Growing public backlash against President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement is reshaping the funding fight on Capitol Hill, as Democrats refuse to back another short-term bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security open.
According to Daljoog News analysis, frustration with ICE tactics has emboldened Senate Democrats to take a firmer position than in past shutdown battles, even as the deadline to fund DHS approaches within days.
With immigration enforcement now at the center of public anger and polling trends turning sharply negative, the looming partial shutdown has become a political test for both parties.
What Happened?
With just days remaining before DHS funding expires, several influential Democrats in the Senate say they will not support another continuing resolution, commonly known as a CR, to keep the agency operating.
Sen. Angus King of Maine, a key swing vote who has previously helped break funding impasses, said he cannot support continued funding for ICE under current conditions. King emphasized that his position has changed because most of the federal government is already funded, narrowing the scope of potential shutdown damage.
He acknowledged that a lapse in DHS funding would affect agencies such as ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA, but argued the stakes are not comparable to last year’s shutdown, which threatened food assistance, medical care, and research funding.
Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations panel overseeing DHS, said Congress does not need another temporary fix. He argued Republicans could resolve the standoff immediately by agreeing to reforms tied to immigration enforcement.
Murphy warned that continuing to fund DHS without changes risks further violence and loss of life, pointing to recent enforcement actions that have drawn national outrage.
Why This Matters
DHS sits at the core of U.S. border enforcement, disaster response, aviation security, and maritime protection. A shutdown would disrupt thousands of federal workers and complicate emergency preparedness nationwide.
At the same time, immigration enforcement has become one of the most politically volatile issues facing the Trump administration. Polling shows public support for ICE has dropped sharply, weakening Republican leverage and giving Democrats confidence to push demands they previously avoided.
An NPR, PBS, and Marist poll conducted in late January found that only 34 percent of registered voters approve of ICE’s performance, while 61 percent disapprove. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said ICE has gone too far, and a similar share believes its actions make the country less safe.
A Quinnipiac University survey conducted around the same time showed just 38 percent approval for Trump’s handling of immigration, with opposition nearing 60 percent.
These numbers are shaping strategy on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are increasingly sensitive to voter fatigue with aggressive enforcement tactics.
What Analysts or Officials Are Saying
Democratic leaders say they have put forward a clear set of demands aimed at reining in ICE. The proposals include requiring judicial warrants before agents enter private property and mandating visible identification during enforcement actions.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats have already sent legislative language to the White House and Republican leadership. He argued the proposals simply require ICE to meet standards already followed by most law enforcement agencies.
Schumer framed the demands as moderate and broadly supported by the public, warning Republicans that time is running out as the funding deadline approaches.
The White House has signaled some openness to talks. A senior administration official said Democrats have negotiated in good faith and that discussions are ongoing, though some proposals are viewed as difficult or unacceptable.
The official said Trump has not ruled out direct involvement in negotiations but has not yet stepped in personally.
Republican leaders remain skeptical. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said some Democratic demands could serve as a starting point, but others would unnecessarily restrict law enforcement operations.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana expressed doubt that Democrats’ proposals would pass, predicting that the standoff could drag on before ending with a clean CR that maintains current policy.
Daljoog News Analysis
This funding fight marks a noticeable shift from previous shutdown showdowns. Democrats who once prioritized keeping the government open at almost any cost are now betting that public opinion will shield them from blame.
The backlash against ICE has altered the political math. With approval ratings sinking, Democrats see an opportunity to force concessions rather than accept temporary funding fixes that preserve the status quo.
Republicans, however, retain leverage. ICE received substantial funding through Trump’s earlier spending legislation, allowing some enforcement activities to continue even during a shutdown. That reduces the immediate operational impact and complicates Democrats’ strategy.
The White House’s willingness to engage also reflects lessons learned from past shutdowns, particularly those tied to health care. This time, officials appear determined to shape the narrative early and assign blame if funding lapses.
At stake is more than a budget line. The outcome will signal whether Congress is prepared to impose limits on federal immigration enforcement or whether political stalemate will once again override reform.
What Happens Next
Unless an agreement is reached, DHS funding will lapse this weekend, triggering a partial shutdown affecting immigration enforcement, transportation security, disaster response, and border operations.
Negotiations are expected to continue up to the deadline, with the White House preparing messaging to blame Democrats for disrupting critical services.
Democrats, meanwhile, appear willing to risk short-term fallout to force structural changes at ICE and DHS.
Whether either side blinks may depend on how sharply public opinion continues to turn and whether Trump decides to engage directly in talks.