- The House passed fiscal 2026 funding for the Department of Homeland Security despite Democratic opposition on Thursday.
- The $64.4 billion DHS bill includes FEMA and Coast Guard funding through Sept. 30.
- The House also approved a broader appropriations package to prevent a Jan. 31 shutdown.
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Thursday passed fiscal 2026 funding for the Department of Homeland Security despite strong opposition by Democrats who object to President Donald Trump's dispatch of masked federal agents to cities and states, including Minneapolis, as part of his crackdown on illegal immigration by the agency.
Congress is facing a Jan. 30 deadline to pass 12 spending bills or another stopgap measure to keep federal agencies across the Trump administration operating. Failure to act could risk the second government shutdown in four months. Lawmakers have made progress on the effort so far, as the dozen bills have won the backing of Republican and Democratic negotiators in the House and Senate.
The House voted 220-207 to approve the $64.4 billion DHS bill that also funds the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Coast Guard through Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year. One Republican voted in opposition to the bill, while seven Democrats supported it. The Senate is expected to take up the legislation next week before the deadline.
The House also overwhelmingly approved a separate, sweeping package of other appropriations bills on Thursday, covering funding for programs ranging from military and health to transportation, education and housing. The bipartisan vote was 341-88. The measure also goes to the Senate, which is expected to approve it next week in a big step toward avoiding a government shutdown on Jan. 31, when current government discretionary funding expires.
House Democratic leaders opposed the Homeland Security spending bill in the aftermath of the Jan. 7 killing of a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.
House Republicans opened debate applauding the fact that they were on the precipice of finally completing their budget work for this fiscal year that began last Oct. 1, four months late.
"We are indeed ready to move forward and complete the appropriations process," Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said.
Democrats focused largely on the DHS bill, arguing that it lacks sufficient guardrails against ICE excesses.
"ICE is out of control. We are watching federal agents roll through communities like they are above the law, stopping people, harassing people, intimidating people and yes, shooting them," Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said, noting that even U.S. citizens are now carrying their passports out of fear of being detained.
Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the bill empowers frontline agents to uphold immigration laws.
Even without enactment of the DHS bill, ICE would be able to continue its operations. Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" tax-cut law enacted last year gave ICE an additional $75 billion that does not require any additional congressional action.
Some influential Democrats called on colleagues to recognize their limits as the minority party in Congress and to support the package.
"The hard truth is that Democrats must win political power to enact the kind of (ICE) accountability we need," said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, referring to November's congressional elections.
Aside from the immigration dispute, experts say the spending bills show some evidence that Congress is moving to reassert its control over federal spending, after Trump refused to spend billions of dollars that had already been signed into law last year.
Brendan Duke of the liberal-leaningCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities said the spending bills protect many programs targeted by Trump, such as medical research, housing and education.
"We will see if President Trump respects this agreement," he said.
Experts also have noted that 57 of Trump's nominations have had to be withdrawn over the past year, some of them due to a lack of support in the Senate.
Contributing: David Morgan
