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
justice democrats
‘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
'Venezuela, for the American Oil Companies, Will Be a Field Day,' Says US Lawmaker Pushing Invasion
"They're not even hiding it anymore. A US-led regime change war abroad to line the pockets of Big Oil—where have we heard this one before?"
Nov 24, 2025
"Going to war for oil, the sequel."
That's how one film and television producer responded to a Monday clip of US Rep. María Salazar (R-Fla.) discussing President Donald Trump's potential military invasion of Venezuela on Fox Business.
Amid mounting alarm that Trump may take military action, Salazar said there were three reasons why "we need to go in" to the South American country. The first, she said, is that "Venezuela, for the American oil companies, will be a field day."
After journalist Aaron Rupar noted her remarks on social media, many critics weighed in, including Justice Democrats, which works to elect progressives to Congress.
"They're not even hiding it anymore. A US-led regime change war abroad to line the pockets of Big Oil—where have we heard this one before?" the group said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.
Fred Wellman, a US Army combat veteran and podcast host running as a Democrat in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District, replied on social media: "They are sending our troops to war for the oil companies and not even pretending to lie about it. These sick SOBs are going to get our kids killed and it's all a big joke."
Salazar also described Venezuela as a launching pad for enemies of the US and claimed the country's president, Nicolás Maduro, leads the alleged Cartel de los Soles, or the Cartel of the Suns—which the Trump administration on Monday designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
Venezuela's interior and justice minister, Diosdado Cabello, has long claimed the cartel doesn't exist, calling it an "invention." As the UK's BBC reported Monday:
Cabello, who is alleged to be one of the high-ranking members of the cartel, has accused US officials of using it as an excuse to target those they do not like.
"Whenever someone bothers them, they name them as the head of the Cartel de los Soles," he said in August.
Gustavo Petro, the left-wing president of Venezuela's neighbour, Colombia, has also denied the cartel's existence.
"It is the fictional excuse of the far right to bring down governments that do not obey them," he wrote on X in August.
The terrorist designation and Salazar's comments came as the Trump administration is under fire for blowing up boats it claims are running drugs off the coast of Venezuela, and after a CBS News/YouGov survey showed on Sunday that 70% of Americans—including 91% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans—are against the "US taking military action in Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Moment Calls for a True Fighter': Progressive Group Backs Justin Pearson for Congress
"Justice Democrats is so proud to endorse Justin J. Pearson to bring people-first leadership to Tennessee's only Democratic district," said the group's executive director.
Oct 08, 2025
Tennessee state Rep. Justin J. Pearson, currently running to represent the 9th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives, was endorsed Wednesday by the national progressive group Justice Democrats, which said his history of fearless leadership is precisely what the country needs to combat the authoritarian push by Republicans, including President Donald Trump.
"Justice Democrats is so proud to endorse Justin J. Pearson to bring people-first leadership to Tennessee's only Democratic district," said the group's executive director, Alexandra Rojas, in a statement.
The candidate said he was "honored" to have the group's support, and its investment gives him "the opportunity to join the ranks of progressive, working-class champions" in Congress, pointing to Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.).
"We look forward to fighting alongside them in their visionary efforts to identify, nurture, and uplift bold, progressive, and courageous leaders to help our country overcome corporate greed, white supremacy, patriarchy, inequality, authoritarianism, and other attacks on democracy," he added.
"The communities and rising young leadership Justin represents in the 9th are on the frontlines of Donald Trump and Elon Musk's war on working families."
Pearson, who represents the 86th District in the Tennessee House of Representatives, which includes parts of Memphis, garnered national attention as one of the "Tennessee Three" in 2023, when the chamber's Republicans expelled him and Rep. Justin Jones (D-52) over their protest for stricter gun laws in the wake of the deadly Covenant School shooting in Nashville. Local officials quickly reinstated both men.
The 30-year-old's congressional campaign comes as Trump has sent National Guard troops to multiple US communities, and The Associated Press reports that they "could also be in Memphis by Friday." Pearson is among the local elected officials who have spoken out about sending soldiers to the city.
"The communities and rising young leadership Justin represents in the 9th are on the frontlines of Donald Trump and Elon Musk's war on working families," said Rojas. "They are showing the country, like so many other major cities under attack, what it means to truly come together to protect one another, not roll over, and fight back."
"This district does not have time to wait or keep going with the same status quo leadership that has governed for decades," she continued. "Tennessee voters need more than congressional letters and tweets—they need a congressperson that will fight with every tool at their disposal to deliver real, tangible change with solutions as big as the crises we face."
Justice Democrats shared a launch video on social media, arguing that "this moment calls for a true fighter like Justin."
"He is part of a wave of working-class, progressive candidates who are vital in the federal fight to take on Trump's authoritarianism, realign the Dem Party, excite our base, and turn out who we need to win up and down the ballot," said the group—which is also supporting Donavan McKinney's primary challenge to Rep. Shri Thanedar in Michigan's 13th District and Angela Gonzales-Torres in her race against Congressman Jimmy Gomez in California's 34th District.
In an interview published Wednesday, Pearson spoke with The Nation's Chris Lehmann about his Democratic primary challenge to 10-term incumbent Rep. Steve Cohen. According to the magazine's DC bureau chief, the Memphis native expressed gratitude for the congressman's service but emphasized his "working-class background against Cohen's status as a veteran Capitol Hill insider who recently purchased a condominium in Washington," and added that "he would diverge from Cohen's stalwart support for Israel in Congress."
Lehmann noted that "Justice Democrats, in the tradition of campaign advocacy groups, goes after Cohen more directly in its statement endorsing Pearson," calling out the 76-year-old incumbent for "cashing checks" from corporate political action committees while embracing "the model of the average absentee congressman."
"His lack of engaged and active representation has lowered expectations Memphians have for their congressperson," Justice Democrats said, "further eroding civil engagement and inspiring political cynicism in a working-class community already under attack on all sides."
In addition to Justice Democrats, Pearson is backed by Leaders We Deserve, a group led by former Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg, who said in a statement, "In this moment of crisis, I'm calling on Rep. Steve Cohen to pass the torch to Justin J. Pearson—a transformational leader who can inspire a new generation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular