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
senate democrats
As Democrats Push for ICE ‘Reforms,’ a Judge Shows How Flagrantly the Agency Already Violates Law
"ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
Jan 29, 2026
Amid the latest budget standoff in Congress, Senate Democrats on Wednesday said they may be willing to make a deal to fund the US Department of Homeland Security in exchange for a slate of "reforms" designed to rein in what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described as Immigration and Customs Enforcement's "state-sanctioned thuggery."
But just because something is written in law doesn't mean ICE agents will follow it.
That's what Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—demonstrated when, as part of an order issued Wednesday, he published a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE has violated in just the month of January.
Schiltz issued the list as part of an order canceling a hearing for acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, whom he’d previously ordered to appear in court on Friday or face contempt. The judge demanded Lyon's personal appearance after ICE ignored the judge’s order to give a bail hearing to a detainee, Juan Hugo Tobay Robles, one of “dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.” Schiltz canceled Lyons’ hearing when Robles was released from custody.
"That does not end the Court’s concerns, however," Schiltz wrote on Wednesday. "Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases."
"This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law," he went on. "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
"ICE," he said, "is not law unto itself."
This scathing document of ICE's willful disregard for the law was top of mind for many critics of the compromise Democrats appear poised to make in exchange for passing a budget package that includes $64.4 billion in DHS funding, including $10 billion for ICE and $18 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
On Thursday, seven Republicans joined Democrats in a 45-55 vote to block the spending package, which needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Democrats have said they want to separate DHS funding from the rest of the bill in order to negotiate a series of "reforms." If a deal is not reached by January 30, funding for DHS and several other agencies will lapse, causing another partial government shutdown.
On Wednesday, Schumer told the press that Democrats are "united" behind three key reforms to DHS. Per TIME Magazine:
“We want to end roving patrols,” Schumer said, laying out Democrats’ first demand. “We need to tighten the rules governing the use of warrants and require ICE coordination with state and local law enforcement.”
Second, he said, Democrats want to “enforce accountability,” including a uniform federal code of conduct and independent investigations into alleged abuses. Federal agents, he argued, should be held to the same use-of-force standards as local police and face consequences when they violate them.
Third, Schumer said, Democrats are demanding “masks off, body cameras on,” a reference to proposals that would bar agents from wearing face coverings, require they wear body cameras and mandate that agents carry visible identification. “No more anonymous agents, no more secret operatives,” he said.
Journalist and political analyst Adam Johnson described these proposals as "superficial," with many already being codified into law or even the US Constitution.
"As many scholars have noted, Trump arresting people without warrants is already unconstitutional and illegal, but his DHS is doing it anyway," he wrote. "Passing laws to enforce existing law may dissuade the Trump regime in some contexts, but it’s unclear why Trump wouldn’t just ignore the new law since they duly ignored the previous one."
He also said, "It’s unclear how much power Congress or states would have to 'enforce accountability' while Trump’s cartoonishly corrupt DOJ continues to investigate and threaten state lawmakers and leaders with prison time."
Johnson noted that the list of demands made by progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was more comprehensive, including bans on arrest quotas and forcing ICE to end its reign of terror in Minneapolis, but said "it’s unclear how Congress would define, much less enforce, these parameters. And most conspicuous of all, their demands make zero mention of reducing DHS’s obscene budget."
DHS funds were already increased by $170 billion over the next five years in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress last year, and ICE funding tripled, from $10 billion per year to $30 billion, making it the equivalent of the 13th most expensive military in the world.
Aaron Regunberg, a writer at the New Republic, questioned what good it was to subject ICE to new laws when, as Schiltz's order showed, "ICE breaks the law, courts order them to stop, and then they keep breaking the law."
"You have to be dumb as bricks to think the answer is to pass a law saying it's against the law to break the law," he continued. "The answer is to stop giving these fascist goons billions of our tax dollars."
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Are Not Powerless to Stop ICE—But We Must Act Now
We taxpayers fund ICE, the Border Patrol, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s salary (and her two jets). Without congressional action by the end of January, funding for ICE will lapse.
Jan 16, 2026
With the killing of Renee Good, an unarmed mother of three, the American people have reached a breaking point. As protests surged beyond Minnesota to all 50 states, a critical window has opened in Washington. Congress has until the end of January to decide whether to fund a massive expansion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Democratic senators alone can just say no.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told ICE to leave, but instead the Trump regime doubled down, adding to the thousands of federal agents already sent to the twin cities. Federal agents smashed car windows to grab people observing their activities, broke down doors, and created fear and chaos around schools. President Donald Trump warned of more to come, posting to Minnesota on Truth Social on January 13, “THE DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION IS COMING.”
While the streets of Minneapolis fill with grieving and defiant residents, Congress is preparing to pour billions more into the very agencies responsible for the chaos.
There are only a few people with the power to stop the brutalizing of our communities being carried out by ICE. Congress has the power of the purse, and Congress can stop this. We taxpayers fund ICE, the Border Patrol, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s salary (and her two jets). Without congressional action by the end of January, funding for ICE will lapse.
There is support among some in Congress for reining in ICE. Others will have to join these courageous leaders if we are to rein in the federal brutality.
In the Senate, where 60 votes are required to move a funding bill forward, just 41 senators can block any bill that expands the ICE budget. Senate Democrats, including two Independents who caucus with Democrats, number 47. Senate Democrats alone can halt funding for ICE.
So far, the Democratic leadership has not stepped up. Only enormous pressure from their constituents will force them to show any backbone.
There is support among some in Congress for reining in ICE. Others will have to join these courageous leaders if we are to rein in the federal brutality.
“It’s hard to imagine how Democrats are going to vote for a DHS bill that funds this level of illegality and violence without constraints,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Axios last week.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on X he would not support any funding for Trump’s ICE operations without safeguards.
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have been speaking out.
“Our caucus members will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement in any appropriation bills until meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) told a press conference at the US Capitol. According to a report in the Guardian, Omar, who is the caucus’s deputy chair, went on to say, “We cannot and we should not continue to fund agencies that operate with impunity, that escalate violence, and that undermine the very freedoms this country claims to uphold.”
“They’ve gone rogue under Donald Trump; they should be disbanded,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said, according to The Hill. “You’re still going to have immigration enforcement, but ICE shouldn’t have any part of it.”
The Price of Retribution: Following the Money
The massive funding that is supercharging ICE is coming from taxpayers. Trump’s signature legislation, the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” earmarks $170 billion over four years for immigration enforcement. The ICE budget alone would nearly triple compared to its 2024 budget, reaching $28.7 billion per year. The bill included $30 billion over four years to hire 10,000 additional ICE officers, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
This massive influx of cash would also triple the budget for immigrant detention, eventually becoming 62% larger than the funding for the entire federal prison system. Detention of undocumented immigrants has grown to the highest level in US history, according to the Migration Policy Institute, with more than 8 in 10 held in private detention centers. Contrary to the Trump regime’s promise to go after the “worst of the worst,” 71% of ICE detainees have no criminal conviction.
This year’s appropriation for ICE has yet to be approved. And Congress can just say no.
With Kristi Noem and others in the Trump regime calling protesters “domestic terrorists,” these growing detention facilities could be used to hold any who express disagreement with the Trump agenda.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also using its massive war chest to pressure state and local law enforcement to enter into 287(g) partnerships with ICE, in which they receive generous federal funding for collaborating with federal agents.
This federal “campaign of terror” relies entirely on congressional approval, says Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) of Chicago. “We need to cut and claw back ICE’s funding as natural consequences for DHS’ disregard for the rule of law and violations of our rights,” the Guardian quoted her as saying.
This year’s appropriation for ICE has yet to be approved. And Congress can just say no.
A Popular Uprising
The people affected by the bloated ICE budget are our friends and neighbors. They are hospital and home-health workers. They harvest the crops and process meat, and many own small businesses. They are mothers and fathers and neighbors who contribute to the fabric of our communities. They pay taxes and contribute to social security, although they are not eligible to receive social security benefits. Many of those targeted are in the US legally, including refugees, those applying for citizenship, and even US citizens.
Public support for the ICE roundups has plummeted since President Trump took office. More Americans now believe ICE is making the country less safe (47%) than more safe (34%), according to an Economist/YouGov poll taken after the shooting of Renee Good. A plurality of Americans (46%) support the abolition of ICE, a figure that jumps to 80% among Democrats or those who lean Democratic. Indivisible has made the ICE funding fight a major priority.
The Trump regime wants us to believe we are powerless to stop this massive buildup of armed, masked federal forces in our cities and towns. They’re wrong.
People are making their opinions known through extraordinary acts of courage:
Ordinary people are showing up, as Renee Good did, to literally blow the whistle on ICE outside workplaces, in neighborhoods, and at detention centers. Around the country, people are supporting parents trying to get their kids to school—and those whose loved ones have been detained. Rapid response teams have formed, with members filming detentions, challenging federal agents to show warrants, and staging late-night parties outside hotels housing ICE agents.
People power is having an impact. Spotify recently stopped accepting ICE recruitment ads following a widespread consumer boycott, and Avelo Airlines ended its contract for deportation flights.
The Trump regime wants us to believe we are powerless to stop this massive buildup of armed, masked federal forces in our cities and towns. They’re wrong. Our tax dollars are the fuel for this machine. The American people are stepping up, risking injury and arrest to defend their rights and their neighbors. Now we will see if elected lawmakers have as much courage as the people they represent. It’s time for Congress to use the budgeting powers vested in them by the founders, and turn off the spigot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Aren’t Any Senate Democrats Calling On Schumer to Step Down?
Despite outcry from progressives, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer as leader.
Nov 11, 2025
With many Democratic base voters up in arms over Senate Democrats caving on the federal government shutdown fight, there have been calls for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down from his leadership role.
None of those calls, however, have come from senators currently serving in the Democratic Caucus, including progressive stalwarts such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
As reported by The American Prospect on Tuesday, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer (D-NY) as leader, despite the fact that "every single one of them has the power to force a vote on Schumer’s continued control of the caucus" if they chose to do so.
According to the Prospect, any senator in the Democratic Caucus "could bring forward a motion to amend the Democratic Caucus Rules to say that he should lose his leadership position if a set number of members disapprove of him." What's more, the Prospect explained, "the motion would be 'self-executing,' resulting in Schumer’s removal at the same time that it’s approved."
As noted in a Politico report, Senate Democrats who were opposed to the shutdown cave did not directly criticize Schumer for his handling of the issue, and some, like Warren, tried to direct voters' anger toward Republicans.
"I want Republicans to actually grow a backbone and say, regardless of what [President] Donald Trump says, we’re actually going to restore these cuts on healthcare," she said on Sunday. "But it looks like I’ve lost that fight, so I don’t want to post more pain on people who are hungry and on people who haven’t been paid."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was more directly critical of the deal that Democrats cut on reopening the government, but he nonetheless stopped short of calling for Schumer's removal.
“This bill doesn’t do anything to arrest the healthcare catastrophe, nor does it constrain in any meaningful way President Trump’s illegality,” he said. “I think the voters were pretty clear on Tuesday night what they wanted Congress to do, and more specifically, what they wanted Democrats to do, and I am really saddened that we didn’t listen to them.”
The appetite for ditching Schumer appears much stronger among Democrats serving in the US House of Representatives, however.
Axios on Monday reported that House Democrats' anger at their Senate counterparts erupted during a private phone call among members, as Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) told her colleagues that "people are fucking pissed" at seeing Democrats once again cave in a fight with Trump.
One anonymous Democrat also told Axios that almost "everyone [was] strongly against" the deal Senate Democrats cut to reopen the government without an agreement to extend enhanced tax credits for Americans who buy their health insurance through Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), called on Schumer to step down as minority leader, and challenged his opponent to do the same.
"If Chuck Schumer were an effective leader, he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare," Moulton wrote in a social media post earlier this week. "Maybe now Ed Markey will finally join me in pledging not to vote for Schumer?”
Progressive advocacy organization Indivisible on Monday started ramping up pressure on Democrats to push for Schumer to step down as minority leader, and the group explicitly said that it would "not back any Senate primary candidate unless they call for Schumer to step down as Minority Leader."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular