The House narrowly approved a Republican-backed bill to send roughly $70 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), funding the agencies through the end of fiscal year 2029. The measure passed 214 to 212, using the budget reconciliation process that allowed Republicans to bypass Democratic objections.
Lawmakers reached the vote after a 115-day impasse over immigration enforcement following the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal officers in Minneapolis earlier this year. Democrats withheld support for additional funding as leverage to demand reforms to agency tactics. When negotiations collapsed, Republicans moved the funding package through reconciliation without adopting the changes Democrats sought.
Under the bill, funding is provided in lump sums that need not be spent until fiscal 2029. Key allocations include about $38 billion for ICE (including $7 billion for Homeland Security Investigations and $31 billion for enforcement activities such as hiring attorneys, supporting cooperating local law enforcement and technology), roughly $22 billion for Border Patrol (about $13 billion targeted to enforcement work), $5 billion for border security technology and screening — including artificial intelligence — and $350 million for enforcement in localities that do not participate in federal cooperation programs.
Those totals represent a dramatic increase for ICE: the agency’s typical annual budget is about $10 billion, and the new money, combined with a prior reconciliation boost last year, has made ICE one of the most heavily funded federal law enforcement agencies. Critics say the scale and multi-year nature of the funding limit Congress’s ability to exercise oversight.
Democrats and some watchdogs warned that because the funding bypasses the normal appropriations process, it lacks many customary guardrails. Proposals Democrats pushed for — such as requiring warrants to enter homes, banning masks for officers, and widely implementing body cameras — are not included in the package. The separate April appropriation that funded most of DHS did include several oversight provisions and $20 million for the DHS inspector general to investigate detention conditions; those measures do not apply to the ICE and CBP funds approved this week.
Immigration advocates express alarm. Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, said the approach is “very dangerous,” noting that past annual bills included reporting requirements and rules about detainee treatment that are absent from this reconciliation funding. She also flagged concerns about the $350 million for jurisdictions that do not formally cooperate with federal immigration efforts, saying the DHS secretary could wield broad discretion over how that money is spent.
Some Republicans defended the vote as necessary after months of deadlock. “We’re attempting here to fund ICE and CBP at last year’s operating budget plus inflation,” House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was the lone Republican to oppose the measure in the Senate, arguing that multi-year appropriations undermine the regular budgeting process and weaken congressional checks on immigration policy.
Agency officials have already begun planning for additional funding. ICE leaders said they have procurement “shopping lists” that include wearable displays and data tools to support operations. CBP officials said prior funding gaps had made it difficult to pay employees and meet contractual obligations.
The vote brings the standoff to an end without the sweeping reforms Democrats sought, and it means ICE and CBP will be insulated from the annual appropriations process for several years. Democrats say the lack of conditions reduces their leverage to demand accountability, even as some members vow to continue pushing for policy changes through other avenues. Senator Tina Smith, D-Minn., said Minnesotans touched by the earlier enforcement actions still feel the consequences and that the political fight over these policies is not over.