamics with the same resolve that you tax the citizens. They can afford it, a lot more than we can.” There was some applause for that last line, even though many people are afraid to criticize General Dynamics, fearing that (no matter the real finances) the goose could stop laying what still passes for a golden egg.
The People’s Budget Coalition has begun looking into how we can take this issue on, especially because so much of our housing boom and the gentrification that goes with it (and pushes poorer people out of our area) is related to the US Navy’s massive contract (a whopping $132 billion) with General Dynamics-Electric Boat for a new class of nuclear-powered, nuclear-capable submarines. I mention all of this because it’s the kind of thing I think about while waiting for the next cluster of middle schoolers to arrive at my intersection.
At the end of the school year, as they cut school positions, proud parents put up lawn signs advertising where their kids were headed to college. One common sign was for Electric Boat, not a college. But most of the positions they’re filling with new grads aren’t actually high-paying, fast-advancing ones that will provide future stability for those young people. A recent report by the War Resisters League found that entry-level wages at Electric Boat, even after signing bonuses, were low enough that workers also often qualified for state healthcare and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits!
Imagine that, if our tax system were fair, New London would get $6 million more in taxes. Of course, then there’s the question of what it would be like if we Americans weren’t investing $132 billion for those 12 new nuclear-armed submarines capable all alone of destroying the world. Why is there money for those submarines but not for sandwiches (and other food), housing, and medicine for people who truly need it?
How can companies like General Dynamics-Electric Boat make insane profits with plenty of money left over for stock buybacks and CEO bonuses, while people in my world are digging through their pantries to find cans of food to share with their neighbors?
Only recently, when SNAP ran out of its federal funding during the government shutdown and the Trump crew decided to force millions of low-income people to reapply for their food stamps (supposedly in an effort to stop “fraud”), my social media filled up with images of World War II victory gardens and videos of how to replace such federal support with your own labor and ingenuity. And yes, it made a certain sense to me on one level, though it also couldn’t have been more tone deaf or unrealistic on another.
Here’s what I mean: I grow food in my yard. I devote three or four hours a week to watering, weeding, reseeding, and harvesting. Right there I’m way ahead of the curve, since I’ve got the space and time, two significant privileges. I had a great garlic harvest this year. My blueberry bushes and strawberry patch were both prolific. I lost all my hazelnuts to the squirrels during an ill-timed road trip. Our mushroom patch never came up. My care for the fig tree paid off—finally—and I got a tidy little fig harvest for a week or two in September. An asparagus patch I’ve been developing for a few years took off and, for a few weeks, we ate so much asparagus that we all got a little sick of it.
I can barely share a handful of figs with my neighbors and can’t solve anyone’s food crisis by my occasional neighborly drop-offs of a dozen backyard eggs.
Parsley, basil, collards, kale, and lettuces all did great, and we ate pesto and salads and slaws from May to October, almost turning green in the process. Last year’s jack-o’-lanterns took off in spiky abundance, and I let them take over a whole part of the yard. Eventually, I found five beautiful feral pumpkins that we carved up again, roasting the seeds with tamari and garlic powder for a messy and delicious treat. I grew corn but didn’t water it enough for it to be anything but chicken food. And yes, we have enough chickens to meet our egg needs, but we’re far from being self-sufficient.
You see what I’m getting at, I hope. Gardening is a lot of time and work, while the outcomes are anything but guaranteed. A handful of missed days, a few missteps, and all your work is for nothing. Still, this summer, there were weeks when my family could skip buying vegetables and fruit. That felt good and was nice for our bottom line, but even that depended on my having some free daytime, a luxury all too many of us don’t have.
Our true food system is all about commandeered water and stolen land, subsidized fertilizer and exploited labor, shipping and storage. Every little way I opt out from all of that is undoubtedly a good thing, but I can barely share a handful of figs with my neighbors and can’t solve anyone’s food crisis by my occasional neighborly drop-offs of a dozen backyard eggs.
Maybe it’s different in places where more people grow more food and aren’t dabblers or amateurs like me. But as I think about how to contend with the acute crisis and widening fissures in our whole international food system, with its Trumpian tariffs, excise taxes, and systemic abuses, I wonder how long this can go on.
How long can we live in the strange world of President Donald Trump and his version of what might be thought of as Defeat Gardens before we figure out a better way—how to truly feed and care for ourselves and one another? What are the systems that we need to build to replace the distinctly broken and shattered ones in this world of ours?
Those are some of the questions I ask myself daily as I wait for those schoolkids to get to my corner. But I can’t ask them alone or answer them by myself. Still, it feels meaningful to at least pose the questions and explore how, in this Trumpian universe of ours, not just I but we can try to answer them together.