Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives for a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Thursday, May 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON  — The top Democrat on a U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee panel Thursday slammed Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for her handling of her agency’s funding and the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Sen. Chris Murphy warned Noem that DHS is at risk of running out of its $65 billion in funding by July – two months before the end of the fiscal year – and therefore close to triggering the Antideficiency Act, a federal law prohibiting government agencies from spending funds in excess of their appropriations. 

“Your department is out of control,” the Connecticut Democrat told Noem. “You are running out of money.”

Noem, who appeared before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, was also grilled by Democrats about the high-profile case of a wrongly deported Maryland man sent in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

The White House’s “skinny” budget proposal suggests $107 billion for DHS starting Oct. 1, and assumes that Republicans pass the reconciliation package under consideration to allocate a massive $175 billion overall in border security.  

“If we now live in a world in which the administration spends down the accounts that were priorities for Republicans and does not spend down the priorities that were priorities for Democrats, I don’t know how we do a budget,” Murphy said.

Sen. Patty Murray, top Democrat on the full Senate Appropriations Committee, slammed Noem for not following “our appropriations laws.”

She was critical of how immigration enforcement has caught up U.S. citizens and immigrants with protected legal statuses.

“Your crackdown has roped in American citizens and people who are here legally with no criminal record,” the Washington Democrat said. 

She also criticized Noem for spending $100 million on TV ads that range from praising the president to warning migrants not to come to the United States or to self-deport.

Noem in addition launched this week an initiative to provide up to $1,000 in “travel assistance” to immigrants without legal authorization to self-deport, which would amount to $1 billion if President Donald Trump’s goal of deporting 1 million people is met. The source of those funds in the DHS budget is unclear. 

Murray asked Noem about more than $100 billion in DHS funds not being used or re-programmed elsewhere for immigration enforcement, and called it “an illegal freeze.”

She then asked Noem when DHS would unfreeze those funds.

Noem did not answer and instead blamed the Biden administration, and said the previous administration “perverted” how the funds were used.

Murray said she did not think it was “credible that $100 billion is used to break the law.”

“I am very concerned that DHS is now dramatically over-spending funding that Congress has not provided,” Murray said. “We take our responsibility seriously to fund your department and others. We need to have answers, we need to have accountability, and we need to make sure you’re not overspending money that you were not allocated.”

Abrego Garcia deportation

Noem got into a heated exchange with one of the Democrats on the panel, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador to speak with wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Trump administration has admitted his deportation was an “administrative error.”

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia, who was sent initially to brutal CECOT but is now housed in another prison.

Van Hollen asked Noem what DHS has done to bring back Abrego Garcia, who had a 2019 court order barring his return to his home country of El Salvador for fear he would be harmed by gang violence.

Noem did not answer what steps the Trump administration was taking and said that because Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador, he is in that nation’s custody and cannot be brought back.

Trump has contradicted his own administration, stating that if he wanted to bring back Agrego Garcia he would, but won’t because he believes Abrego Garcia has gang ties.

While Trump officials like Noem have alleged that Abrego Garcia has ties to the MS-13 gang, no evidence has been provided in court and federal Judge Paula Xinis, who is presiding over the case, called the accusations “hearsay.”

Noem then questioned why Van Hollen was advocating for Abrego Garcia in the first place.

“Your advocacy for a known terrorist is alarming to me,” she said.

Van Hollen said that he was advocating for due process, which the Trump administration has been accused of skirting in its deportations. A federal judge in Louisiana next week plans to hold a hearing to determine if the Trump administration violated due process in deporting a 2-year-old U.S. citizen and her mother to Honduras.

Murphy also pressed Noem on the issue and asked how she was coordinating with El Salvador for Abrego Garcia’s release.

“There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be returned to the United States,” she said.

Noem then said that even if Abrego Garcia were returned to the U.S., “we would immediately deport him again.”

GOP worried about students, TPS holders

Some Republicans on the panel, including the committee chair, raised concerns with Noem about how the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is affecting students with visas.

“There are so many others who do deserve scrutiny,” said Chairwoman Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, who said she was worried about students from Canada who attend school in her home state. “But these are dually enrolled Canadian students, and they’ve been crossing the border for years without trouble.” 

She said Canadian students are being stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and given intense screenings.

“They have student visas, but they’re being subjected to extensive searches and questioning,” she said to Noem. “I don’t want us to discourage Canadian students from studying at the northern Maine institutions that we have for education.”

Noem said she would look into it.

Alaskan Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski raised the issue of paperwork not being processed for those with Temporary Protected Status in her state. TPS is granted to those who come from a country that is considered too dangerous or unstable to return to due to war, natural disasters or other instability.

Murkowski said several groups of immigrants in her state with temporary protected status and humanitarian protection are at risk of losing their work protections, such as Afghans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Ukrainians.  

“The majority of these folks are just truly valued members of their new community,” Murkowski said. “They’re helping us meet workforce needs and really contributing to the tax base here. They’ve expressed great concern about their status and work authorizations that may be revoked or allowed to expire.”

She said that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has not processed TPS or humanitarian protection renewals for up to five months.

Noem said that those with TPS are being looked at, and admitted that some Ukrainians got an erroneous email that notified them their status was revoked.

She said DHS has not made a decision on whether or not to renew TPS for Ukrainians, who were granted the status due to Russia’s ongoing invasion of the country.

“Some of these TPS programs have been in place for many, many years, but the evaluation on why TPS should be utilized and when it can be utilized by a country is the process that the administration is going through,” Noem said. 

The U.S. Supreme Court, as seen on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Thursday made an emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the deportation of more than half a million immigrants granted humanitarian protections under the Biden administration.

A federal judge in Massachusetts in April blocked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from ending the humanitarian parole program for 532,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. An appeals court rejected the request from the Trump administration to stay the lower court’s order.

In the filing to the high court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that the Immigration Nationality Act bars judicial review of discretionary decisions, such as humanitarian parole.

Sauer adds that Noem terminated the program because it does not align with the interests of the Trump administration.

“The district court’s order stymies the government’s ability to terminate parole grants that the Secretary has determined undermine U.S. interests, and thus it inhibits the government’s pursuit of its foreign policy goals,” according to the brief.

Presidents for decades have used their parole authority to allow for migrants to obtain protected status.

President Joe Biden created the program in 2023 that temporarily grants work permits and allows nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to remain in the country if they are sponsored by someone in the United States.

Thursday’s emergency request is one of several immigration related challenges the Trump administration is asking the high court to intervene in after district courts and appeals courts have ruled against the administration.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on ending birthright citizenship, the use of the 1798 wartime Alien Enemies Act, revoking Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans and requirements to return a wrongly deported Maryland man from El Salvador.

Deported migrants queue to receive an essential items bag during the arrival of a group of deported Salvadorans at Gerencia de Atención al Migrante on Feb. 12, 2025 in San Salvador, El Salvador.  (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — Immigration attorneys are asking a Massachusetts federal judge for an emergency temporary restraining order to stop the Trump administration from removing their clients to Libya and Saudi Arabia as soon as Wednesday, in a major new development in President Donald Trump’s drive for mass deportations.

“Multiple credible sources report that flight/s are preparing to immediately depart the United States carrying class members for removal to Libya,” according to the new filings, referring to a group of migrants.

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy did not grant the groups request for a temporary restraining order.  But he did issue a late Wednesday order that clarified any deportations to Libya would violate his preliminary injunction barring such removals to a third country without proper notice.

“If there is any doubt—the Court sees none—the allegedly imminent removals, as reported by news agencies and as Plaintiffs seek to corroborate with class-member accounts and public information, would clearly violate this Court’s Order,” Murphy wrote.

Murphy is also considering whether the Department of Defense should be included in his preliminary injunction “[b]ased on DHS’s representations that DoD has been conducting third country removals, allegedly without any involvement of DHS.”

Sending migrants to the North African nation is striking, as it is the site of an ongoing conflict and the State Department has a travel advisory against traveling to Libya due to “crime, terrorism, unexploded land mines, civil unrest, kidnapping and armed conflict.”

The class members the attorneys are concerned about include nationals from Laos, the Philippines and Vietnam. As the Trump administration seeks to carry out mass deportations, it’s sought partnerships with countries to take migrants, such as sending them to CECOT, a notorious prison in El Salvador.

The practice has spawned numerous ongoing lawsuits over use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and allegations the administration is ignoring due process for deportees.

In a complication, Libya’s prime minister in Tripoli, Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, wrote on social media that his country would not accept migrants deported by the Trump administration.

“We refuse to be a destination for the deportation of migrants under any pretext, and any understandings made by illegal parties that do not represent the Libyan state, and do not bind us politically or morally, as human dignity and national sovereignty are not a negotiable card,” he wrote.

Injunction bars removals

Attorneys say such removals would violate Murphy’s preliminary injunction granted in April.

“Class members were being scheduled for removal despite not receiving the required notice and opportunity to apply for (United Nations Convention Against Torture) protection,” according to the filing. “This motion follows class counsel receiving multiple reports that class members and their immigration counsel have not received the required protections provided by this Court’s Preliminary Injunction.”

The attorneys are also asking that any class members removed to Libya be returned to U.S. soil.

Flights to Saudi Arabia

There are also concerns that those in the group could be removed to Saudi Arabia.

“Class Counsel has also received a report that Defendants and those working with them may be planning flights to Saudi Arabia. At least one detainee—a citizen of Laos—reported that he had been verbally informed he was to be removed imminently to Saudi Arabia on a military flight,” according to the brief.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

In April, Murphy certified the class to include all immigrants with final orders of removal who were facing deportations to a country that was not their home country.

Murphy, who was appointed by former president Joe Biden, issued a nationwide injunction to bar that group’s removal to a third country without first being provided written notice.

He also ruled that those who are being removed to such a country must “be given an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death.”

The suit was brought by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Human Rights First.

“Libya has a long record of extreme human rights violations,” according to the court filing. “Any Class Member who is removed to Libya faces a strong likelihood of imprisonment followed by torture and even disappearance or death. Indeed, given Libya’s human rights record, it is inconceivable that Class Members from other countries would ever agree to removal to Libya, but instead would uniformly seek protection from being removed to Libya.”

Torture and abuse among human rights violations

The State Department’s 2023 human rights report on the country found human rights violations experienced by migrants who were either being held by Libya’s government or armed groups.

“The criminal and nonstate armed groups controlling extralegal facilities routinely tortured and abused detainees, subjecting them to arbitrary killings, rape and sexual violence, beatings, electric shocks, burns, forced labor, and deprivation of food and water, according to dozens of testimonies shared with international aid agencies and human rights groups,” according to the report.

The State Department’s 2023 human rights report on Saudi Arabia said it was possible migrants were killed by Saudi Arabia forces.

“There were reports that Saudi security forces along the border with Yemen killed significant numbers of African and Yemeni migrants and asylum seekers using both explosive weapons and by shooting individuals at close range,” according to the report. 

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro,  right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center during a tour of the CECOT prison on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador.  (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Two federal judges Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelans, limiting the rulings to Colorado and a New York district.

U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Alvin K. Hellerstein found that President Donald Trump’s invocation of the wartime law was likely not valid, because there is no “existence of a ‘war,’ ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion,’” as required by the Alien Enemies Act statute.

A similar order was made by U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado Charlotte N. Sweeney, who noted the Trump administration likely exceeded the scope of the Alien Enemies Act in its use of it.

Hellerstein, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, also reiterated in his order that anyone in the United States – including those who are not citizens – is entitled to due process.

He noted that the Venezuelan nationals subject to the Alien Enemies Act were deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, CECOT, “​​with faint hope of process or return.”

“The sweep for removal is ongoing, extending to the litigants in this case and others, thwarted only by order of this and other federal courts,” Hellerstein wrote. “The destination, El Salvador, a country paid to take our aliens, is neither the country from which the aliens came, nor to which they wish to be removed. But they are taken there, and there to remain, indefinitely, in a notoriously evil jail, unable to communicate with counsel, family or friends.”

Two Venezuelan men who feared they would be subjected to the proclamation brought the suit in the Southern District of New York. It’s now a class to cover any Venezuelan potentially subject to the proclamation.

Sweeney, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, also ordered the suit should cover a class of people.

The New York area in which Trump officials would be barred from using the wartime law includes New York City, the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx and Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan and Westchester counties. 

Multiple rulings against administration

This is the third preliminary injunction granted by federal judges against Trump’s use of the wartime law in a court’s district. The president invoked the Alien Enemies Act to subject for removal any Venezuelan national 14 and older with suspected ties to the Tren de Aragua gang.

Tuesday’s rulings are similar to another out of Texas, where Trump-appointed Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. struck down the Trump administration’s use of the wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals in the Southern District of Texas.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is at the forefront of challenges against the Trump administration’s use in March of the Alien Enemies Act, praised the preliminary injunction in New York.

“The court joined several others in correctly recognizing the president cannot simply declare that there’s been an invasion and then invoke a wartime authority during peacetime to send individuals to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador without even giving them due process,” said Lee Gelernt, lead ACLU attorney on the case.

The ACLU has filed lawsuits against the use of the wartime law in federal courts in Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, D.C.

Prison officers stand guard at a cell block at maximum security penitentiary CECOT  on April 4, 2025 in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador.  (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

BALTIMORE — A federal judge in Maryland Tuesday will for 48 hours pause her own order to require the federal government to facilitate the return of an asylum seeker mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, while the court waits for the Trump administration’s anticipated appeal of her decision.

“I am simply skeptical that we’re going to get … compliance or facilitation based only on this court’s order without allowing it to go to the next level,” said U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, nominated by President Donald Trump in 2018, at a hearing. She also indicated she was concerned the asylum seeker was denied due process, a major question as lawyers challenge Trump administration deportations.

Richard Ingebretsen, arguing on behalf of the Department of Justice, said the Trump administration plans to appeal Gallagher’s earlier order to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It’s the second case of a wrongly deported man sent to El Salvador’s brutal Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, prison, following the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Maryland man was erroneously deported there despite a 2019 court order barring such action.

That case is now in closed proceedings before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland, as discovery and depositions from officials interviewed under oath about the case continue. The Department of Justice and the White House have strongly fought the return of Abrego Garcia.

Earlier agreement protected asylum seeker

In the case heard in Maryland on Tuesday, the 20-year-old man who was sent to El Salvador is referred to by the pseudonym “Cristian” in court documents. In 2019, he came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor from Venezuela to apply for asylum.

Under a settlement agreement at the time, Cristian, along with a class of other asylum seekers, could not be deported until their cases were decided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. His asylum case has not yet been decided.

But Cristian was taken from the U.S. on one of three deportation flights to the CECOT prison in mid-March.

Two of those flights contained Venezuelan men deported under a 1798 law known as the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration invoked the wartime law to apply to any Venezuelan national 14 and older who is suspected of having ties to the Tren de Aragua gang.

Ingebretsen argued that Cristian has ties to the gang, and Tuesday’s hearing for a period was closed to the public — put under seal— so Gallagher could be shown that evidence.

In a declaration, Acting Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement Robert Cerna said Cristian was subject to the Alien Enemies Act because in January he was convicted of possessing cocaine.

Judge issued order for return

Gallagher wrote in an April 23 order that the case before her relates to that of Abrego Garcia and that “like Judge Xinis in the Abrego Garcia matter, this court will order Defendants to facilitate Cristian’s return to the United States so that he can receive the process he was entitled to under the parties’ binding Settlement Agreement.”

Gallagher added in her order that the federal government must also show “a good faith request to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS.”

Ingebretsen said that the State Department has been made aware of her order, but he did not give any details on steps taken to facilitate Cristian’s return.

“The government’s view is that further compliance should be put on hold,” Ingebretsen said.

Attorneys, on behalf of the 2019 class, are pushing for declarations from the federal government on steps taken to facilitate Cristian’s return, citing concerns he’s been in CECOT for almost two months.

List of detainees

Kevin DeJong, one of those attorneys for the class, asked Gallagher to require the Trump administration to produce a list of the class members, to determine if any more of them have been wrongly deported.

DeJong said another class member — separate from Cristian — has been removed.

“If we don’t know if a class member has been removed, and we don’t know about it, there’s nothing we can do to bring a motion to enforce,” he said.

He is asking the court to order the federal government to provide a list because the Trump administration’s DOJ will only notify migrants’ lawyers of class members removed under Title 8 deportation. Cristian was removed under the Alien Enemies Act, or Title 50.

“We need to know if any class members have been removed for any reason other than Title 8,” DeJong said. “We’re concerned that there are more.”

Gallagher seemed skeptical that she had the authority to do so, as the settlement does not mention a way for a list to be made up.

“It is an unusual settlement agreement in that we don’t have a defined list of class members, a defined way of identifying who is and is not a member,” she said.

Gallagher added that the settlement agreement was “drafted with some degree” of “trust that the government would be acting in good faith and would maintain this list itself.”

‘Process is important’

In the Abrego Garcia case, the Trump administration has argued that because he is a national of El Salvador, he is in that government’s custody and cannot be returned, despite the U.S. paying up to $15 million to El Salvador to detain roughly 300 men at CECOT.

Experts have raised concerns that U.S. foreign assistance funds to El Salvador from the State Department violate the Leahy Law, which bars financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons — that face credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

However, the president has contradicted his own administration, arguing that he has the ability to order Abrego Garcia returned to the U.S. Trump has said he is not willing to do so because he believes Abrego Garcia has gang ties, an argument repeated by multiple members of the administration.

In DOJ filings, government attorneys argued that because Cristian was designated for removal under the Alien Enemies Act, he could no longer be part of the 2019 class settlement and the government is therefore not violating the settlement.

On Tuesday, Ingebretsen added that if Cristian were returned to the U.S., his asylum application would be denied by USCIS.

Gallagher rejected that argument and said that based on the settlement, Cristian was allowed a certain form of due process to remain in the U.S. while his asylum case was pending.

“This is not a case about where or not Cristian will receive asylum, the issue is of process,” Gallagher said. “Process is important. We don’t skip to the end.” 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem walks past reporters after doing a TV interview with Fox News outside of the White House on March 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced Monday that the agency will provide $1,000 in what it called “travel assistance” to people in the United States without permanent legal status if they self deport.

It’s the latest attempt by DHS to try to meet the Trump administration’s goal of removing 1 million migrants without permanent legal status from the country. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem touted the option as cost-effective.

“If you are here illegally, self-deportation is the best, safest and most cost-effective way to leave the United States to avoid arrest,” Noem said in a statement. “This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens and is a 70% savings for US taxpayers.”

It’s unclear from which part of the DHS budget the funding for the travel assistance is coming, as it would roughly cost $1 billion to reimburse up to $1,000 to meet the goal of removing 1 million people.

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

President Donald Trump gave his support for the move Monday afternoon, according to White House pool reports. 

“We’re going to get them a beautiful flight back to where they came from,” the president said.

Self-deportation would be facilitated by the CBP Home app, which was used by the Biden administration to allow asylum seekers to make appointments with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The payment would apparently not be made in advance. DHS said that once those who use the app to self deport arrive in their home country, they will receive a travel stipend of $1,000.

According to DHS, the Trump administration has deported 152,000 people since taking office in January. The Biden administration last year deported 195,000 people from February to April, according to DHS data.

DHS said already one migrant has used the program to book a flight from Chicago to Honduras.

“Additional tickets have already been booked for this week and the following week,” the agency said in a statement.

The Trump administration has rolled out several programs to facilitate mass self-deportations, such as a registry to require immigrants in the country without legal authorization to register with the federal government.

Immigrants who don’t register with the federal government could face steep fines and a potential prison sentence. 

From left to right, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump released a budget request Friday that would dramatically slash some federal spending, the initial step in a monthslong process that will include heated debate on Capitol Hill as both political parties work toward a final government funding agreement.

The proposal, for the first time, details how exactly this administration wants lawmakers to restructure spending across the federal government — steep cuts to domestic appropriations, including the elimination of dozens of programs that carry a long history of bipartisan support, and a significant increase in defense funding.

Trump wants more than 60 programs to be scrapped, some with long histories of assistance to states, including Community Services Block Grants, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities within the National Institutes of Health, and the Sexual Risk Avoidance and Teen Pregnancy Prevention programs.

Congress will ultimately decide how much funding to provide to federal programs, and while Republicans hold majorities in both chambers, regular funding bills will need Democratic support to move through the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

White House budget director Russ Vought wrote in a letter that the request proposes shifting some funding from the federal government to states and local communities.

“Just as the Federal Government has intruded on matters best left to American families, it has intruded on matters best left to the levels of government closest to the people, who understand and respect the needs and desires of their communities far better than the Federal Government ever could,” Vought wrote.

The budget request calls on Congress to cut non-defense accounts by $163 billion to $557 billion, while keeping defense funding flat at $893 billion in the dozen annual appropriations bills.

The proposal assumes the GOP Congress passes the separate reconciliation package that is currently being written in the House, bringing defense funding up to $1.01 trillion, a 13.4% increase, and reducing domestic spending to $601 billion, a 16.6% decrease.

Many domestic cuts

Under Trump’s request many federal departments and agencies would be slated for significant spending reductions, though defense, border security and veterans would be exempt. 

The cuts include:

• Agriculture: – $5 billion, or 18.3%
• Commerce: – $1.7 billion, or 16.5%
• Education: – $12 billion, or 15.3%
• Energy: – $4.7 billion, or 9.4%
• Health and Human Services: – $33 billion, or 26.2%
• Housing and Urban Development: – $33.6 billion, or 43.6%
• Interior: – $5.1 billion, or 30.5%
• Justice: – $2.7 billion, or 7.6%
• Labor: – $4.6 billion, or 34.9%
• State: – $49.1 billion, or 83.7%
• Treasury: – $2.7 billion, or 19%

Increases include:

• Defense: + $113 billion, or 13.4% with reconciliation package
• Homeland Security: + $42.3 billion, or 64.9% with reconciliation package
• Transportation: + $1.5 billion, or 5.8%
• Veterans Affairs: + $5.4 billion, or 4.1%

The budget request also asks Congress to eliminate AmeriCorps, which operates as the Corporation for National and Community Service; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service; the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences; and the 400 Years of African American History Commission.

What if Congress won’t act on the cuts?

Debate over the budget proposal will take place throughout the summer months, but will come to a head in September, when Congress must pass some sort of funding bill to avoid a partial government shutdown.

A senior White House official, speaking on background on a call with reporters to discuss details of the budget request, suggested that Trump would take unilateral action to cut funding if Congress doesn’t go along with the request.

“Obviously, we have never taken impoundment off the table, because the president and myself believe that 200 years of the president and executive branch had that ability,” the official said. “But we’re working with Congress to see what they will pass. And I believe that they have an interest in passing cuts.”

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act bars the president from canceling funding approved by Congress without consulting lawmakers via a rescissions request, which the officials said the administration plans to release “soon.”

The annual appropriations process is separate from the reconciliation process that Republicans are using to pass their massive tax cuts, border security, defense funding and spending cuts package.

Huge boost for Homeland Security

The budget proposal aligns with the Trump’s administration’s plans for mass deportations of people without permanent legal status, and would provide the Department of Homeland Security with $42.3 billion, or a 64.9% increase.

The budget proposal suggests eliminating $650 million from a program that reimburses non-governmental organizations and local governments that help with resettling and aiding newly arrived migrants released from DHS custody, known as the Shelters and Services Program.

The Trump administration also seeks to eliminate the agency that handles the care and resettlement of unaccompanied minors within Health and Human Services. The budget proposal recommends getting rid of the Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien Children Programs’ $1.97 billion budget. The budget proposal argues that because of an executive order to suspend refugee resettlement services, there is no need for the programs.

A federal judge from Washington state issued a nationwide injunction, and ruled the Trump administration must continue refugee resettlement services.

The budget proposal also calls for axing programs that help newly arrived migrant children or students for whom English is not a first language.

For the Education Department, the budget proposal suggests eliminating $890 million in funding for the English Language Acquisition and $428 million for the Migrant Education and Special Programs for Migrant Students.

Key GOP senator rejects defense request

Members of Congress had mixed reactions to the budget request, with some GOP lawmakers praising its spending cuts, while others took issue with the defense budget.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., outright rejected the defense funding level, writing in a statement that relying on the reconciliation package to get military spending above $1 trillion was unacceptable. 

“OMB is not requesting a trillion-dollar budget. It is requesting a budget of $892.6 billion, which is a cut in real terms. This budget would decrease President Trump’s military options and his negotiating leverage,” Wicker wrote. “We face an Axis of Aggressors led by the Chinese Communist Party, who have already started a trade war rather than negotiate in good faith. We need a real Peace Through Strength agenda to ensure Xi Jinping does not launch a military war against us in Asia, beyond his existing military support to the Russians, the Iranians, Hamas, and the Houthis.”

The senior White House official who spoke on a call with reporters to discuss details of the budget request said that splitting the defense increase between the regular Pentagon spending bill and the reconciliation package was a more “durable” proposal.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, wrote the panel will have “an aggressive hearing schedule to learn more about the President’s proposal and assess funding needs for the coming year.”

“This request has come to Congress late, and key details still remain outstanding,” Collins wrote. “Based on my initial review, however, I have serious objections to the proposed freeze in our defense funding given the security challenges we face and to the proposed funding cuts to – and in some cases elimination of – programs like LIHEAP, TRIO, and those that support biomedical research. 

“Ultimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement she will work with others in Congress to block the domestic funding cuts from taking effect.

“Trump wants to rip away funding to safeguard Americans’ health, protect our environment, and to help rural communities and our farmers thrive. This president wants to turn our country’s back on Tribes—and let trash pile up at our national parks,” Murray wrote. “Trump is even proposing to cut investments to prevent violent crime, go after drug traffickers, and tackle the opioids and mental health crises.”

A press release from Murray’s office noted the budget request lacked details on certain programs, including Head Start.

House Speaker Mike Johnson R-La, praised the budget proposal in a statement and pledged that House GOP lawmakers are “ready to work alongside President Trump to implement a responsible budget that puts America first.”

“President Trump’s plan ensures every federal taxpayer dollar spent is used to serve the American people, not a bloated bureaucracy or partisan pet projects,” Johnson wrote.

Spending decisions coming

The House and Senate Appropriations committees are set to begin hearings with Cabinet secretaries and agency heads next week, where Trump administration officials will explain their individual funding requests and answer lawmakers’ questions.

The members on those committees will ultimately write the dozen annual appropriations bills in the months ahead, determining funding levels and policy for numerous programs, including those at the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, State and Transportation.

The House panel’s bills will skew more toward Republican funding levels and priorities, though the Senate committee has a long history of writing broadly bipartisan bills. 

The leaders of the two committees — House Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., House ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Senate Chairwoman Collins and Senate ranking member Murray — will ultimately work out a final deal later in the year alongside congressional leaders.

Differences over the full-year bills are supposed to be solved before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, but members of Congress regularly rely on a stopgap spending bill through mid-December to give themselves more time to complete negotiations.

Failure to pass some sort of government funding measure, either a stopgap bill or all 12 full-year spending bills, before the funding deadline, would lead to a partial government shutdown.

This round of appropriations bills will be the first debated during Trump’s second-term presidency and will likely bring about considerable disagreement over the unilateral actions the administration has already taken to freeze or cancel federal spending, many of which are the subject of lawsuits arguing the president doesn’t have that impoundment authority. 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers remarks to staff at the department's Washington, D.C., headquarters on Jan. 28, 2025. (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department made an emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, asking the justices to lift a lower court’s freeze on the Trump administration’s plans to terminate work authorization and deportation protection for more than 350,000 Venezuelans residing in the United States.

The request to the high court filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer said an order from a federal judge in California stripped a national security-based power from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“So long as the order is in effect, the Secretary must permit hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals to remain in the country, notwithstanding her reasoned determination that doing so is ‘contrary to the national interest,’” Sauer wrote.

The emergency appeal, which asks the court to rule as soon as possible, was not available on the Supreme Court website late Thursday afternoon but a copy was uploaded by Politico.

The appeal came after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s request to pause an order from a trial court that blocked Noem’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status for one group of Venezuelans whose protections President Joe Biden extended.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California issued a nationwide pause in early April, noting the immigrant rights groups and TPS holders who brought the suit had a strong claim under the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment because Noem has “made sweeping negative generalizations about Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries.”

The equal protection clause was meant to bar the government from discriminating against classes of people.

Chen was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2011.

President Joe Biden granted protections until October 2026 for two groups of Venezuelans. His administration granted about 250,000 Venezuelans TPS in 2021 and 350,000 more in 2023.

Noem cited gang activity as her reason for not extending TPS for the 2023 group of Venezuelans, which, without a court intervention, were set to end in early April after she vacated the protections set under the Biden administration.

TPS allows nationals from certain countries deemed too dangerous to return to remain in the U.S. temporarily. Those with the status have deportation protections and are allowed to work and live in the U.S. for 18 months, unless extended by the Homeland Security secretary.

Prisoners sit at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on April 4, 2025, in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador. The Trump administration deported 238 alleged members of Venezuelan criminal organizations to the prison. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Thursday struck down President Donald Trump’s use of a wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals, but limited the scope to the Southern District of Texas.

Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., whom Trump appointed in 2017, wrote in a 36-page order that the administration’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act was unlawful, especially during a time when the U.S. is not at war.

“Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the (Alien Enemies Act), and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the (Alien Enemies Act), and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope,” he wrote.

“The law does not support such a position.”

Rodriguez Jr. rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the presence of members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua in the U.S. constituted an “invasion” under which the wartime law could be invoked.

Prior to Trump’s invocation of the act in March against Venezuelan nationals 14 and older suspected of gang ties, the only times the U.S. had used the Alien Enemies Act were during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.

Scope limited but significant

Thursday’s ruling only applies in the Southern District of Texas, but could impact several cases before federal judges across the country challenging the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been at the forefront of the cases regarding the law, also has lawsuits pending in federal courts in Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, D.C.

Though the ruling is limited geographically, it applies to an important district for the issue. The original flights carrying men deported under Trump’s use of the law departed from Harlingen, Texas, within the judicial district. The government is also detaining more potential deportees in the district.

The U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s order that barred the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport any Venezuelan nationals — but the justices said unanimously that the Venezuelans must be afforded due process.

In April, Rodriguez Jr. temporarily halted the use of the Alien Enemies Act over concerns that anyone who is erroneously deported under the wartime law potentially cannot be returned to the United States. He cited the high-profile case of a Maryland man being sent to a prison in El Salvador by mistake.

The U.S. Justice Department, which is representing the administration in the case, did not respond to a message seeking comment.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets in El Salvador on April 17, 2025, with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by ICE agents in March. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains in prison in El Salvador after he was mistakenly deported more than a month ago, and Senate Democrats said Thursday they will file a privileged resolution that would require the State Department to report on human rights conditions in CECOT,  the brutal 40,000-capacity facility where Abrego Garcia was first incarcerated.

The resolution also would force the Trump administration to detail its steps to comply with court orders on the removal of Abrego Garcia and other immigrants from the United States.

The announcement of the resolution came after President Donald Trump, during an ABC News interview that aired Tuesday, acknowledged that if he wanted to, he could secure the return of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

However, Trump then refused to do so, alleging Abrego Garcia has gang ties. He pointed to an altered photograph of Abrego Garcia’s knuckles that showed them displaying the characters “MS-13.”

When ABC News journalist Terry Moran pointed out the photo was photoshopped, Trump argued that it wasn’t.

“Why don’t you just say, ‘Yes, he does,’” Trump said to Moran, referring to the MS-13 tattoo. Moran did not reply and moved to another topic.

The Department of Justice has claimed that Abrego Garcia is a leader in the MS-13 gang, but has not provided evidence in court of those connections. Abrego Garcia was granted deportation protections by an immigration judge in 2019 over concerns he would experience violence by gangs if returned to his home country of El Salvador.

The U.S. Supreme Court, an appeals court and a district court all have upheld that Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who the Trump administration admitted was mistakenly deported to a notorious prison, must be returned.

“Donald Trump should stop trampling on constitutional rights of people who reside in America, and the government of El Salvador should stop conspiring with the Trump administration to violate the constitutional rights of those who reside in America, including Abrego Garcia,” Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen said at a press conference on the Senate resolution.

The Supreme Court last month ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia, but stopped short of requiring it and sent the case back to a federal judge to clarify how the return could be “effectuated.”

The case is now in closed proceedings before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland as discovery and depositions from officials interviewed under oath about Abrego Garcia’s case continue. Xinis on Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s request for another extension to provide information on Abrego Garcia.

$6 million payment 

The resolution, backed by Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, would require the State Department to issue a human rights report on El Salvador.

It also specifically asks for a report on the prison known as Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, where Abrego Garcia was initially sent in March, along with nearly 300 other men deported from the U.S.

The State Department issued a 2023 report on human rights conditions in El Salvador, which noted that there were reports of “systemic abuse in the prison system, including beatings by guards and the use of electric shocks.”

If the resolution manages to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate and House, and the State Department doesn’t issue a human rights report within 30 days, then any foreign assistance to El Salvador would be canceled, Kaine said.

The Trump administration has stated that it’s paying El Salvador $6 million to detain the men at CECOT.

Van Hollen said of that funding, the Trump administration has paid El Salvador about $4 million so far to detain the men and plans to pay as much as $15 million.

Experts have raised concerns that the foreign assistance funds to El Salvador from the State Department violate the Leahy Law, which bars financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

Van Hollen meeting in El Salvador

Van Hollen also pushed back on the Trump administration’s insistence that because Abrego Garcia is in El Salvador’s custody, he cannot be returned.

Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador last month seeking a meeting with Abrego Garcia, said during that trip he spoke with El Salvador Vice President Félix Augusto Antonio Ulloa. Van Hollen said Ulloa told him “the only reason the government of El Salvador is holding (Abrego Garcia) is because the Trump administration is paying (El Salvador) to do so.”

Van Hollen was initially denied a visit with Abrego Garcia. But he was eventually able to secure an in-person meeting under the close supervision of Salvadoran officials.

Abrego Garcia appeared with Van Hollen in civilian clothes — a stark difference from a video released by the Trump administration that showed Abrego Garcia in a prison uniform and being roughly handled by Salvadoran officials.

In response to the in-person meeting, the White House wrote on its official social media account that Abrego Garcia “is NOT coming back.”

Van Hollen said he has not had any update on the condition of Abrego Garcia since the visit to El Salvador.

Message for Bukele

During El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s first-ever visit to the Oval Office in April, he declined to return Abrego Garcia. In that same meeting, Trump asked Bukele if he would take “homegrown” criminals, meaning U.S. citizens.

Kaine said that he had a message for the president of El Salvador if he accepts U.S. citizens for incarceration.

“You might think it’s cute right now to grab attention by a bromance with President Trump,” he said, adding in Spanish that any alliance with Trump will be short-lived, ending with the conclusion of his term in office. “If you think we’ll forget you violating the human rights of American citizens, you’re wrong,” said Kaine.

Van Hollen added that he, along with Kaine and Schumer, plan to introduce a bill to place sanctions against Bukele and “all those who are part of his government conspiring with Donald Trump to deprive residents of the United States of their constitutional rights.” 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers remarks to staff at the department's Washington, D.C., headquarters on Jan. 28, 2025. (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department made an emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, asking the justices to lift a lower court’s freeze on the Trump administration’s plans to terminate work authorization and deportation protection for more than 350,000 Venezuelans residing in the United States.

The request to the high court filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer said an order from a federal judge in California stripped a national security-based power from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“So long as the order is in effect, the Secretary must permit hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals to remain in the country, notwithstanding her reasoned determination that doing so is ‘contrary to the national interest,’” Sauer wrote.

The emergency appeal, which asks the court to rule as soon as possible, was not available on the Supreme Court website late Thursday afternoon but a copy was uploaded by Politico.

The appeal came after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s request to pause an order from a trial court that blocked Noem’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status for one group of Venezuelans whose protections President Joe Biden extended.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California issued a nationwide pause in early April, noting the immigrant rights groups and TPS holders who brought the suit had a strong claim under the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment because Noem has “made sweeping negative generalizations about Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries.”

The equal protection clause was meant to bar the government from discriminating against classes of people.

Chen was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2011.

President Joe Biden granted protections until October 2026 for two groups of Venezuelans. His administration granted about 250,000 Venezuelans TPS in 2021 and 350,000 more in 2023.

Noem cited gang activity as her reason for not extending TPS for the 2023 group of Venezuelans, which, without a court intervention, were set to end in early April after she vacated the protections set under the Biden administration.

TPS allows nationals from certain countries deemed too dangerous to return to remain in the U.S. temporarily. Those with the status have deportation protections and are allowed to work and live in the U.S. for 18 months, unless extended by the Homeland Security secretary.

Prisoners sit at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on April 4, 2025, in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador. The Trump administration deported 238 alleged members of Venezuelan criminal organizations to the prison. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Thursday struck down President Donald Trump’s use of a wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals, but limited the scope to the Southern District of Texas.

Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., whom Trump appointed in 2017, wrote in a 36-page order that the administration’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act was unlawful, especially during a time when the U.S. is not at war.

“Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the (Alien Enemies Act), and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the (Alien Enemies Act), and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope,” he wrote.

“The law does not support such a position.”

Rodriguez Jr. rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the presence of members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua in the U.S. constituted an “invasion” under which the wartime law could be invoked.

Prior to Trump’s invocation of the act in March against Venezuelan nationals 14 and older suspected of gang ties, the only times the U.S. had used the Alien Enemies Act were during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.

Scope limited but significant

Thursday’s ruling only applies in the Southern District of Texas, but could impact several cases before federal judges across the country challenging the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been at the forefront of the cases regarding the law, also has lawsuits pending in federal courts in Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, D.C.

Though the ruling is limited geographically, it applies to an important district for the issue. The original flights carrying men deported under Trump’s use of the law departed from Harlingen, Texas, within the judicial district. The government is also detaining more potential deportees in the district.

The U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s order that barred the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport any Venezuelan nationals — but the justices said unanimously that the Venezuelans must be afforded due process.

In April, Rodriguez Jr. temporarily halted the use of the Alien Enemies Act over concerns that anyone who is erroneously deported under the wartime law potentially cannot be returned to the United States. He cited the high-profile case of a Maryland man being sent to a prison in El Salvador by mistake.

The U.S. Justice Department, which is representing the administration in the case, did not respond to a message seeking comment.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets in El Salvador on April 17, 2025, with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by ICE agents in March. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains in prison in El Salvador after he was mistakenly deported more than a month ago, and Senate Democrats said Thursday they will file a privileged resolution that would require the State Department to report on human rights conditions in CECOT,  the brutal 40,000-capacity facility where Abrego Garcia was first incarcerated.

The resolution also would force the Trump administration to detail its steps to comply with court orders on the removal of Abrego Garcia and other immigrants from the United States.

The announcement of the resolution came after President Donald Trump, during an ABC News interview that aired Tuesday, acknowledged that if he wanted to, he could secure the return of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

However, Trump then refused to do so, alleging Abrego Garcia has gang ties. He pointed to an altered photograph of Abrego Garcia’s knuckles that showed them displaying the characters “MS-13.”

When ABC News journalist Terry Moran pointed out the photo was photoshopped, Trump argued that it wasn’t.

“Why don’t you just say, ‘Yes, he does,’” Trump said to Moran, referring to the MS-13 tattoo. Moran did not reply and moved to another topic.

The Department of Justice has claimed that Abrego Garcia is a leader in the MS-13 gang, but has not provided evidence in court of those connections. Abrego Garcia was granted deportation protections by an immigration judge in 2019 over concerns he would experience violence by gangs if returned to his home country of El Salvador.

The U.S. Supreme Court, an appeals court and a district court all have upheld that Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who the Trump administration admitted was mistakenly deported to a notorious prison, must be returned.

“Donald Trump should stop trampling on constitutional rights of people who reside in America, and the government of El Salvador should stop conspiring with the Trump administration to violate the constitutional rights of those who reside in America, including Abrego Garcia,” Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen said at a press conference on the Senate resolution.

The Supreme Court last month ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia, but stopped short of requiring it and sent the case back to a federal judge to clarify how the return could be “effectuated.”

The case is now in closed proceedings before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland as discovery and depositions from officials interviewed under oath about Abrego Garcia’s case continue. Xinis on Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s request for another extension to provide information on Abrego Garcia.

$6 million payment 

The resolution, backed by Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, would require the State Department to issue a human rights report on El Salvador.

It also specifically asks for a report on the prison known as Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, where Abrego Garcia was initially sent in March, along with nearly 300 other men deported from the U.S.

The State Department issued a 2023 report on human rights conditions in El Salvador, which noted that there were reports of “systemic abuse in the prison system, including beatings by guards and the use of electric shocks.”

If the resolution manages to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate and House, and the State Department doesn’t issue a human rights report within 30 days, then any foreign assistance to El Salvador would be canceled, Kaine said.

The Trump administration has stated that it’s paying El Salvador $6 million to detain the men at CECOT.

Van Hollen said of that funding, the Trump administration has paid El Salvador about $4 million so far to detain the men and plans to pay as much as $15 million.

Experts have raised concerns that the foreign assistance funds to El Salvador from the State Department violate the Leahy Law, which bars financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

Van Hollen meeting in El Salvador

Van Hollen also pushed back on the Trump administration’s insistence that because Abrego Garcia is in El Salvador’s custody, he cannot be returned.

Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador last month seeking a meeting with Abrego Garcia, said during that trip he spoke with El Salvador Vice President Félix Augusto Antonio Ulloa. Van Hollen said Ulloa told him “the only reason the government of El Salvador is holding (Abrego Garcia) is because the Trump administration is paying (El Salvador) to do so.”

Van Hollen was initially denied a visit with Abrego Garcia. But he was eventually able to secure an in-person meeting under the close supervision of Salvadoran officials.

Abrego Garcia appeared with Van Hollen in civilian clothes — a stark difference from a video released by the Trump administration that showed Abrego Garcia in a prison uniform and being roughly handled by Salvadoran officials.

In response to the in-person meeting, the White House wrote on its official social media account that Abrego Garcia “is NOT coming back.”

Van Hollen said he has not had any update on the condition of Abrego Garcia since the visit to El Salvador.

Message for Bukele

During El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s first-ever visit to the Oval Office in April, he declined to return Abrego Garcia. In that same meeting, Trump asked Bukele if he would take “homegrown” criminals, meaning U.S. citizens.

Kaine said that he had a message for the president of El Salvador if he accepts U.S. citizens for incarceration.

“You might think it’s cute right now to grab attention by a bromance with President Trump,” he said, adding in Spanish that any alliance with Trump will be short-lived, ending with the conclusion of his term in office. “If you think we’ll forget you violating the human rights of American citizens, you’re wrong,” said Kaine.

Van Hollen added that he, along with Kaine and Schumer, plan to introduce a bill to place sanctions against Bukele and “all those who are part of his government conspiring with Donald Trump to deprive residents of the United States of their constitutional rights.” 

A U.S. Border Patrol official vehicle  is shown parked near the border. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Judiciary Republicans Wednesday worked in committee on a portion of a major legislative package that would help fund President Donald Trump’s plans to conduct mass deportations of people living in the United States without permanent legal status.

The Judiciary panel’s $81 billion share of the “one, big beautiful” bill the president has requested of Congress would provide $45 billion for immigration detention centers, $8 billion to hire thousands of immigration enforcement officers and more than $14 billion for deportations, among other things.

The border security and immigration funds are part of a massive package that wraps together White House priorities including tax cuts and defense spending boosts. Republicans are pushing the deal through using a special procedure known as reconciliation that will allow the Senate GOP to skirt its usual 60-vote threshold when that chamber acts.

House Republicans returning from a two-week recess kicked off their work on reconciliation Tuesday, approving three of 11 bills out of committees on Armed Services, Education and Workforce and Homeland Security.

On Wednesday, lawmakers continued work on the various sections of the reconciliation bill with markups — which means a bill is debated and potentially amended or rewritten — in the Financial Services, Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure and Oversight and Government Reform committees.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said Republicans will spend the rest of this week and next debating the 11 separate bills in committees. Committees when they finish their measures will send them to the House Budget Committee, which is expected to bundle them together prior to a floor vote.

The Judiciary panel’s 116-page bill vastly overhauls U.S. asylum laws. It would, for example, create a fee structure for asylum seekers that would set a minimum cost for an application at no less than $1,000. Applications now are free.

“These and other resources and fees in this reconciliation bill will ensure the Trump administration has the adequate resources to enforce the immigration laws in a fiscally responsible way,” GOP Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio said.

The bill would establish a $1,000 fee for immigrants granted temporary protected status, which would mean they would have work authorizations and deportation protections.

It would also require sponsors to pay $3,500 to take in an unaccompanied minor who crosses the border without a legal status. Typically, unaccompanied minors are released to sponsors who are family members living in the United States.

The bill would also require immigrants without permanent legal status to pay a $550 fee for work permits every six months.

The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, slammed the bill as targeting immigrants.

“Every day, this administration uses immigration enforcement as a template to erode constitutional rights and liberties,” he said.

A final committee vote was expected Wednesday night.

‘A giveaway to ICE’

The Judiciary bill directs half of the fees collected from asylum seekers to go toward the agency that handles U.S. immigration courts, but Democrats criticized the provisions as creating a barrier for asylum seekers.

“The so-called immigration fees that are in this bill are really fines and nothing but a cruel attempt to make immigrating to this country impossible,” Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal said.

Democratic Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois, said the bill would not only “gut asylum” but would significantly increase funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention.

Funding for ICE detention this fiscal year is roughly $3.4 billion, but the Judiciary bill would sharply increase that to $45 billion.

Garcia called the increase a “a giveaway to ICE, a rogue agency that’s terrorizing communities and clamping (down) on civil liberties and the Constitution itself, because they’ve been directed to do so by this president.”

House Republicans have also included language that would move the Federal Trade Commission into the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, a move Democrats argued would kneecap the FTC’s regulatory authority.

“You’re trying to shutter the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, making it harder for us to enforce our antitrust laws,” Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont said.

Consumer protections to take a hit

Lawmakers on the House Committee on Financial Services met in a lengthy, and at times tense, session to finalize legislation to cut “no less than” $1 billion from government programs and services under the panel’s jurisdiction, according to the budget resolution Congress approved in April.

Funds in the crosshairs include those previously authorized for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and grants provided under the Biden administration-era Inflation Reduction Act for homeowners to improve energy efficiency.

Chair French Hill said the committee “will do its part to reduce the deficit and decrease direct spending, so that Congress can enact pro-growth tax policies.”

“And remember, today, we are here with one purpose, to do our part to put our nation back on a responsible fiscal trajectory,” the Arkansas Republican said.

Democrats introduced dozens of amendments during the hourslong session to block cuts to community block grants and programs protecting consumers, including veterans, from illegal credit and lending practices.

Ranking member Maxine Waters said committee Republicans’ plans to cut the CFPB by 70% “is ridiculous.”

“The bureau has saved American consumers $21 billion by returning to them funds that big banks and predatory lenders swindled out of them,” said Waters, a California Democrat.

Congress created the CFPB in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when subprime mortgage lending cascaded into bank failures and home and job losses.

Republicans opposed amendment after amendment.

Rep. María Salazar of Florida tossed a copy of one of Waters’ lengthy amendments straight into a trash can after a staffer handed it to her. Michigan’s Rep. Bill Huizenga held up proceedings for several minutes when he accused Waters of breaking the rules by not distributing enough paper copies of her amendment.

“We cannot allow our government to continue spending money like there are no consequences,” GOP Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska said in response to several Democratic amendments.

A final committee vote was expected Wednesday night.

Transportation section adds fees on electric vehicles

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also approved, by a party line 36-30 vote, reconciliation instructions that would cut $10 billion from the federal deficit while boosting spending for the U.S. Coast Guard and the air traffic control system.

Like other portions of the larger reconciliation package, the transportation committee’s instructions would add funding for national security and border enforcement, through the Coast Guard funding, while cutting money from programs favored by Democrats, including climate programs and any spending that could be construed as race-conscious.

The bill would provide $21.2 billion for the Coast Guard and $12.5 billion for air traffic control systems. It would raise money through a $250 annual fee on electric vehicles and a $100 annual fee on hybrids, while also cutting $4.6 billion from climate programs created in Democrats’ 2022 reconciliation package.

Chairman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, said the measure included priorities for members of both parties, as well as business and labor interests.

“We all want to invest in our Coast Guard,” he said. “We all want to rebuild our air traffic control system and finally address the broken Highway Trust Fund. We have held countless hearings on all of these topics, both recently and, frankly, for years. And now members have the opportunity to actually act.”

Democrats on the panel complained that the reconciliation package was a partisan exercise and a departure from the panel’s normally congenial approach to business. They introduced dozens of amendments over the daylong committee meeting seeking to add funding for various programs. None were adopted.

“The larger Republican reconciliation package will add more than $15 trillion in new debt, gives away $7 trillion in deficit-financed tax cuts to the wealthy and slashes access to health care and food assistance for families,” ranking Democrat Rick Larsen of Washington said. “Given that, I think we’re going to have to vote no on the bill before us.”

The vehicle fees, which would be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund that sends highway and transit money to states, created a partisan divide Wednesday.

Federal gas taxes provide the lion’s share of deposits to the fund and Republicans argued that, because drivers of electric vehicles pay no gas taxes and hybrid drivers pay less than those who drive gas-powered cars, the provision would make the contributions fairer.

Republicans scrapped a proposed $20 annual fee on gas-powered cars, which Graves said was meant to “start a conversation” on the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. But the provision “became a political distraction that no longer centered around seriously addressing the problem,” he said.

Pennsylvania Democrat Chris Deluzio criticized the vehicle fees, noting Republicans were pursuing additional revenue opportunities to offset losses from tax cuts.

“I don’t know when you guys became the tax-and-spend liberals,” Deluzio told his Republican colleagues. “But I guess the taxing of car owners so you can pay for tax giveaways to billionaires is your new strategy. Good luck with that.”

Federal employee benefits targeted

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted nearly along party lines, 22-21, to send its portion of the reconciliation package to the Budget Committee, with Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner joining Democrats in opposition.

Turner was the first GOP lawmaker to cast a committee vote against reconciliation instructions this year.

The legislation hits at federal employee benefits and comes as the Trump administration continues to overhaul the federal workforce.

Part of the bill would raise federal employees’ required retirement contribution to a rate of 4.4% of their salary and eliminate an additional retirement annuity payment for federal employees who retire before the age of 62, while cutting more than $50 billion from the federal deficit.

At his committee’s markup, Chairman James Comer said the legislation “advances important budgetary reforms that will save taxpayers money.”

The Kentucky Republican acknowledged that the chief investigative committee in the U.S. House has “very limited jurisdiction to help reduce the federal budget deficit,” noting that the panel is “empowered to pursue civil service reforms, including federal employee benefits and reining in the influence of partisan and unaccountable government employee unions.”

But Democrats on the panel blasted the committee’s portion of the reconciliation package, saying the bill chips away at federal employees’ protections.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, the top Democrat on the panel, said congressional Republicans instructed the panel to target the federal workforce with roughly $50 billion in funding cuts “regardless of the impact on hard-working, loyal federal employees and their critical services that they provide to the American people.”

The Massachusetts Democrat said the bill “threatens to further undermine the federal workforce by reducing the take-home pay, the benefits and workforce protections of 2.4 million federal employees, most of whom are middle-class Americans and a third of whom are military veterans.”

Ohio’s Turner, who voted against the legislation because of the provision reducing pension benefits, said he supported the overall reconciliation package and hoped the pension measure would be stripped before a floor vote.

Turner said “making changes to pension retirement benefits in the middle of someone’s employment is wrong.” 

Rodney Scott, President Donald Trump's nominee to be commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, prepares to testify during his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on April 30, 2025. Scott previously led the U.S. Border Patrol. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday that he would focus on the agency’s workforce to manage trade and border crossings, while the committee’s top Democrat accused him of covering up a 2010 death at a CBP facility he oversaw.

If Rodney Scott, of Oklahoma, is confirmed by the Senate, he would play a major role in the president’s border-enforcement agenda and lead an agency tasked with managing ports of entry and stopping unauthorized migration at U.S. borders, which he pledged to do by focusing on CBP personnel.

“I will leverage my experience to empower the men and women of CBP to do what they were hired to do – safeguard every American by securing our borders and keeping trade and travel moving,” the former Border Patrol chief said in his opening statement to the committee.

Scott added that he wants to focus on the morale of CBP officers and also ensure that the most up-to-date technology is being used during screenings at ports of entry to intercept any illegal drugs.

“I think it’s really important to highlight a lot of that technology, it just detects anomalies,” he said. “It takes an actual officer or an agent to determine if there’s actually something illegal there or not, so making sure that we … use those officers and agents in the most effective manner possible is critical.”

Scott served as chief of Border Patrol, an agency within CBP, during the first Trump administration and former President Joe Biden’s administration. In that role during the first Trump administration, he implemented a policy that required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases were pending in immigration court.

Death in custody

The top Democrat on the panel, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, raised concerns about a 2010 death at a CBP station in San Diego that Scott ran.

Anastasio Hernández Rojas was detained by CBP officers where he was beaten and later died from his injuries, Wyden said.

Scott was later accused of covering up the death of Hernández Rojas, Wyden said.

“Rather than following the agency’s own policy and immediately referring the incident to outside investigators, the San Diego CBP office began its own investigation,” Wyden said. “In the course of that investigation, the CBP officers taped over the only video copy of Hernández Rojas’s death and tampered with physical evidence, according to court documents.”

The U.S. paid $1 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Hernández Rojas’ widow. The U.S. Department of Justice in 2015 declined to pursue federal charges against any of the officers or leaders involved in the Hernández Rojas case.

Committee Chair Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, defended Scott and said that U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote a letter to the committee to inform members that she reviewed the 2010 incident and that Scott’s work “was in accordance with his duties, the law and professional standards.”

“Mr. Scott did not impede any investigation, nor did he take steps to conceal facts from investigators,” Crapo said Wednesday.

Wyden argued that Noem was not head of DHS in 2010 and that he had spoken to officials who were present at the time of the investigation that took place surrounding Hernández Rojas’ death.

“There have been these serious allegations made by the former heads of internal affairs about Mr. Scott’s involvement and the cover up of the death of Mr. Hernández Rojas,” he said. “I don’t believe this committee should take this letter on faith. And I have some additional information from those who were there at the time, as opposed to Secretary Noem, who was not.”

CBP has more than 60,000 employees and manages the more than 300 ports of entry at borders, airports and seatports.  

A U.S. Border Patrol official vehicle  is shown parked near the border. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Judiciary Republicans Wednesday worked in committee on a portion of a major legislative package that would help fund President Donald Trump’s plans to conduct mass deportations of people living in the United States without permanent legal status.

The Judiciary panel’s $81 billion share of the “one, big beautiful” bill the president has requested of Congress would provide $45 billion for immigration detention centers, $8 billion to hire thousands of immigration enforcement officers and more than $14 billion for deportations, among other things.

The border security and immigration funds are part of a massive package that wraps together White House priorities including tax cuts and defense spending boosts. Republicans are pushing the deal through using a special procedure known as reconciliation that will allow the Senate GOP to skirt its usual 60-vote threshold when that chamber acts.

House Republicans returning from a two-week recess kicked off their work on reconciliation Tuesday, approving three of 11 bills out of committees on Armed Services, Education and Workforce and Homeland Security.

On Wednesday, lawmakers continued work on the various sections of the reconciliation bill with markups — which means a bill is debated and potentially amended or rewritten — in the Financial Services, Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure and Oversight and Government Reform committees.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said Republicans will spend the rest of this week and next debating the 11 separate bills in committees. Committees when they finish their measures will send them to the House Budget Committee, which is expected to bundle them together prior to a floor vote.

The Judiciary panel’s 116-page bill vastly overhauls U.S. asylum laws. It would, for example, create a fee structure for asylum seekers that would set a minimum cost for an application at no less than $1,000. Applications now are free.

“These and other resources and fees in this reconciliation bill will ensure the Trump administration has the adequate resources to enforce the immigration laws in a fiscally responsible way,” GOP Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio said.

The bill would establish a $1,000 fee for immigrants granted temporary protected status, which would mean they would have work authorizations and deportation protections.

It would also require sponsors to pay $3,500 to take in an unaccompanied minor who crosses the border without a legal status. Typically, unaccompanied minors are released to sponsors who are family members living in the United States.

The bill would also require immigrants without permanent legal status to pay a $550 fee for work permits every six months.

The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, slammed the bill as targeting immigrants.

“Every day, this administration uses immigration enforcement as a template to erode constitutional rights and liberties,” he said.

A final committee vote was expected Wednesday night.

‘A giveaway to ICE’

The Judiciary bill directs half of the fees collected from asylum seekers to go toward the agency that handles U.S. immigration courts, but Democrats criticized the provisions as creating a barrier for asylum seekers.

“The so-called immigration fees that are in this bill are really fines and nothing but a cruel attempt to make immigrating to this country impossible,” Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal said.

Democratic Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois, said the bill would not only “gut asylum” but would significantly increase funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention.

Funding for ICE detention this fiscal year is roughly $3.4 billion, but the Judiciary bill would sharply increase that to $45 billion.

Garcia called the increase a “a giveaway to ICE, a rogue agency that’s terrorizing communities and clamping (down) on civil liberties and the Constitution itself, because they’ve been directed to do so by this president.”

House Republicans have also included language that would move the Federal Trade Commission into the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, a move Democrats argued would kneecap the FTC’s regulatory authority.

“You’re trying to shutter the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, making it harder for us to enforce our antitrust laws,” Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont said.

Consumer protections to take a hit

Lawmakers on the House Committee on Financial Services met in a lengthy, and at times tense, session to finalize legislation to cut “no less than” $1 billion from government programs and services under the panel’s jurisdiction, according to the budget resolution Congress approved in April.

Funds in the crosshairs include those previously authorized for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and grants provided under the Biden administration-era Inflation Reduction Act for homeowners to improve energy efficiency.

Chair French Hill said the committee “will do its part to reduce the deficit and decrease direct spending, so that Congress can enact pro-growth tax policies.”

“And remember, today, we are here with one purpose, to do our part to put our nation back on a responsible fiscal trajectory,” the Arkansas Republican said.

Democrats introduced dozens of amendments during the hourslong session to block cuts to community block grants and programs protecting consumers, including veterans, from illegal credit and lending practices.

Ranking member Maxine Waters said committee Republicans’ plans to cut the CFPB by 70% “is ridiculous.”

“The bureau has saved American consumers $21 billion by returning to them funds that big banks and predatory lenders swindled out of them,” said Waters, a California Democrat.

Congress created the CFPB in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when subprime mortgage lending cascaded into bank failures and home and job losses.

Republicans opposed amendment after amendment.

Rep. María Salazar of Florida tossed a copy of one of Waters’ lengthy amendments straight into a trash can after a staffer handed it to her. Michigan’s Rep. Bill Huizenga held up proceedings for several minutes when he accused Waters of breaking the rules by not distributing enough paper copies of her amendment.

“We cannot allow our government to continue spending money like there are no consequences,” GOP Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska said in response to several Democratic amendments.

A final committee vote was expected Wednesday night.

Transportation section adds fees on electric vehicles

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also approved, by a party line 36-30 vote, reconciliation instructions that would cut $10 billion from the federal deficit while boosting spending for the U.S. Coast Guard and the air traffic control system.

Like other portions of the larger reconciliation package, the transportation committee’s instructions would add funding for national security and border enforcement, through the Coast Guard funding, while cutting money from programs favored by Democrats, including climate programs and any spending that could be construed as race-conscious.

The bill would provide $21.2 billion for the Coast Guard and $12.5 billion for air traffic control systems. It would raise money through a $250 annual fee on electric vehicles and a $100 annual fee on hybrids, while also cutting $4.6 billion from climate programs created in Democrats’ 2022 reconciliation package.

Chairman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, said the measure included priorities for members of both parties, as well as business and labor interests.

“We all want to invest in our Coast Guard,” he said. “We all want to rebuild our air traffic control system and finally address the broken Highway Trust Fund. We have held countless hearings on all of these topics, both recently and, frankly, for years. And now members have the opportunity to actually act.”

Democrats on the panel complained that the reconciliation package was a partisan exercise and a departure from the panel’s normally congenial approach to business. They introduced dozens of amendments over the daylong committee meeting seeking to add funding for various programs. None were adopted.

“The larger Republican reconciliation package will add more than $15 trillion in new debt, gives away $7 trillion in deficit-financed tax cuts to the wealthy and slashes access to health care and food assistance for families,” ranking Democrat Rick Larsen of Washington said. “Given that, I think we’re going to have to vote no on the bill before us.”

The vehicle fees, which would be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund that sends highway and transit money to states, created a partisan divide Wednesday.

Federal gas taxes provide the lion’s share of deposits to the fund and Republicans argued that, because drivers of electric vehicles pay no gas taxes and hybrid drivers pay less than those who drive gas-powered cars, the provision would make the contributions fairer.

Republicans scrapped a proposed $20 annual fee on gas-powered cars, which Graves said was meant to “start a conversation” on the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. But the provision “became a political distraction that no longer centered around seriously addressing the problem,” he said.

Pennsylvania Democrat Chris Deluzio criticized the vehicle fees, noting Republicans were pursuing additional revenue opportunities to offset losses from tax cuts.

“I don’t know when you guys became the tax-and-spend liberals,” Deluzio told his Republican colleagues. “But I guess the taxing of car owners so you can pay for tax giveaways to billionaires is your new strategy. Good luck with that.”

Federal employee benefits targeted

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted nearly along party lines, 22-21, to send its portion of the reconciliation package to the Budget Committee, with Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner joining Democrats in opposition.

Turner was the first GOP lawmaker to cast a committee vote against reconciliation instructions this year.

The legislation hits at federal employee benefits and comes as the Trump administration continues to overhaul the federal workforce.

Part of the bill would raise federal employees’ required retirement contribution to a rate of 4.4% of their salary and eliminate an additional retirement annuity payment for federal employees who retire before the age of 62, while cutting more than $50 billion from the federal deficit.

At his committee’s markup, Chairman James Comer said the legislation “advances important budgetary reforms that will save taxpayers money.”

The Kentucky Republican acknowledged that the chief investigative committee in the U.S. House has “very limited jurisdiction to help reduce the federal budget deficit,” noting that the panel is “empowered to pursue civil service reforms, including federal employee benefits and reining in the influence of partisan and unaccountable government employee unions.”

But Democrats on the panel blasted the committee’s portion of the reconciliation package, saying the bill chips away at federal employees’ protections.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, the top Democrat on the panel, said congressional Republicans instructed the panel to target the federal workforce with roughly $50 billion in funding cuts “regardless of the impact on hard-working, loyal federal employees and their critical services that they provide to the American people.”

The Massachusetts Democrat said the bill “threatens to further undermine the federal workforce by reducing the take-home pay, the benefits and workforce protections of 2.4 million federal employees, most of whom are middle-class Americans and a third of whom are military veterans.”

Ohio’s Turner, who voted against the legislation because of the provision reducing pension benefits, said he supported the overall reconciliation package and hoped the pension measure would be stripped before a floor vote.

Turner said “making changes to pension retirement benefits in the middle of someone’s employment is wrong.” 

Rodney Scott, President Donald Trump's nominee to be commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, prepares to testify during his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on April 30, 2025. Scott previously led the U.S. Border Patrol. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday that he would focus on the agency’s workforce to manage trade and border crossings, while the committee’s top Democrat accused him of covering up a 2010 death at a CBP facility he oversaw.

If Rodney Scott, of Oklahoma, is confirmed by the Senate, he would play a major role in the president’s border-enforcement agenda and lead an agency tasked with managing ports of entry and stopping unauthorized migration at U.S. borders, which he pledged to do by focusing on CBP personnel.

“I will leverage my experience to empower the men and women of CBP to do what they were hired to do – safeguard every American by securing our borders and keeping trade and travel moving,” the former Border Patrol chief said in his opening statement to the committee.

Scott added that he wants to focus on the morale of CBP officers and also ensure that the most up-to-date technology is being used during screenings at ports of entry to intercept any illegal drugs.

“I think it’s really important to highlight a lot of that technology, it just detects anomalies,” he said. “It takes an actual officer or an agent to determine if there’s actually something illegal there or not, so making sure that we … use those officers and agents in the most effective manner possible is critical.”

Scott served as chief of Border Patrol, an agency within CBP, during the first Trump administration and former President Joe Biden’s administration. In that role during the first Trump administration, he implemented a policy that required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases were pending in immigration court.

Death in custody

The top Democrat on the panel, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, raised concerns about a 2010 death at a CBP station in San Diego that Scott ran.

Anastasio Hernández Rojas was detained by CBP officers where he was beaten and later died from his injuries, Wyden said.

Scott was later accused of covering up the death of Hernández Rojas, Wyden said.

“Rather than following the agency’s own policy and immediately referring the incident to outside investigators, the San Diego CBP office began its own investigation,” Wyden said. “In the course of that investigation, the CBP officers taped over the only video copy of Hernández Rojas’s death and tampered with physical evidence, according to court documents.”

The U.S. paid $1 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Hernández Rojas’ widow. The U.S. Department of Justice in 2015 declined to pursue federal charges against any of the officers or leaders involved in the Hernández Rojas case.

Committee Chair Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, defended Scott and said that U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote a letter to the committee to inform members that she reviewed the 2010 incident and that Scott’s work “was in accordance with his duties, the law and professional standards.”

“Mr. Scott did not impede any investigation, nor did he take steps to conceal facts from investigators,” Crapo said Wednesday.

Wyden argued that Noem was not head of DHS in 2010 and that he had spoken to officials who were present at the time of the investigation that took place surrounding Hernández Rojas’ death.

“There have been these serious allegations made by the former heads of internal affairs about Mr. Scott’s involvement and the cover up of the death of Mr. Hernández Rojas,” he said. “I don’t believe this committee should take this letter on faith. And I have some additional information from those who were there at the time, as opposed to Secretary Noem, who was not.”

CBP has more than 60,000 employees and manages the more than 300 ports of entry at borders, airports and seatports.  

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, joined by GOP Reps. Lisa McClain of Michigan and Troy Downing of Montana, speaks at a news conference following a meeting of the House Republican Conference on April 29, 2025. House Republicans began the process of approving a massive bill to support President Donald Trump’s priorities on the 100th day of second presidency Tuesday. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on Tuesday kicked off their work to build consensus on “one big, beautiful bill,” to fund President Donald Trump’s priorities, including a major funding boost for immigration enforcement and border security. 

After returning from a two-week recess, House lawmakers started debating and amending the various sections of the bill with markups in the Armed Services, Education and Workforce, and Homeland Security committees.

Congressional Republicans are using reconciliation — a special procedure that skirts the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster — to put together one bill to fulfill the White House’s priorities on border security, tax cuts, energy policy and defense.

The Homeland panel’s bill, which would increase funding for border security by $70 billion, aligns with Trump’s second-term agenda, which has centered on an immigration crackdown.

The Homeland Security portion of the reconciliation package recommends $46.5 billion to construct a barrier along U.S. borders and $5 billion for Customs and Border Protection facilities, including $4.1 billion to hire 3,000 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 CBP officers. It would also set aside $2 billion for retention and signing bonuses for CBP staff.  

“It is critical that the Republican majority do what the people elected us to do, approve funds for effective border security and enforcement measures,” House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green of Tennessee said.

The bill also includes $2.7 billion in technology surveillance along U.S. borders and roughly $1 billion for inspection technology at ports of entry. 

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said Democrats were unified in their opposition to the proposal. He argued that roughly $70 billion in funding would only aid the Trump administration in its plans of mass deportation and not address border security.

“House Republican leadership is putting lipstick on this pig of a reconciliation package by pretending it’s about border security,” Thompson said.

Votes on all three committees’ bills, and amendments mostly from Democrats raising objections to the package, were expected late Tuesday or after midnight Wednesday. The committees are not expected to adopt any of the Democratic amendments.

Summer floor votes

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Tuesday he expects the House will spend the rest of this week and next week debating the 11 different bills in committee before rolling them all into one reconciliation package.

The full House will debate and vote to approve the legislation before Memorial Day, under the current timeline.

“I don’t know how long the Senate is going to take to do their piece,” Johnson said. “But I was very encouraged after the meeting yesterday, frankly. Leader (John) Thune and Sen. (Mike) Crapo are on point. The Senate Republicans have been working very hard together.”

Thune, of South Dakota, is the Senate majority leader and Crapo, of Idaho, chairs the tax-writing Finance Committee.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the administration would like the package to clear Congress before the Fourth of July, though Johnson said he “hopes” to finalize a deal before that deadline.

Thune said later Tuesday that the reconciliation package’s final look will be decided by what policies have the votes to get through each chamber.

“Ultimately, what gets included in a reconciliation bill will be determined by what there are 218 votes for in the House and 51, or 50, votes for in the United States Senate,” Thune said.

Democrats object to deportations

Democrats on the Homeland Security panel introduced amendments to signal their opposition to the administration’s deportation agenda.

Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter was one of several Democrats to sharply criticize the recent deportation of three U.S. citizen children to Honduras during the Homeland Security Committee’s markup.

He noted that one of the children removed with his mother to Honduras, is a 4-year-old battling Stage 4 cancer.

“This is not border security,” Carter said. “This is state-sanctioned trauma.

Democrats introduced amendments to bar federal funds being used to detain immigrants at a foreign prison, following an agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to detain more than 300 men in a notorious mega-prison. Experts have raised concerns the agreement could violate a law against funding foreign governments engaged in human rights abuses.

“This is not an idle possibility,” Democratic Rep. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island said.

He pointed out that Trump asked El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele to consider taking “homegrown” criminals, meaning U.S. citizens.

“This is insane,” Magaziner said. “It is outrageous and every American should be terrified by this prospect.”

Several other Democrats introduced amendments related to the Trump administration’s use of the prison in El Salvador.

Boost for Pentagon

The House Armed Services Committee portion of the reconciliation package would bolster defense spending by $150 billion over the next decade.

That funding would be divvied up between numerous national security priorities, including $25 billion for Trump’s goal of having a countrywide missile defense system, similar to Israel’s Iron Dome.

The defense bill would appropriate $34 billion for shipbuilding and the maritime industrial base, $21 billion for munitions purchases, $14 billion for “initiatives to scale production of game changing new technology,” $13 billion for nuclear deterrence and $12 billion to enhance military readiness, according to a GOP summary of that bill. 

Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said at the beginning of his committee’s markup that the bill would make a “generational investment in our national security.”

“It is clear we are no longer deterring our adversaries,” Rogers said. “The threats we face today from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea and others, are much more serious and challenging than we have ever faced before.”

Washington Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, ranking member on the panel, said there’s “no question that the Department of Defense has needs and there’s also no question that we as a country face threats.”

But Smith criticized Republicans for moving the defense funding boost within the massive reconciliation package, which will increase the deficit.

“We’re, once again, saying to the American people, ‘This is important but not important enough to actually pay for it.’ So the budget itself is a huge problem,” Smith said. “And you really can’t support the additional $150 billion for defense if you don’t support the overall reconciliation bill because that’s what this is. And the overall reconciliation bill, I firmly believe, is a disaster for this country.”

Smith criticized Republicans for proposing additional dollars for the Pentagon while it is run by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is under investigation for sending information about a bombing campaign in Yemen to a group chat that inadvertently included a journalist and a different group chat that included his wife, brother and others.

“They have not even begun to prove that there is a chance in hell that they will spend this money intelligently, efficiently and effectively,” Smith said. “Secretary Hegseth has proven himself to be completely incapable of doing the job of secretary of Defense.”

Cuts for Pell grants

The Education and Workforce Committee’s markup fell along similar partisan lines, with GOP lawmakers lauding the bill and Democrats rejecting Republicans’ plans seeking to overhaul federal spending.

Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., said the legislation would cut $330 billion in federal spending over the next decade by reshaping federal student loan programs and Pell grants for low-income students, among several other changes.

“Dumping more federal money into a broken system doesn’t mean that system will work,” Walberg said. “In fact, government spending on higher education has reached record highs, yet millions of students benefiting from those funds will ultimately end up with a degree that doesn’t pay off or fail to finish school altogether.”

The GOP bill, he said, would “bring much-needed reform in three key areas: simplified loan repayment, streamlined student loan options, and accountability for students and taxpayers.”

Walberg scolded former President Joe Biden for not working with Congress to overhaul federal grant and loan programs for higher education, saying the former administration “was determined to keep pouring taxpayer funds into the abyss in a futile attempt to keep up with the unacceptable and unaccountable institutional prices.”

Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member, said that Congress should look at ways to make college more affordable through reforms, but said the GOP bill “misses the mark.”

“This current reconciliation plan would increase costs for colleges and students. It would limit students access to quality programs, which would then reduce their likelihood of finding a rewarding or successful career,” Scott said. “And then take the so-called savings to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy and the well-connected.”

Republicans “limiting the students’ access to Pell grants and federal loans,” he said, could increase the number of people who have to rely on “predatory, private loans” to pay for college.

“Put bluntly: The Republican plan will limit how much money middle- and low-income students can borrow from the federal government,” Scott said. “As a result, limiting the federal student aid that students can receive means that millions of students will not be able to access federal assistance that they need to complete their degrees. Moreover, this bill will force student borrowers into unaffordable repayment plans.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, joined by GOP Reps. Lisa McClain of Michigan and Troy Downing of Montana, speaks at a news conference following a meeting of the House Republican Conference on April 29, 2025. House Republicans began the process of approving a massive bill to support President Donald Trump’s priorities on the 100th day of second presidency Tuesday. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on Tuesday kicked off their work to build consensus on “one big, beautiful bill,” to fund President Donald Trump’s priorities, including a major funding boost for immigration enforcement and border security. 

After returning from a two-week recess, House lawmakers started debating and amending the various sections of the bill with markups in the Armed Services, Education and Workforce, and Homeland Security committees.

Congressional Republicans are using reconciliation — a special procedure that skirts the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster — to put together one bill to fulfill the White House’s priorities on border security, tax cuts, energy policy and defense.

The Homeland panel’s bill, which would increase funding for border security by $70 billion, aligns with Trump’s second-term agenda, which has centered on an immigration crackdown.

The Homeland Security portion of the reconciliation package recommends $46.5 billion to construct a barrier along U.S. borders and $5 billion for Customs and Border Protection facilities, including $4.1 billion to hire 3,000 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 CBP officers. It would also set aside $2 billion for retention and signing bonuses for CBP staff.  

“It is critical that the Republican majority do what the people elected us to do, approve funds for effective border security and enforcement measures,” House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green of Tennessee said.

The bill also includes $2.7 billion in technology surveillance along U.S. borders and roughly $1 billion for inspection technology at ports of entry. 

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said Democrats were unified in their opposition to the proposal. He argued that roughly $70 billion in funding would only aid the Trump administration in its plans of mass deportation and not address border security.

“House Republican leadership is putting lipstick on this pig of a reconciliation package by pretending it’s about border security,” Thompson said.

Votes on all three committees’ bills, and amendments mostly from Democrats raising objections to the package, were expected late Tuesday or after midnight Wednesday. The committees are not expected to adopt any of the Democratic amendments.

Summer floor votes

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Tuesday he expects the House will spend the rest of this week and next week debating the 11 different bills in committee before rolling them all into one reconciliation package.

The full House will debate and vote to approve the legislation before Memorial Day, under the current timeline.

“I don’t know how long the Senate is going to take to do their piece,” Johnson said. “But I was very encouraged after the meeting yesterday, frankly. Leader (John) Thune and Sen. (Mike) Crapo are on point. The Senate Republicans have been working very hard together.”

Thune, of South Dakota, is the Senate majority leader and Crapo, of Idaho, chairs the tax-writing Finance Committee.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the administration would like the package to clear Congress before the Fourth of July, though Johnson said he “hopes” to finalize a deal before that deadline.

Thune said later Tuesday that the reconciliation package’s final look will be decided by what policies have the votes to get through each chamber.

“Ultimately, what gets included in a reconciliation bill will be determined by what there are 218 votes for in the House and 51, or 50, votes for in the United States Senate,” Thune said.

Democrats object to deportations

Democrats on the Homeland Security panel introduced amendments to signal their opposition to the administration’s deportation agenda.

Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter was one of several Democrats to sharply criticize the recent deportation of three U.S. citizen children to Honduras during the Homeland Security Committee’s markup.

He noted that one of the children removed with his mother to Honduras, is a 4-year-old battling Stage 4 cancer.

“This is not border security,” Carter said. “This is state-sanctioned trauma.

Democrats introduced amendments to bar federal funds being used to detain immigrants at a foreign prison, following an agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to detain more than 300 men in a notorious mega-prison. Experts have raised concerns the agreement could violate a law against funding foreign governments engaged in human rights abuses.

“This is not an idle possibility,” Democratic Rep. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island said.

He pointed out that Trump asked El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele to consider taking “homegrown” criminals, meaning U.S. citizens.

“This is insane,” Magaziner said. “It is outrageous and every American should be terrified by this prospect.”

Several other Democrats introduced amendments related to the Trump administration’s use of the prison in El Salvador.

Boost for Pentagon

The House Armed Services Committee portion of the reconciliation package would bolster defense spending by $150 billion over the next decade.

That funding would be divvied up between numerous national security priorities, including $25 billion for Trump’s goal of having a countrywide missile defense system, similar to Israel’s Iron Dome.

The defense bill would appropriate $34 billion for shipbuilding and the maritime industrial base, $21 billion for munitions purchases, $14 billion for “initiatives to scale production of game changing new technology,” $13 billion for nuclear deterrence and $12 billion to enhance military readiness, according to a GOP summary of that bill. 

Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said at the beginning of his committee’s markup that the bill would make a “generational investment in our national security.”

“It is clear we are no longer deterring our adversaries,” Rogers said. “The threats we face today from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea and others, are much more serious and challenging than we have ever faced before.”

Washington Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, ranking member on the panel, said there’s “no question that the Department of Defense has needs and there’s also no question that we as a country face threats.”

But Smith criticized Republicans for moving the defense funding boost within the massive reconciliation package, which will increase the deficit.

“We’re, once again, saying to the American people, ‘This is important but not important enough to actually pay for it.’ So the budget itself is a huge problem,” Smith said. “And you really can’t support the additional $150 billion for defense if you don’t support the overall reconciliation bill because that’s what this is. And the overall reconciliation bill, I firmly believe, is a disaster for this country.”

Smith criticized Republicans for proposing additional dollars for the Pentagon while it is run by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is under investigation for sending information about a bombing campaign in Yemen to a group chat that inadvertently included a journalist and a different group chat that included his wife, brother and others.

“They have not even begun to prove that there is a chance in hell that they will spend this money intelligently, efficiently and effectively,” Smith said. “Secretary Hegseth has proven himself to be completely incapable of doing the job of secretary of Defense.”

Cuts for Pell grants

The Education and Workforce Committee’s markup fell along similar partisan lines, with GOP lawmakers lauding the bill and Democrats rejecting Republicans’ plans seeking to overhaul federal spending.

Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., said the legislation would cut $330 billion in federal spending over the next decade by reshaping federal student loan programs and Pell grants for low-income students, among several other changes.

“Dumping more federal money into a broken system doesn’t mean that system will work,” Walberg said. “In fact, government spending on higher education has reached record highs, yet millions of students benefiting from those funds will ultimately end up with a degree that doesn’t pay off or fail to finish school altogether.”

The GOP bill, he said, would “bring much-needed reform in three key areas: simplified loan repayment, streamlined student loan options, and accountability for students and taxpayers.”

Walberg scolded former President Joe Biden for not working with Congress to overhaul federal grant and loan programs for higher education, saying the former administration “was determined to keep pouring taxpayer funds into the abyss in a futile attempt to keep up with the unacceptable and unaccountable institutional prices.”

Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member, said that Congress should look at ways to make college more affordable through reforms, but said the GOP bill “misses the mark.”

“This current reconciliation plan would increase costs for colleges and students. It would limit students access to quality programs, which would then reduce their likelihood of finding a rewarding or successful career,” Scott said. “And then take the so-called savings to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy and the well-connected.”

Republicans “limiting the students’ access to Pell grants and federal loans,” he said, could increase the number of people who have to rely on “predatory, private loans” to pay for college.

“Put bluntly: The Republican plan will limit how much money middle- and low-income students can borrow from the federal government,” Scott said. “As a result, limiting the federal student aid that students can receive means that millions of students will not be able to access federal assistance that they need to complete their degrees. Moreover, this bill will force student borrowers into unaffordable repayment plans.”

President Donald Trump speaks during an executive order signing in the Oval Office on Feb. 11, 2025. Trump signed two immigration-related orders on Monday in an event closed to press photographers. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday evening signed executive orders targeting so-called sanctuary cities by threatening to revoke federal funding and providing legal services and national security assets to law enforcement.

The signings fell on the eve of Trump’s first 100 days of his second term, during which his administration has enacted an immigration crackdown that has led to clashes with the judiciary branch and cities that do not coordinate with federal immigration authorities, often referred to as “sanctuary cities.”

“Some State and local officials nevertheless continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws,” according to the executive order regarding sanctuary cities. “This is a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government’s obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States.”

The order directs the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to publicly list local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with immigration officials, but do not stop immigration enforcement.

Jurisdictions on the list will then be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget to “identify appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension or termination, as appropriate.”

This is not the first time the Trump administration has targeted jurisdictions that don’t fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. 

The Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit against the city of Rochester, New York, over its immigration policies after local law enforcement did not assist federal immigration officials in an arrest. The Trump administration argued those ordinances in Rochester were impeding federal immigration enforcement.

The president also signed an executive order in January that threatened to withhold federal funding from states and local governments that refused to aid in federal immigration enforcement activities. A federal judge in San Francisco last week blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from 16 so-called sanctuary cities.

Republicans have also scrutinized those policies, including during a six-hour hearing of the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that included grilling mayors from Boston, Chicago and Denver, on their cities’ immigration policies. 

The executive order also aims to curb any federal benefits that may extend to people without permanent legal status.

That executive order directed DOJ and DHS to “take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws” that allow for students without proper legal authorization to receive in-state tuition, which would include those with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

Last week, administration officials cheered the FBI arrest of a Wisconsin judge who they say helped an immigrant in the country without legal authorization escape detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The arrest followed the third appearance by ICE officers seeking to make arrests at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, a practice some experts believe hinders local law enforcement.

Law enforcement resources

A second executive order Trump signed Monday provides legal resources for law enforcement officials “who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law.”

The order also directs coordination among the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security to “increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement.” 

Earlier Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the executive order relating to law enforcement will “strengthen and unleash America’s law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens.”