WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans during a Tuesday hearing laid the groundwork for legislation that would prevent state and local governments from making decisions on whether to limit cooperation with the federal government on immigration enforcement. 

Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham of South Carolina argued that sanctuary cities — a term used by critics — undercut federal law, and local policies shielding immigrants without legal status should be banned. President Donald Trump has called on Republicans who control Congress to act.

“What’s the upside of ignoring federal law and keeping people like this out of federal custody?” Graham said. “It’s a political choice.”

As the Trump administration aims to carry out mass deportations, federal immigration officials have increased enforcement in the interior of the country, targeting cities with high immigrant populations that are led by Democrats such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and the District of Columbia. 

All those cities have policies that bar assistance to the federal government in immigration enforcement. 

“Our Democratic friends are accepting of a sanctuary policy. They don’t think it’s a problem. I do,” Graham said. “Let’s have a debate. Let’s have a vote. This will be good for the country going into 2026 as to who should be in charge of controlling our borders and enforcing law.” 

He did not cite specific legislation he favors, but last month he introduced a bill, S.3805, that would make it unlawful for states and local governments to pass laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. 

One of the witnesses tapped by Republicans, former DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, who served in the first Trump administration, agreed.

“To restore the rule of law, the era of sanctuary cities needs to come to an end,” Wolf said. 

Immigration enforcement funds

The top Democrat on the committee, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, said the committee should instead be conducting oversight of the $170 billion Congress provided to the Department of Homeland Security through the 2025 tax cuts and spending package known as the “Big, Beautiful Bill.”

He argued that under that funding, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted aggressive immigration enforcement, wearing masks and conducting warrantless arrests. 

“We now have a secret police called ICE,” Merkley said.

He noted that three U.S. citizens have been killed by federal immigration agents: Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, and Ruben Martinez in Texas. 

Merkley also pushed back on the assumption that immigration enforcement does not occur in states and cities that are referred to by Republicans as sanctuary cities. 

“Sanctuary is a bit of a misnomer,” Merkley said. “It refers to the decision that local police will serve as local police and not be commandeered to be assisting ICE agents.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said in his state, there is a legal precedent to not hold an immigrant for ICE to pick up because it would be regarded as an unlawful detainment.

“It is binding law that state and local officials who hold somebody under an ICE detainer, where ICE hasn’t bothered to get a warrant, can be held civilly liable,” Whitehouse said.

Graham took issue with the requirement for a judicial warrant and said the need for it to deport someone is “stupid.” 

“All of a sudden we’re Nazis,” Graham said.

Democrats are calling for ICE to use judicial warrants when making an arrest of a person in the country without legal authority, not for deportations. 

Budget Committee role

Democrats argued that the Budget Committee instead of immigration policy should be addressing fiscal issues, such as the spike in oil prices due to President Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel in its war with Iran. 

California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla said Tuesday’s hearing was “off-base.”

“Gas prices are spiking because of an unauthorized war with Iran,” he said. 

Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico agreed, and said the hearing should focus on affordability and the rising cost of living. 

Graham said he would hold a future hearing on affordability. 

The broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program is on life support after Wisconsin Senate Republicans canceled a vote on a GOP-authored bill to extend the program during the body’s floor session Wednesday. 

For nearly four decades, the program has allowed the state Department of Natural Resources to support the acquisition of land for conservation purposes. The program is set to expire June 30 when its funding runs out. 

Lawmakers have been working for nearly a year to reach an agreement on an extension. A Knowles-Nelson extension in Gov. Tony Evers’ proposed budget last year was stripped out by Republicans and a Democratic-authored bill supported by all 60 legislative Democrats has languished in a Republican-controlled committee. 

In recent years, a handful of legislative Republicans have become increasingly hostile to the stewardship program, complaining that it has taken too much land off local property tax rolls in the northern part of the state and that a state Supreme Court decision last year removed the Legislature’s oversight authority over the program’s spending. 

In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would extend the program without any funding for land acquisition. With the Assembly holding its final scheduled floor session of the year on Thursday, the Senate’s failure to hold a vote on its version of the bill Wednesday means it’s unlikely a bill will make it to Evers’ desk. 

Democrats have said they won’t support a version of the bill that ends land acquisition under the program. 

In recent weeks, Republicans have begun to lay the groundwork for claiming that any failure to extend the program would be the Democrats’ fault. 

But Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), the author of the Republican proposal, said Wednesday after the bill was dropped from the schedule that the Senate needs to pass a version of the bill with 17 Republican votes.  With supporters and opponents of the program divided within the Republican caucus, advocates for the program have said for months it’s been clear that any version of stewardship extension would require bipartisan support. 

“This has been one of these bills that’s been very difficult to thread the needle on,” Testin said after the Wednesday floor session. “So it’s been sort of a tug of war, you do X, Y, and Z on one provision of the bill. You have members that raise concerns, and if you do X, Y and Z a different way, they’ve got concerns as well.”

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), who wrote the Democratic proposal and has been involved in legislative negotiations over the program, said it’s disingenuous for Republicans to point fingers at Democrats, when Democrats are united in their support for the program and have tried to compromise. 

The initial bill proposed by Habush Sinykin included a provision to provide independent oversight of the program as a response to Republican concerns and in recent days offered a compromise of extending the program with $5-6 million in land acquisition funding — about $10 million less than budgeted currently. On the floor on Wednesday, Democrats attempted to force a vote on a motion that would have extended the program for one year at current funding levels. 

“Their efforts to try to cast blame or aspersions on the Democrats when it is apparent that they have too many members of their caucus who are strongly opposed to this program … they have not been shy or reticent about voicing publicly strong opposition to the continuity of this program,” Habush Sinykin said. “So it takes not just a lot of nerve, but a questionable honesty, to try to pin this on Democrats.” 

Habush Sinykin said the Assembly version of the bill was “not even tempting” because it doesn’t include any land acquisition funds. 

“What they are looking for and needing are more Democratic votes, which is a big responsibility, because we care about the integrity of the program,” she said. “So you don’t want to give votes for something that doesn’t have value and isn’t true to the purpose.”

“Everyone in the building knows, and many outside the building know, that Republicans don’t like Knowles-Nelson,” she continued, “that they can’t get it done in their caucus.”

Baylor Spears contributed reporting to this story.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) says he is being left out of negotiations on property tax relief between Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester).

Rising property taxes, a quickly approaching self-imposed deadline to wrap up work in the Legislature this year and a projected state budget surplus of over $2.5 billion formed the backdrop to disagreements between leaders of the Senate and Assembly on a potential tax relief package that broke out into the public this week. 

“What I’m hearing right now is the governor and the speaker are still negotiating, and I have not been invited to those negotiations,” LeMahieu said during a WisPolitics luncheon on Thursday afternoon. “I just feel, at this point, if the governor and the speaker are actually serious about accomplishing something, shouldn’t they include both houses?”

In response to LeMahieu saying he wasn’t included, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback wrote on social media that “actually, yesterday our office suggested that Republican leaders should try talking to each other since they’re clearly not on the same page.”

Vos, speaking at a press conference at the same time LeMahieu appeared at the WisPolitics event, said he texted LeMahieu Thursday morning asking to meet. He told reporters that he is open to any idea, but the public’s biggest concern is rising property taxes.

“There’s no bad cake, and I feel that same way about tax cuts. There are no bad tax cuts… We have not ruled anything out,” Vos said. “But when we have talked to folks, the thing that has most impacted them is the massive property tax increases they saw last December. My own property tax bill went up 24.7%. That’s the highest that I can ever remember being a homeowner.”

Wisconsin property taxpayers recently absorbed the highest tax hike since 2018 — an increase caused by a state budget that raised school revenue limits while keeping state general aid flat, pushing costs onto local property taxpayers, some of whom also voted to approve additional school district referendum requests.

LeMahieu said the projected $2.5 billion budget surplus led to conversations in his caucus about what to do to provide relief to Wisconsinites as well as a Zoom call between the Republican legislative leaders and Gov. Tony Evers a little over a week ago.

“It’s not just property taxes. People are struggling buying groceries… their utility bills,” LeMahieu said.

The Senate Republican caucus discussions led to the introduction of a pair of bills this week that would use about $1.5 billion in state funds to provide one-time tax rebates of $1,000 to married joint filers and $500 to individual filers. Under SB 1 and SB 995, the Department of Administration would need to send the rebates by Sept. 1. 

LeMahieu said his caucus thought the rebates were “the best way to use this surplus” and $1.5 billion, the cost for the rebates, is a “responsible number.”

The package announcement came just a day after Vos said he was in negotiations with Evers. According to emails, Evers had proposed to the Republican lawmakers a $1.3 billion package that would provide $200 million, including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027, as well as $450 million in 2027 in general school aids to buy out the projected statewide school property tax levy. In exchange, Republicans would get $550 million for the school levy tax credit to help with property tax relief and $97.3 million in 2027 for tax-exempt cash tips. 

Cudaback has said that any compromise on property taxes needs to include “investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget.”

Vos said he thinks Evers “sincerely” wants to do something about property taxes.

“There have been plenty of times in the last eight years where we have had a disagreement and we had a public argument with Gov. Evers, but on this one… we feel the same,” Vos said. “I don’t know why we wouldn’t negotiate in good faith to try to find something that can actually get across the finish line.”

Vos said Evers’ point about special education funding is a “legitimate” one, noting that leaders said during the state budget that they would fund it at 42% and 45% but the available revenue will not cover those amounts. 

Senate Republicans, however, are not happy with Evers’ suggestions. 

LeMahieu called the proposal “ridiculous” and said it was only a “BandAid” on the issue that would “saddle the next Legislature with a huge ongoing commitment.” He is referring to the 400-year partial veto exercised by Evers on the 2023-24 budget that has allowed school districts to continue an  annual $325 per pupil increase. 

“Your property taxes are still going to go up because the 400-year veto is still there?” LeMahieu said incredulously.

LeMahieu said he thought the negotiation “seems like a purely political stunt” or an effort to get something through the Assembly, adjourn and put pressure on the Senate to pass it. He noted that the Assembly is less than a week away from its planned final adjournment for the year. 

Vos has said the Assembly plans to be done Feb. 19. The Senate could still pass bills after then, but the same bills must pass the Assembly to make it to Evers’ desk. 

“There is no vehicle for whatever plan they come up with… What’s the time frame for all of this to get done?” LeMahieu asked, referring to the process by which a bill must be introduced, have a public hearing and get a vote on the floor of the both Assembly and the Senate.

LeMahieu pointed out that his bill has support from 16 out of 18 Senate Republican caucus members. He added that several Assembly members have reached out with support for the proposal and said the Senate plan “actually makes sense.”

“There has been no communication between offices… Hopefully we are here past next week,” LeMahieu said, adding that there are session days scheduled for March, when the Senate plans to meet, and lawmakers could also work in April.

No action would likely leave decisions about the budget surplus until after the November elections when the makeup of the next Legislature could look quite different with control up for grabs and the next governor, could be either a Republican or a Democrat and will be new to the office.

Vos said rebates are “less easy” and “more expensive,” but he said his caucus believes that negotiating “to find an answer that gets across the finish line is the best answer for Wisconsinites” and he thinks they need to sit down to do so.

“I don’t think [Evers’] idea is a bad one, but I would say it has to be paired with some reductions,” Vos said. “Based on where the Senate is, it looks like they want to have something that’s way bigger than what we were looking at. Bigger is not necessarily better, but it’s not necessarily worse, so I think that’s part of sitting down and understanding what the perspectives are, and finding something that, again, can pass the Assembly, pass the Senate, and get signed by the governor and not just have an argument.”

The Senate bills received a public hearing in the afternoon. Democratic lawmakers questioned whether the rebates would place the state in a precarious position in the future.

After the state budget was completed in July, but before the recent projections, the Wisconsin Policy Forum warned that Wisconsin is spending more than it brings in through taxes which creates a projected structural deficit.

“Why wouldn’t we just put this money in the bank to help us cover the structural deficit?” Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) asked.

“I think we’ll be fine,” LeMahieu said.

Under the bill, the rebate checks would need to be delivered to Wisconsinites by Sept. 15, 2026.

Spreitzer said he thought the proposal could place the state budget in a “bad situation” going into future budgets and suggested that the timing of the rebate payments are suspicious, coming just ahead of the November election. 

Wisconsin’s fall elections take place Nov. 3, and many legislators are eager to return to their districts to start campaigning.

LeMahieu on WisconsinEye and other issues

A tax relief package is among several bills Wisconsin lawmakers are trying to get across the finish line. LeMahieu spoke to the chances for action on several issues. He said the issue that is the closest to getting done is a bill that would extend the state’s stewardship program. 

State funds will run out for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program on June 30, 2026, without action. A bill that the Assembly passed and that recently received a public hearing in the  Senate would extend the program, but drastically cut the land acquisition portions of the program. 

“We don’t want to give a blank check to our bureaucrats to go buy a bunch of land across the state of Wisconsin, however, we do own a lot of land in Wisconsin and our caucus feels it’s very important to maintain that,” LeMahieu said. 

Another issue that has received a lot of attention in the Capitol is the livestreaming of government proceedings. LeMahieu said he thought there has been mismanagement at WisconsinEye, the state’s version of C-SPAN, and his caucus wants to see other alternatives  before providing funding for WisconsinEye. 

“Is there some other company out there? Do we need five full-time employees when we aren’t doing a whole lot of work after Feb. 17 in the Assembly and March… outside of interviews of candidates who are running for office? We’re using taxpayer money for that?” LeMahieu said. 

A Senate bill to solicit bids for livestreaming received a public hearing Thursday, though LeMahieu said he thinks lawmakers could also start the process through a vote on the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization.

LeMahieu said Senate Republicans have not spent a lot of time discussing efforts to legalize online sports betting and he wasn’t sure if that proposal would get through the Senate or Assembly by the end of session. He said he thought that “from a policy standpoint it makes sense.”

The Assembly delayed a vote on a bill to legalize online sports betting at the end of last year. 

Sports betting has been allowed in Wisconsin since 2021, but bets have to be made in person at tribal casinos. Lawmakers are seeking to legalize online sports betting by implementing a “hub and spoke” model that would allow servers running betting websites and apps to be housed on tribal land. The state Constitution requires gambling to be managed by the state’s federally recognized Native American tribes.

LeMahieu said he hopes the Legislature takes some action on data centers, though he said he hadn’t looked closely at the bill that passed the Assembly in January. He said he thought data centers are good for local communities, though there are some concerns about ensuring that ratepayers don’t see their utility bills go up. 

“Hopefully we can take action and provide some framework around it. I don’t know if the bill that the Assembly passed needs to be amended,” LeMahieu said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Republicans are not on the same page as Assembly Republicans and Gov. Tony Evers when it comes to how to use the projected $2.5 billion state surplus to provide tax relief to Wisconsinites. 

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters on Wednesday ahead of a floor session that he hadn’t spoken recently with Evers or Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) about property tax relief proposals. Vos told reporters on Tuesday that he was negotiating with Evers on a property tax proposal and was backing off a demand to repeal the partial veto that extended school revenue limit increases for 400 years. 

LeMahieu said his caucus was working on fine tuning its own proposal.

“When you have a surplus, you want to give it back to the people who are paying taxes in Wisconsin, the hard working families of Wisconsin,” LeMahieu said.

Hours later, LeMahieu announced the introduction of SB 1, which would provide rebate payments of up to $1,000 to taxpayers, and SB 995, which would provide a sum sufficient appropriation for the proposal. 

“You and your family know how to spend your hard-earned dollars best, not the state government,” LeMahieu said in a statement. “So, whether you need more room in your budget for groceries, or if Governor Evers’ 400-year veto sent your property tax bill through the roof, the State Senate intends to vote next week to return the surplus to the people who created it in the first place: you, the taxpayers.”

Wisconsin leaders are debating ways to provide some financial relief to residents in the aftermath of a significant jump in property tax bills in December. The hikes were fueled by a state budget that increases school revenue limits while keeping state general aid flat — pushing education costs onto local taxpayers — as well as voter approval of school district referendum requests. Further property tax hikes are expected if there is no action from policymakers.

The Senate bill would provide a one-time rebate to taxpayers who filed a Wisconsin individual income tax return in tax year 2024 and owed for that year. It would provide a rebate of $1,000 for joint married filers and a $500 rebate for other individuals. 

The Department of Revenue (DOR) would make the payments without the taxpayers having to take any further action and they would need to be made by Sept. 15, 2026. The rebate would not exceed the amount of the taxpayer’s 2024 net income tax liability.

The bill will receive a public hearing Thursday afternoon in the Senate Agriculture and Revenue committee. The committee chair, Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), called the 400-year veto “irresponsible” and said Republicans “know that many families across Wisconsin are struggling financially” and they believe their proposal “will go a long way toward reducing the tax burden on our residents.”

Asked about the new proposal, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback referred the Wisconsin Examiner back to a statement she made on Tuesday. 

“The governor’s been clear that any bipartisan bill on property taxes must include investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget,” Cudaback said. “We look forward to hearing back from Republican leaders regarding whether they will support the governor’s plan that both addresses property taxes and invests in our kids and our schools.” 

According to emails shared by Cudaback, Evers has proposed to Republican lawmakers a bill that would pair funding for schools with tax relief. The proposal would include $200 million, including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027, as well as $450 million in 2027 in general school aids to buy out the projected statewide school property tax levy.

In exchange, Republicans would get $550 million for the school levy tax credit to help with property tax relief and $97.3 million in 2027 for tax exempt cash tips. 

According to the email, Evers was willing to discuss changes to the 400-year veto but only if Republicans would “approve a significant and ongoing state investment in K-12 schools, including, at minimum, closing the gap in special education funding from the 2025-27 Biennial Budget and making special education aid a sum sufficient appropriation,” meaning it would cover all special ed costs at the set rate, unlike a “sum certain” appropriation which is a limited pot of money regardless of increased expenses.

“However, we understand from our conversation that neither of the two leaders would like to have discussions about the 400-year veto,” Madden wrote in the email. 

While Vos may not be set on eliminating the partial veto, LeMahieu told CBS58 on Wednesday that the veto would need to be repealed to do anything on property tax relief. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Republicans are proposing that Wisconsin solicit bids for parties interested in taking over livestream coverage of the state government — making WisconsinEye, the nonprofit that has done the job since 2007, compete for the job. 

The introduction of SB 994 follows the state Assembly unanimously passing a proposal Tuesday that would eliminate match requirements for $10 million that was set aside in the state budget for WisconsinEye, and place it in a trust fund from which the organization could draw interest.

WisconsinEye had to halt its coverage for about a month due to financial difficulties and has turned to state lawmakers for a long-term funding solution, and while the Assembly has been on the same page, the Senate has expressed skepticism about providing help.

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters Wednesday that his caucus wants to see whether there is another party that could do the job for less. He said his local county board livestreams its meetings and it “doesn’t seem like it’s rocket science.”

LeMahieu said his caucus has been frustrated trying to get answers from WisconsinEye and with the lack of fundraising by the nonprofit since state funds were first set aside in 2023.

“There was a promise to raise funds to keep going over the last three years with state matching funds. That has not worked, so we think there is a different path,” LeMahieu said. “Maybe, we are getting the best value currently with WisconsinEye, but we don’t know… We want to be responsible with taxpayer money.”

WisconsinEye’s current annual operating budget is nearly $1 million. The Assembly proposal would allow the organization to use the interest on the trust fund for its operating expenses, though it is expected the organization would still need to fundraise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to meet its annual costs. 

The coauthors on the Senate bill include 15 of the 18 Republicans; those not on the bill include Sens. John Jagler, Chris Kapenga and Eric Wimberger. The Assembly lawmakers coauthoring the Senate bill are Reps. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) and Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego). Both voted in favor of the Assembly bill this week. 

Under the Senate proposal, the state Department of Administration would solicit bids for the operation of a statewide public affairs network that would provide unedited live video and audio coverage of state government proceedings.

Those proceedings would include Senate and Assembly floor sessions, legislative committee meetings, state agency meetings, state Supreme Court and other judicial meetings. The bill states that if “practicable,” the network can also cover eligible news conferences and civic events. 

Lawmakers said in a cosponsorship memo that the bill would ensure “high-quality, secure, and cost-effective coverage of legislative, executive and judicial proceedings while maintaining strict nonpartisanship.”

“For years, the state has relied on a single public affairs network model without a competitive procurement process that ensures taxpayers receive the best return on their investment,” the cosponsorship memo on the bill states. “As technology evolves and expectations for public access increase, it is time to modernize how Wisconsin provides live coverage and archives of government proceedings.”

The bill also requires the network to prohibit coverage from being used for campaign purposes. 

The Senate proposal would prohibit fees from being charged to access live and archived coverage of floor sessions and Joint Finance Committee meetings. Other meetings are not covered under this part of the bill.

The Assembly bill, in contrast, would generally require WisconsinEye to provide free online public access to all of its live broadcasts and archives. That bill would have WisconsinEye focus its coverage primarily on official state government meetings and business. 

Assembly lawmakers also wanted to implement some additional accountability measures, requiring WisconsinEye to submit an annual financial report to the Legislature and place additional members on its board of directors who would be appointed by legislative leaders.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on June 17, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal Thursday to sue the Trump administration over allegations that it did not fully release the Epstein files, as mandated under a law unanimously approved by senators and signed by the president nearly three months ago.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked for unanimous consent on a resolution compelling the Republican-led Senate to challenge President Donald Trump in court to release more records from the government’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, said Jan. 30 that the department had finished complying with the new law after a final release of 3 million pages, containing 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. In total, the department released about 3.5 million records since the law’s passage.

The latest tranche revealed a global network of numerous men in powerful positions in communication with Epstein.

Late and redacted

The legal deadline to release the files was Dec. 19.

“Fifty days past the deadline, at best, according to the Department of Justice’s own admissions, maybe half of all the available Epstein files have been released,” Schumer said on the floor Thursday morning.

Schumer said that among the records released, many have been “redacted to an absurd degree.”

“This is not what the law requires. This is a mockery of the truth and an insult to the survivors. What makes this all the more sickening is that in over 1,000 instances, the Justice Department failed to follow the law and leaked the identities of over 100 victims. But do you know who the Justice Department did seem to protect? Epstein’s co-conspirators,” Schumer continued.

The minority leader entered into the congressional record a letter he brought along from roughly 20 Epstein victims decrying the “reckless and dangerous” release of victims’ identities.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., blocked the resolution, chalking it up as “another reckless political stunt designed to distract Americans from Democrats’ dangerous plan to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.”

Barrasso was referring to negotiations underway to fund DHS. Democrats have demanded changes to immigration enforcement tactics after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis, and numerous other U.S. citizens were injured by federal agents during Trump’s surge into blue states.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., criticized Barrasso’s objection on the floor, calling it “morally wrong.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

A DOJ official told States Newsroom in an email that the resolution presented “a tired narrative.”

“Just because you wish something to be true, doesn’t mean it is. This Department produced more than 3.5 million pages in compliance with the law and, in full transparency, has disclosed to the public and to Congress what items were not responsive. I assume all members of Congress read the actual language before voting on it, but if not, our press release and letter to Congress clearly spells this out,” the official wrote, including a link to the department’s Jan. 30 press release.

‘Hunger or thirst for information’

Blanche told reporters on Jan. 30, “There’s a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. There’s nothing I can do about that.” 

He said no information uncovered in the files warranted new prosecutions.

The new law, dubbed by lawmakers as the Epstein Files Transparency Act, required the DOJ to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. 

Epstein avoided federal charges in 2008 when he pleaded guilty to Florida state prostitution charges, including for the solicitation of a minor. 

A 2007 draft of a federal indictment that laid out more robust charges was among the files released by the DOJ on Jan. 30.