Senate Republicans moved forward Thursday on a $70 billion funding package for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, but the effort immediately collided with internal party divisions over a controversial Trump administration initiative that has become politically radioactive.
The bill would fund the two agencies through the remainder of President Donald Trump's term. Republicans control the chamber and plan to pass it without Democratic support, though the process quickly grew messy as the first amendment vote stalled for three hours.
The holdup centered on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's amendment to block the Justice Department from creating a $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund that Trump has championed. The amendment failed 49-50, but three Republicans broke ranks to support it: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio, and Dan Sullivan of Alaska. All three face difficult re-election campaigns in 2026.
The fund has become a political minefield. Democrats and some Republicans view it as a slush fund designed to compensate Trump allies and participants in the January 6 Capitol riot. The issue forced Republicans to shelve the ICE funding bill two weeks ago, and tension remains because the Trump administration is sending contradictory signals about its intentions.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress on Tuesday that the administration is "not moving forward with the fund." But Trump delivered a different message Wednesday. "The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing," Trump said. "I love it. I think it's so important."
The disconnect has created a dilemma for Senate Republicans who want to kill the fund or restrict it through amendment language, but without derailing the underlying ICE bill. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina has crafted an amendment to prohibit the fund and is urging colleagues to support it, particularly those facing re-election.
"When you're explaining, you're losing," Tillis told NBC News. "There's no way to explain the $1.776 billion fund. So, the only way you can explain it is explain that you got rid of it. It's that simple." Tillis challenged fellow Republicans to test their support for the fund on the campaign trail.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she has discussed a legislative fix with Tillis. "I'm in the camp that wants to see it dead, dead, dead," she stated. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger, joined an amicus brief with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey arguing the fund violates the Constitution and poses "an immediate and dire threat to our constitutional order and the authority of Congress."
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota expressed a "favorable opinion" of the Tillis amendment, praising its limitations on fund usage.
Other Republicans are taking a wait-and-see approach. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming said Thursday she would "probably not" support an amendment to bar the fund "because the administration has already done away with it, so there's no sense beating a dead horse."
Democrats are refusing to budge. Schumer vowed to force Republicans into explicit votes on the fund during the ongoing "vote-a-rama" process, where amendments can be introduced throughout the debate. "Trump's slush fund is anything but beautiful, it's heinous, and it won't die until we permanently ban it by law," Schumer said. "Republicans will have to choose: either support the slush fund or ban it."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune faces the challenge of keeping at least 50 of the chamber's 53 Republicans unified on an ICE and Border Patrol bill that can clear the Senate and earn Trump's signature. "It's a simple bill," Thune said. "It will do nothing more than fund Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the next three years."
Democrats have indicated they will not vote to fund ICE or Border Patrol unless Republicans agree to new restrictions on the agencies, citing two recent deaths of Americans killed by ICE officers in Minnesota. The House is expected to vote on the bill after Senate passage, though timing remains uncertain.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Trump's attempt to create this fund backfired spectacularly, and now Republicans are scrambling to contain the damage without appearing to defy him."
Comments