SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
house appropriations committee
‘Cowardice in the Face of Fascism’: Fury at House Democrats Willing to Fund ICE
“We need a strong, unflinching opposition party that is united against the president’s personal paramilitary force," said Justice Democrats.
Jan 22, 2026
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."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Votes Down Amendments to Restore Funding for Meals on Wheels, AIDS Prevention
"They're happy to give even more to the wealthiest with giant tax breaks," said Rep. Mark Pocan, "but when it comes to helping people in need, there's never enough to go around."
Sep 10, 2025
House Republicans have struck down a pair of amendments to fully fund the Meals on Wheels program and AIDS prevention as part of this week's markup process for the fiscal year 2026 US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) budget.
The amendments were proposed by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) to the bill recently released by the House Appropriations Committee, which proposes to cut HHS funding by 6%.
Part of that funding comes from Meals on Wheels, the charity that provides an estimated 250 million meals each year to senior citizens unable to cook for themselves. The charity says that 9 in 10 of its providers receive some amount of federal funding and that for 60% of them, it represents more than half their operating budget.
According to Pocan, who spoke Monday on the House floor, the Republican bill underfunds the food assistance program by $600 million, which he says is likely to cost 1.9 million people their access to food.
" Republicans in the appropriations process are leaving seniors to starve," Pocan said.
Combined with the $187 billion already cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which Republicans passed in July, Pocan said it amounts to "the largest cut to food assistance in our nation's history."
Pocan juxtaposed these cuts with the "extravagant dinner" hosted this weekend at Trump's new, private White House "Rose Garden Club," which White House social media shows featured "steak and a fudge-filled seven-layer cake."
"I guess the theme of the White House event was 'let them eat cake,'" Pocan joked.
When he proposed the amendment as part of the markup process on Tuesday, Pocan spoke about his elderly mother's experience relying on the Meals on Wheels program when she dealt with mobility issues.
"I would hope that this is something where we could get together and say, 'Yeah, this should be a priority... We respect our seniors and we're going to show that through Meals on Wheels," Pocan said before his House colleagues.
Every single Republican on the Appropriations Committee voted against the amendment.
Republicans also unanimously struck down Pocan's amendment to restore nearly $2 billion for AIDS prevention cut from the House GOP bill, which makes up 25% of the total budget cuts to HHS.
In June, the Foundation for AIDS Research projected that Trump's proposal to cut $1.3 billion worth of HIV prevention funds "could cause an additional 144,000 new HIV diagnoses, 15,000 deaths, and 128,000 more people living with HIV in the US by 2030."
The Appropriations Committee budget goes even further than Trump's proposed budget released earlier this year, cutting over $1.7 billion worth of AIDS prevention funding.
It calls for the total elimination of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding to combat HIV and cuts $220 million allocated to Trump's own Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative. It also eliminates $525 million from the Ryan White Program, which provides grants to over 400 HIV/AIDS clinics providing care and treatment.
"This is not a bill for making America healthy again, but a disastrous bill that will reignite HIV in the United States," said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute. "Eliminating all HIV prevention means the end of state and local testing and surveillance programs, educational programs, and linkage to lifesaving care and treatment, along with PrEP. It will translate into an increased number of new HIV infections, which will be costlier to treat in the long run."
After Republicans voted down his amendment to reverse these "devastating" cuts, Pocan wrote on X, "They're happy to give even more to the wealthiest with giant tax breaks, but when it comes to helping people in need, there's never enough to go around."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Confirmation of Project 2025 Architect Russ Vought Expected to Intensify Lawless Trump Rampage
"Now that Vought is officially running the show, he'll be able to unleash his radical agenda across the federal government. And if the courts stop him, he's got a billionaire friend with the government's keys and checkbook: Elon Musk."
Feb 07, 2025
In a party-line vote late Thursday, the U.S. Senate confirmed right-wing extremist and Project 2025 architect Russell Vought to lead the White House budget office as the Trump administration works to unilaterally dismantle entire federal agencies and choke off funding already approved by Congress.
Vought's confirmation, backed only by Republican votes in the Senate, comes after the chamber's Democrats used up all 30 hours of debate on his nomination to warn of the damage he could inflict as director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Lawmakers and progressive activists echoed those warnings in the wake of his confirmation. Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement that "Vought's fingerprints are all over last week's illegal funding freeze."
"Halting funding for Americans' healthcare, childcare, and food assistance wasn't a bug," said Jacquez. "It was by design, and Project 2025 is the blueprint. Now that Vought is officially running the show, he'll be able to unleash his radical agenda across the federal government. And if the courts stop him, he's got a billionaire friend with the government's keys and checkbook: Elon Musk."
During his confirmation process, Vought expressed agreement with Trump's view that the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA)—a law passed in response to former President Richard Nixon's refusal to spend congressionally approved funds on programs he opposed—is unconstitutional, a view that Musk has also expressed.
Politico reported Thursday that Vought "is expected to soon press his theory on impoundments, the idea that the president can ignore congressional spending edicts." Analysts have argued that even without the ICA, unilateral impoundments of the kind the Trump White House is expected to pursue in the coming months and years would still be unconstitutional.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement Thursday that "in confirming Vought, Republicans have put their stamp of approval on ending American democracy—built on three co-equal branches of government—and on creating a government of billionaires, by billionaires."
"Our nation is facing an extraordinary crisis," said DeLauro. "Donald Trump is attempting to claim absolute power for the presidency. The chaos, confusion, and flagrantly unconstitutional actions of the early days of this administration are largely of Vought's design and doing. With Vought's encouragement, the administration has taken the groundless position—and demonstrated—that they believe the White House has the absolute power to determine spending, and that they can choose to simply not fund programs and services that Congress has promised to the American people. This could not be further from the truth."
"The Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, with the power of the purse," DeLauro continued. "The president is not a king who can pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to ignore. But the president is relying on the guidance and counsel of Russ Vought to do just that."
In one of his appearances before the Senate last month, Vought told lawmakers that he views the Clinton-era welfare reform law that doubled extreme poverty as a crowning achievement and declared that "we need to go after the mandatory programs," which include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
"Vought is an extremist who has made clear he'll ignore our nation's laws, cut funding that helps people across the country, and give Trump unprecedented and unconstitutional power," warned Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, following Vought's confirmation. "There will be consequences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular