WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s attempt to redefine the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

In the decision, a majority of the justices upheld the country’s long understanding of automatic citizenship by birth on American soil, regardless of the immigration status of a newborn’s parents. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., found the president’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote. “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

While six of the justices agreed — Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — that the president’s executive order was unlawful, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. 

Only five of the justices agreed that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship to the children of immigrants, with Kavanaugh partially dissenting along with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. 

Kavanaugh argued that Trump’s executive order did not violate the 14th Amendment, but instead violated federal statute. He added in his dissent that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.”

The White House did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment, but a day before the decision, Trump said in the Oval Office that he would accept the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

“It’s up to them, but in terms of for the good of the country, it’d be great if they … didn’t allow it,” Trump, who in a highly unusual move for a president attended the oral arguments on the case, said of birthright citizenship. 

After the ruling, the president called on Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, to pass legislation to codify his executive order into law, dismissing the need for a constitutional amendment. 

However, a constitutional amendment would be needed, not legislative law, because a majority of the justices still found that any change to birthright citizenship violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Utah’s GOP Sen. Mike Lee, who previously clerked for Alito, noted that “we’re going to need a constitutional amendment.” 

The opinion is a major blow to Trump, who has sought to redefine who is American as part of his broader immigration agenda. 

But it also follows two decisions from the high court that vastly expanded the president’s authority over immigration policy by allowing him to limit asylum seeker claims at the Southern border and strip legal protections for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.  

Tuesday’s decision is based on one of the first executive orders that the president signed on the first day of his second term. It aimed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who either do not have legal status, or hold temporary legal visas. 

Experts warned if the order were to take effect, it could create an entire class of stateless people and cause chaos for hospitals and local governments.

Case brought by expectant parents

The case, Trump v. Barbara, was brought by expectant mothers who feared their children would not be American citizens because of their immigration status.

During oral arguments in April, a majority of the justices seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, presented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer. 

Before the justices, Sauer argued that the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which is the basis for birthright citizenship, was meant to apply to newly freed African American slaves after the Civil War, not to children of immigrants. 

Most legal scholars and historians disagree with that interpretation and have argued the Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark already settled the idea that automatic citizenship was granted to children born on U.S. soil.

Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. When he left California, he was denied entry back into the United States after visiting relatives in China. 

Officials at the time argued that because Ark’s parents were Chinese citizens in the United States on temporary visas at the time of his birth, and therefore were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., he was not a citizen. 

Ark took the issue to the Supreme Court. In 1898, the high court affirmed that he, along with any child born on U.S. soil, were guaranteed citizenship, and rejected the argument that the 14th Amendment only applied to newly freed African American slaves.

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Cecillia Wang, who argued before the justices, said that when the federal government tried to strip Ark of his citizenship, “largely on the same grounds (the Trump administration) raised today,” the Supreme Court at that time rejected those efforts and upheld the 14th Amendment.

“This Court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule (that) virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen,” Wang, who is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants, said.

Her parents were in the U.S. on student visas when she was born in Oregon, meaning that if Trump’s executive order were in effect at that time, she would have been denied U.S. citizenship.

Roberts agreed that the Supreme Court made the correct decision in 1898 about Ark’s case.

“What the Court held in Wong Kim Ark was simple: the Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States,” he wrote. “Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power.” 

“We see no reason to depart from that view today,” he continued. 

One of the mothers in the case, who appeared under a pseudonym, gave another ACLU attorney who worked on the case, Cody Wofsy, a statement following the high court’s decision.  

“It is a difficult time in the world to stand up. We were scared to come forward, but the decision today showed me that I stood up for the right thing,” Wofsy read from her statement during a virtual press conference.

14th Amendment argument

During April’s oral arguments, Sauer made that case that the phrase in the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that children born to parents without legal status or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and are instead subject to the laws of their home country. 

The 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Roberts rejected Sauer’s position, and wrote that the Trump administration’s “[a]rguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those domiciled in the United States fail.”

“Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” he wrote. “Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”

The 14th Amendment was passed to rectify the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which justices ruled that neither free or enslaved Black people could have citizenship or rights. The amendment was also meant to give African Americans citizenship while also denying citizenship to the mass migration of Chinese laborers not born on U.S. soil. 

The “jurisdiction” language in the amendment, tribal scholars have said, was aimed to exempt Indigenous people who resided in Native nations — part of their tribal governments — from birthright citizenship, along with the children born to foreign diplomats.   

Congress in 1924 specifically passed the Indian Citizenship Act to grant birthright citizenship to Indigenous people, regardless of their residence in Native nations. 

Because of this, tribal scholars have explained the language “subject to the jurisdiction” was never meant to apply to immigrants and their home country, and instead refers to the political alliance of tribes.

Congress reacts

Following Tuesday’s decision, Democrats praised the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a statement that “despite Trump’s best efforts to bully them, the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that if you are born in America, you belong in America.”

“No matter how much President Trump tries to steal citizenship from people that the Constitution has said have earned it and reverse the grand American tradition of welcoming newcomers to our nation, the Supreme Court confirmed today that those born in America are American,” he said.

Chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus — the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus — issued a joint statement that the high court’s ruling was a rejection of “Trump’s dangerous and exclusionary vision of America.”

“We are American, we belong here, and we will continue to defend birthright citizenship for generations to come,” said New York Reps. Adriano Espaillat of the CHC; Grace Meng of the CAPAC; and Yvette Clarke of the CBC. 

Wang, of the ACLU, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, said in a statement that Tuesday’s decision reaffirmed a core American principle. 

“If you are born here, you are a citizen,” she said. “A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”

An immigration advocacy group that has also challenged the Trump administration’s efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, We Are CASA, said the decision was a victory for immigrant families. 

“The Trump administration’s attempt to deny citizenship to United States-born children, threaten generations of children with legal uncertainty, and overturn more than a century of settled constitutional law has failed,” said Shana Khader, the deputy legal director at We Are CASA.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has nominated a former Oklahoma state trooper to lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency tasked with carrying out the president’s mass deportation campaign. 

Richard “Lance” Schroyer’s nomination on June 27 comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed the Trump administration to strip legal status for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, a move that opens them up to deportation. 

“Lance Schroyer has what it takes to DETAIN AND DEPORT Illegal Alien Criminals …,” Trump wrote on social media June 27. “…he LOVES the men and women of ICE.”

He’ll have to be confirmed by the Senate, and if he is, he’ll be the first Senate-confirmed ICE director in 11 years. 

The current acting director of ICE is David Venturella, a longtime federal immigration official and former vice president of the private prison company GEO that rakes in billions through federal contracts it holds to detain immigrants at its facilities across the United States.

Former acting ICE director Todd Lyons stepped down in May, following the shooting of two U.S. citizens by immigration officials in Minneapolis earlier this year.

$70 billion in new funding 

Schroyer will come into an agency that Congress recently funded until fiscal year 2029 at $70 billion, not including a separate funding stream of billions Republicans included in the president’s signature tax cuts and spending bill in 2025. 

Schroyer does not have much experience working for the Department of Homeland Security, but serves as an adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who previously served as Oklahoma’s U.S. senator. 

Schroyer also worked to establish Oklahoma’s law enforcement partnership with the federal government to assist with immigration enforcement in the 287g program. He served in law enforcement for nearly 30 years.

Mullin noted Schroyer’s work with the 287g program. 

“Lance is coming straight from the operational field where he ran large scale operations and worked alongside state and federal partners to remove illegal aliens from Oklahoma under the 287g program,” Mullin said in a statement. “With over 29 years of law enforcement experience, Lance will play a vital role in helping deliver on the President’s mandate from the American people to target, arrest, and deport illegal aliens.” 

Oklahoma praise

Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt also praised the announcement, along with Schroyer’s career in law enforcement. 

“He was a huge asset to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and now he’ll continue to make us proud at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” Stitt said in a statement. “Oklahoma yet again leads the nation. We have consistently supported President Trump’s work to keep our border secure, and we have led in enforcement actions against those here illegally who engage in criminal behavior.”

Schroyer is also the recipient of the Chief’s Award for his work in 2015, when he assisted a woman whose car crashed outside of his district, in the Tulsa Police Department’s jurisdiction.

“He found her face down with her head pinned between the end of the dashboard and the passenger door. The woman was choking and was unable to speak,” according to a press release from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. 

Schroyer called for first responders and stayed with the woman, according to the release. “In order to enable her to breathe, he moved the car seats and kicked open a jammed door in order to reposition the woman allowing her to breathe,” according to the release.

For his work, he was presented with the Chief’s Award, “honoring his dedication to the protection of lives and service to the public.”

Oklahoma Voice Editor Janelle Stecklein contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court sided Thursday with the Trump administration’s request to turn away asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The question the justices considered was whether migrants have to fully cross into the United States in order to have the right to apply for asylum and be processed, or if they can apply for asylum when they appear at a port of entry while on Mexico’s side of the border. 

In a 6-3 decision, the conservative justices agreed with the Trump administration that a noncitizen who is standing in Mexico doesn’t arrive in the U.S. “by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country.” 

The justices held that a noncitizen only arrives in the U.S. “when he crosses the border,” and that the Immigration Nationality Act does not entitle that noncitizen who is standing on Mexico’s side of the border who wants to apply for asylum to be inspected by an immigration officer. 

James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s “decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority, said the case before the justices presented a “straightforward question.”

“The phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ … carries its ordinary meaning: A person arrives in a geographic location only when he enters it,” he wrote. “A person arrives in a destination when he enters within its area—not before—and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks entry. Everyday examples of how people ordinarily use the phrase ‘arrives in’ confirm this understanding.”

The policy requiring a full crossing, known as metering, is defunct, but Vivek Suri, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, argued before the high court that it was a policy the federal government should be allowed to have in its toolbox for future uses at the Southern border. 

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing 35-page dissent saying the ruling will allow the Trump administration to turn away asylum seekers, a policy she said violates Congress’ refugee law.

“Because the Court today blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands, I respectfully dissent,” she wrote. 

During oral arguments in March, the justices seemed ideologically split, with the six conservative justices agreeing with the Trump administration. The three liberals of the Supreme Court — Sotomayor and Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson —  questioned whether the policy violated federal law protecting refugees. 

‘More people will die’

Sotomayor argued that Congress specifically passed the Refugee Act of 1980 to not repeat the “mistakes of the past,” where the M.S. St. Louis, a ship carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees during World War II, was prevented entry to the U.S. and turned back to Europe. 

While some passengers were able to find refuge in other countries, 254 died in the Holocaust.

Sotomayor said based on the majority’s ruling, if those passengers on the St. Louis “were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto U.S. soil.” 

“The majority’s interpretation permits the Government to do that even if the refugees complied with all applicable laws and regulations, even if the port had ample capacity to inspect them, and even if turning them back would result in the very persecution from which they narrowly escaped,” she wrote. 

Sotomayor said the consequences of the ruling will be predictable.

“More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not,” she said. “More people will be forced to walk along the U. S.-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them. More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.”

Jackson wrote a separate dissent, arguing that the case should have never been brought to the justices because the Trump administration is not even using the policy. 

“The absence of a current metering policy has plainly infected the Court’s ultimate analysis, too,” she wrote. “No one knows how, if at all, the reasoning drawn from these metaphors will map on to the realities of a future metering policy. All we can do now is guess.

“But the Court is not a law student puzzling through a difficult cold call,” she continued. “When we issue opinions, we create legal rules with real-world impact. It is for this very reason that our precedents require ‘a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action.’ Because we so obviously lack that context here, we should not have decided this case.”

A blow to asylum seekers

Nicole Ramos, the co-founder of the immigrant legal aid and humanitarian group Al Otro Lado that challenged the Trump administration, said during a press conference that she was not surprised by the decision, “but quite devastated.” 

“This is not the first time the Supreme Court has gotten something wrong,” she said. “I do believe the pendulum will swing back in the direction of justice.”

Melissa Crow, an attorney who first brought the challenge in 2017, said the decision “deals a devastating blow to the rights of people seeking asylum.”

Crow, who now leads the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, said that many migrants who were turned back “died in the process,” such as from heat stroke or drowning in the Rio Grande.

“They don’t have a Plan B, so when we turn them away, we put them in even greater danger,” she said.

Illinois Democratic Rep. Delia Ramirez said during the press conference that Congress needs to pass legislation to reaffirm U.S. asylum and refugee law.

“I know today is a dark day,” she said. “But it is also a moment for Congress to exert its authority. We cannot go into despair.” 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plans to strip temporary legal status from 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, a move that opens them up to deportation.

The 6-3 conservative court ruled that the Haitian and Syrian immigrants are not “entitled” to orders postponing an end to their temporary protections while litigation is pending, arguing those are non-constitutional claims. It means their work permits and deportation protections are stripped, but the ruling won’t go in effect for 32 days. 

It was one of two favorable decisions Thursday for the Trump administration’s policy goals to curtail legal immigration and humanitarian protections for its mass deportation campaign. The high court also ruled that immigration officials could turn away asylum seekers on Mexico’s side of the U.S. border. 

The two rulings greatly expand the president’s executive power to curtail migration at the 

Southern border and strip deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the interior of the country. 

The final immigration-related case before the Supreme Court – the highly anticipated decision on the president’s efforts to redefine birthright citizenship – is expected by late June or early July.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority, said that the Haitians’ arguments — that their equal protection claim that their Temporary Protected Status was terminated on a racial bias — are unlikely to prevail in court.

“None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications,” Alito wrote.

The liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined in a dissent that argued the president made clear racial comments about Haitians for the purpose of terminating protections. 

“Haitians are Black. The references—of filth, disease, and primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes,” they wrote. “It is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any White community.” 

Protections ended for Venezuelans earlier

This is not the first time the high court has allowed the Trump administration to strip TPS protections for immigrants. 

Last year, the conservative justices allowed for the government to end deportation protections for more than half a million Venezuelans. Coupled with Thursday’s decision on Haitians and Syrians, it brings the total loss of legal protections to nearly 1 million immigrants amid the president’s mass deportation efforts. 

James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, praised the decision.

“The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty,” he said in a statement. “This is a win for the rule of law and common sense.”

The architect of the White House’s immigration crackdown, Stephen Miller, said the Trump administration would move to deport any immigrants who lose their TPS status.

“Of course,” he said late Thursday, outside the White House. “If you no longer have status in this country you’re supposed to be deported.”

The decision is likely to impact multiple lawsuits across the country in which federal judges have halted President Donald Trump’s efforts to strip legal protections granted to more than 1.3 million immigrants with TPS because they hail from countries the U.S. initially deemed too dangerous for return. 

It also opens hundreds of thousands of immigrants with TPS up to deportation, part of the president’s broader efforts to curtail immigration and strip legal status from immigrants. 

‘The saddest day in my life’

TPS holders and lawyers who argued before the high court said the decision will have devastating consequences not only for TPS holders but their families. 

“We don’t know what’s going to happen,” said Jose Palma, a TPS recipient from El Salvador whose protections are set to expire in September, at a press conference. 

Viles Dorsainvil, a Haitian TPS holder and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said the decision was “shocking news.”

“It’s the saddest day in my life,” Dorsainvil, of Springfield, Ohio, said during the press conference. 

While on the campaign trail in 2024, Trump, along with his running mate Vice President JD Vance, falsely accused Haitian immigrants of eating people’s pets, and vowed to end TPS for Haiti. The three liberal justices point to those comments as evidence that the president has racial animosity toward Haitians.

Ahilan Arulanantham, who represented the Syrians, said during the press conference that the justices in their majority opinion did not wade into the legal argument over whether the Homeland Security secretary, at the time Kristi Noem, took the proper administrative procedures to consult with the State Department on country conditions before making a decision to end or extend TPS protections. 

Congress created TPS in 1990, and since then a country receives a TPS designation after the Homeland Security secretary consults with the State Department to determine if the country meets certain conditions to qualify for the status.

A TPS designation is made if it’s too dangerous to return to the country based on violence, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions. Protections can last from six to 18 months unless renewed. 

“The court doesn’t say that what the Trump administration has done in TPS decision-making is lawful. It doesn’t say that these decisions comply with the TPS statute,” Arulanantham said of ending TPS for Haiti and Syria. “Instead, what it says is that the statute doesn’t give the courts any power to correct illegal decisions made under the TPS statute.”

That includes determining whether the Department of Homeland Security actually consulted with the State Department in reviewing country conditions. The State Department advises against any travel to Haiti and Syria.

“Instead they say the courts have no role to play in reviewing whether or not the decisions are lawful,” Arulanantham said.

He said the decision “hands to the administration and to the far right wing of the anti-immigrant movement an important victory that they have struggled with for a number of years.”

Democrats decry Trump, high court

Congressional Democrats condemned the decision. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the ruling “cruel and inhumane.”

“TPS exists for exactly this reason: to protect people when returning home is unsafe,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Haiti and Syria remain unsafe today. Instead of showing basic humanity, Donald Trump and this Court have chosen fear, chaos, and cruelty.”

Congress has tried to extend legal protections for Haitians. In April, the House in a rare bipartisan move passed a bill to extend TPS for Haiti for three years, but it’s unlikely to overcome the 60-vote threshold in the GOP-controlled Senate. 

During a press conference following the decision, Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who pushed for that bill’s passage in the House, said “this fight is not over.”

“Ending TPS for Haitians, ending TPS for Syrians, in this ruling endangers all TPS holders,” she said. “Todays ruling is lawless, unjust and should not stand.”

She said the Senate should take up her bill that passed the House “immediately, and save lives.”

Debate over race as a factor

Alito noted that while the plaintiffs can still move forward on the arguments of equal protections, charging that the decisions to end TPS were based on racial animus, those arguments were unlikely to succeed. 

He argued that there is evidence that Noem’s decision to end the designation was not based on race and instead “simply opposes the TPS program.”

“For example, one may oppose TPS and favor tighter restrictions on immigration for economic or other reasons that have nothing to do with race,” Alito said. “And a person without racial bias can provide a harshly unfavorable description of living conditions in some of the countries with TPS designations. The criteria for TPS designations guarantee that many, if not most, designated countries have such characteristics.”

He argued that “Haiti is no exception,” and that many Americans would describe its condition as “intolerable.”

Trump has frequently described Haiti as a “sh*thole country.”

Kagan noted that language in her dissent and criticized the majority for not considering those comments as “overtly racial,” but also refusing to acknowledge some of them. So she made a list. 

She referenced Trump’s comments on how Haitians were “poisoning the blood” of the U.S.; how they “probably have AIDS;” and how Haitian immigration is “like a death wish for our country.”

“The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country,” she wrote. “And here, the President’s own statements show that race did enter in — that, within what was surely a multi-cause decision, it was a motivating factor.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans walked into a lunch with the president on Wednesday looking for ways to unify, but they left the closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill as fractured as ever about policy goals. 

President Donald Trump said after the huddle that he was “very proud of the party” but didn’t offer any concrete steps forward amid deep divisions on a nationwide voter identification law or other issues that don’t yet have enough GOP support to reach his desk. 

“For the most part we have a really well-unified party,” Trump said. “And I said it very strongly, we have the hottest country anywhere in the world.”

Republican senators said during hallway interviews after the meeting ended that it wasn’t entirely productive and didn’t create much, if any, goodwill. 

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy somewhat jokingly said the meeting went “swimmingly” before detailing a confrontation he had with Trump over the lack of information on the Iran war. Senators have repeatedly asked for a classified briefing from administration officials, but haven’t yet received one. 

Cassidy, who lost his May primary after Trump endorsed an opponent, said the exchange began when Trump asked why four Republican senators voted with Democrats to approve a War Powers Resolution earlier this week. Along with Cassidy, they were Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine.

“I said, ‘Well, we’ve not been briefed on how it’s going, that the stated objectives don’t appear to be achieved, and it appears as if … it’s not going as well as we’re being told,’” Cassidy recalled. “At which point I think the president said something negative about me. I perceived it as attempting to bully me from asking a question that I think the American people need to know. 

“And I’m not going to be bullied when I feel like I’m asking a question the American people need to know. And so at that point it began to escalate. And at some point it de-escalated.”

Trump declined to directly answer a question before the meeting began about whether he believes the voter identification law he advocates, which doesn’t have the votes necessary to advance in the Senate, is more important than a broadly bipartisan housing bill. The housing package would have given Republicans a legislative victory on the campaign trail roughly four months before the midterm elections.

The president was scheduled to sign that housing measure just before he met with Senate Republicans, but he canceled to press for the election bill, called the SAVE America Act.  

The bill would overhaul how Americans register to vote and cast ballots in federal elections, such as requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and requiring a government-issued photo identification at polling locations. 

“Every election is important. We’re doing very well,” Trump said. 

“They want a lot of communists to come in,” he said, referring to Democrats. “I’m saying it a little bit differently but the people that they’re pushing are communists. And this country is not going to have communists.” 

Trump ‘mad as a murder hornet’ about Iran vote

Florida Sen. Rick Scott said he hoped the meeting would help Republicans build consensus, though he acknowledged it led to tension. 

“You’ve been around the president, he was pretty forceful about what he cares about,” Scott said, later adding his goal in organizing the meeting was “to try to bring people together.”

Scott said Senate Republicans didn’t talk with Trump about using the complex budget reconciliation process to establish grants for states that implement certain voter identification requirements. House Speaker Mike Johnson put the idea forward earlier in the day as one way to promote elements of the SAVE America Act. 

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said he appreciated the president’s “candor” during the meeting before saying Trump was “mad as a murder hornet about the war powers vote.”

“And I don’t blame him,” Kennedy said. “Put yourself in his shoes, he’s right in the middle of delicate negotiations and the Senate votes to get out of Iran. And it upset him.”

Kennedy said the president also pressed for the SAVE America Act, though he somewhat dismissed Johnson’s proposal to provide grants to states instead of enacting the entire bill.

“I don’t think that’s going to satisfy the president,” Kennedy said. 

‘Like a hospital board meeting,’ with yelling

West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice said both Trump and Cassidy “expressed their feelings and didn’t hold back, but at the same time, it ended up respectful.” 

“It was, I wouldn’t say super combative, but very passionate — very passionate,” he said. 

Justice noted that “very, very few questions” were asked at the lunch.

Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall described Trump and Cassidy’s exchange as “very much like a hospital board meeting when a bunch of doctors are yelling at each other. But at the end of the day, we’ll figure out a way to get along.” 

Trump, he said, was “very disappointed” by the four GOP senators voting this week to try to limit any additional military action against Iran. 

“They’re trying to negotiate that and they feel like that vote from Republicans chopped their legs out from under them,” Marshall said. “And they’re making such incredible progress on this deal. So it’s hard for them to negotiate it when there’s two messages coming out of Washington.”

Pressed on the confrontation between Cassidy and Trump, Sen. Tommy Tuberville said the two “just had some differences of opinion about Iran.” 

The Alabama Republican said “it was very cordial — it wasn’t over the top.”

Not many questions

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis acknowledged there was some contention in the meeting over the voter identification bill.

“I know there’s frustration over the SAVE America Act passage, but we simply don’t have the votes because we’re not gonna nuke the filibuster, so it’s more a matter of how do we move forward,” he said. “Not all of the meeting was contentious, but there’s a general consensus that we on Capitol Hill have to start getting in lockstep.” 

When it comes to the bipartisan housing bill, Tillis said it being signed into law is “up to the president, we’ve done our work.”

South Dakota’s Mike Rounds declined to give details about the meeting but said that Republicans “had a good talking to,” and that senators did not ask the president many questions. 

Rounds said while Trump pushed for the SAVE America Act, there was little acknowledgment that the Senate lacks the votes to pass the bill. 

Texas Sen. John Cornyn said there “wasn’t really a lot of opportunity” to ask questions during the meeting. He said Trump spoke for one hour and 15 minutes. 

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said the president repeated some of the comments he posted on social media earlier in the day when he said he would refuse to sign the housing affordability package until Congress approves the election bill. 

“He’s here to talk about whatever it is he wants to talk about,” Hawley said. “And without speaking for him, I think it’s safe to say that what he posted this morning is what he talked about.”

WASHINGTON — An appeals court Tuesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to use fast-track deportations within the interior of the country and not just at the Southern border, a key pillar in the president’s mass deportation campaign.

The 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia means the Department of Homeland Security can continue with an expanded use of expedited removal after lower courts blocked the policy over concerns that immigrants were not receiving due process. 

Last year, the Trump administration expanded the use of expedited removal to apply to immigrants in the interior of the United States who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years, greatly expanding the numbers of migrants affected. Previously the policy applied only to migrants at the Southern border, rather than those in the interior of the country.

Tuesday’s ruling, by Judge Justin R. Walker, argued that Congress allowed the executive branch to decide when to apply an expedited removal policy to immigrants. President Donald Trump appointed Walker, along with Judge Neomi Rao, who also ruled in favor of the government. 

They found in addition that the Trump administration’s policy did not violate the due rights of immigrants. The judges vacated lower court decisions that blocked the Trump policy. 

No immigration judge

The expanded policy allows the removal of some immigrants – sometimes within hours – without an appearance before an immigration judge, which is key to the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

Judge Robert L. Wilkins disagreed and said he would have kept the lower court’s decision in place that blocked the policy. Former President Barack Obama nominated Wilkins. 

In a statement, James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, praised the appeals court ruling. 

“For years, DHS has arbitrarily limited expedited removal to 14 days even though it applies to illegal aliens who entered the country illegally within the last two years,” Percival said. “Today, the DC Circuit vindicated our decision to apply the law as written.”

Due process questions

In December, the Department of Justice argued that due process is not guaranteed for immigrants in a fast-track deportation. 

The immigrants’ rights group that sued the Trump administration, Make the Road New York, contended that the expanded policy did not give adequate notice to immigrants and that immigration officials did not provide proper information to an immigrant who may or may not fall under the policy. 

Walker wrote that a notice of removal was satisfactory and that an immigration official notifying a migrant if they fall under the policy would be akin to providing them with legal counsel.

“Make the Road’s contrary reasoning would require immigration officers to provide what amounts to legal advice,” Walker wrote. “If due process requires the government to inform individuals of the two-year continuous-presence rule, it presumably also requires informing them of every other basis for contesting expedited removal.”

Wilkins, in his dissent, argued that immigration officials should inquire about how long an immigrant has been in the country before making a decision if expedited removal should be applied.

“A procedure that can result in persons being deported pursuant to the expedited removal statute without even being asked how long they have been in the country might satisfy due process for persons encountered at the border, but it is woefully inadequate for persons encountered in the interior of the country,” Wilkins wrote.

Make the Road New York did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

WASHINGTON — When the overhead lights turn off at the Farmville Detention Center in Virginia, it not only means that night has arrived for Aliaksei Scharbachenia, but that panic attacks will soon follow.

The attacks, which started after his detention began last August, he said, have only grown worse, stemming from the fear that he will be returned to his country of Belarus and face persecution due to his opposition to the authoritarian government.

“With the panic attacks, I was able to take care of myself before,” he said in Russian. “But now it’s kind of getting worse, so I really need some medication, which will help me.”

States Newsroom interviewed Scharbachenia by video with the help of an interpreter.

As the Trump administration increases the scale of its immigrant detention program, now up to 68,000 immigrants in custody, reports have surfaced of inhumane conditions and inadequate medical care at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities like the one housing Scharbachenia. Congress recently boosted funding for immigration enforcement by $70 billion over three years, through the end of President Donald Trump’s term.

ICE acknowledged receiving, but did not respond to, a detailed list of questions from States Newsroom regarding Scharbachenia’s treatment at Farmville.

Ailments ignored

The nightly panic attacks, and the lack of medication to treat them, are not the only health issues that 37-year-old Scharbachenia said he has brought to medical staff at the Virginia facility.

He’s lost feeling in his right pinky and ring fingers, which he attributes to an-egg sized mass that developed on the back of his biceps during his 11-month detention. The few items that he purchased at the center – earplugs and a small blanket – were confiscated after he spent two weeks in solitary confinement after sharing know-your-rights information to newly arrived immigrants, he said. 

“I totally understand that’s another way of punishment to beat me, you know, so I will be quiet,” Scharbachenia said of his two weeks in solitary confinement.

Scharbachenia told States Newsroom that on May 20,  ICE agents tried to deport him to Belarus, despite his active legal petition challenging his detention. He said he was eventually placed on a deportation flight back to the United States from Turkey, his hands and feet bound for the nine-hour journey, and returned to the Farmville detention.  

States Newsroom could not independently verify the May 20 deportation attempt, and ICE did not respond to questions about it.

Poor conditions at multiple facilities 

Scharbachenia’s complaints fit a pattern of reports from independent government inspectors that have found unsafe conditions and inadequate medical care provided to immigrants detained in facilities in Texas and Louisiana.  

A recent report from the Department of Homeland Security’s internal watchdog found a detention center in Louisiana failed to ensure sanitary conditions, properly store perishable food, report use-of-force incidents and maintain medical records of detainees. 

Congress this month passed the three-year, $70 billion immigration enforcement package that contains no restraints on ICE activities. The tens of billions in funding is on top of roughly $170 billion provided to DHS last year for detention and deportations. 

Democratic lawmakers conducting oversight visits at some facilities have raised concerns about poor conditions and lack of medical care provided. 

U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat, a New York Democrat who chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said during a recent press conference that the additional $70 billion in funding will only continue a “detention and deportation industry that profits from human suffering.” 

New Jersey facility

Civil rights groups have filed two major lawsuits charging poor and inadequate conditions at detention centers in Texas and New Jersey run by ICE and private contractors.

In New Jersey, Sen. Andy Kim called for the Delaney Hall facility to be shut down after detained immigrants went on a hunger strike to protest their conditions. While Kim and dozens of advocates demonstrated at the facility, he was hit with pepper smoke deployed by immigration officers. 

“At Delaney Hall, we learned of unsanitary living conditions, lack of adequate medical care and unhealthy food,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said after conducting oversight at the facility. “The situation is unacceptable. Delaney Hall must be shut down immediately.”

In response to the criticism of poor conditions at Delaney Hall, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin argued before lawmakers that the detention centers have higher standards than jails and prisons. He described the complaints about food as detainees wanting “ethnic food.”

With House Democrats in the minority, the authority to make unannounced oversight visits at any federal facility that houses immigrants is one of the few tools they have. The power is codified in a 2019 appropriations law, but the Trump administration has not adhered to that policy. 

Democrats have sued to regain access in a case now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Outbreaks at Farmville

Prior to Trump’s current deportation push, lawmakers had raised concerns about issues at the detention center where Scharbachenia is held. In 2019, a mumps outbreak started at the facility, and in 2020, 93% of the detained population contracted the coronavirus.

Roughly now three-quarters of the immigrants detained at Farmville, nearly 500, have no criminal record, according to the most recent government data. On the campaign trail, the president vowed to focus enforcement on immigrants with criminal records, but those in detention are there on a civil charge of violating U.S. immigration law. 

Virginia Democrats have continued to conduct oversight of the facility. 

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner went last August to visit Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was transferred to Farmville after the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. after erroneously deporting him to a brutal mega-prison in El Salvador.

Warner also raised concerns about the facility during the coronavirus outbreak in 2020. 

During his August visit, Warner’s office said he “secured a commitment from the facility’s private operator to work with legislators to address concerns regarding food quality and access to health care.”

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine also visited the facility in March and his office said he “continues to track conditions there closely.”

Scharbachenia, who is still detained at Farmville, has a pending habeas corpus petition, which is challenging his detention. 

He has a final order of removal from an immigration judge, but said if he is removed back to Belarus, the country’s special police force will be waiting for him, “along with electric shock torture and death.” 

WASHINGTON — A hastily constructed immigrant detention facility on a military base in Texas wasted millions in federal funding and failed to meet basic standards, according to a report released Tuesday by a nonpartisan government watchdog. 

The report by the Government Accountability Office documenting problems at Camp East Montana is one of the first independent investigations into a facility quickly constructed from the $170 billion in immigration enforcement and detention funding provided by Republicans’ “big beautiful” law enacted in July 2025 as part of the president’s mass deportation campaign. The camp is considered the largest immigrant detention center in the United States.

The Department of Defense and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in August 2025 set up the soft-sided detention site of Camp East Montana at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. It was intended to hold as many as 5,000 immigrants and is still currently operating under a private  contractor as well as ICE.

The facility was plagued with several tuberculosis cases and at least four detainee deaths, with one ruled a homicide by the local coroner. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit against the government over inhumane conditions. 

“The facility also did not meet key detention standards, risking the safety and security of detained noncitizens and staff,” GAO said.

The report came as the U.S. House this week prepares to take final steps to pass a $70 billion package to fund immigration enforcement until the end of fiscal year 2029. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the legislation into law.

Congressional Democrats requested that GAO do a report on Camp East Montana, including Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Gary Peters of Michigan and Rep. Bennie Thomspon of Mississippi. 

Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that he was concerned the U.S. military was responsible for the quick construction of the detention camp.

“Preventable deaths, inhumane conditions, and millions of dollars in waste are the direct result of the Pentagon cutting corners and handing a billion-dollar contract to an inexperienced vendor that wrote its own performance standards,” Reed said.

$1.3 billion contract

GAO investigators found that the Department of Defense’s contracting vehicle used to handle the $1.3 billion contract for Camp East Montana provided no flexibility and resulted in paying for meals and employee services during times when no immigrants were detained at the facility, resulting in millions of dollars wasted. 

For example, the Army paid the full cost for guards, medical services, transportation, meals and other services from Aug. 1, 2025 to Aug. 15, 2025, when there were no detainees at the facility, wasting up to $11.5 million, GAO said. 

“Further, because the Army set a fixed price for meals based on the capacity of the facility, it paid about an additional $423,000 for meals it did not need when the facility was operating below its designated capacity from August 16, 2025, through September 30, 2025,” according to the GAO report. 

Same failures could repeat, GAO says

GAO investigators also noted that the same mistakes could be made with the Department of Homeland Security’s ongoing move to spend $38 billion to convert warehouses for the purpose of detaining thousands of immigrants. 

“GAO points out that ICE’s planned facility expansion—a $38 billion program to convert warehouses into detention facilities using the same contracting vehicle—risks repeating every one of these failures at a dramatically larger scale,” according to the report. 

Investigators made four recommendations, including that ICE consider tiered pricing for food to account for fluctuations in populations of detained immigrants and that ICE ensure that new facilities meet detention standards before housing immigrants. 

The report notes that DHS and DOD agreed with the recommendations. DOD deferred comment to DHS, which did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

Homicide investigated

Investigators also raised use-of-force concerns, including one in January in which an autopsy found the death of a detainee to be due to asphyxia and ruled it a homicide. 

“However, the contractor did not provide use of force and death reports to ICE, as required,” according to the report. “In addition, evidence associated with the incident was missing or destroyed.”

Durbin, who is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee,  called the GAO report “damning.”

“We now know even more details of how dangerous and irresponsible the Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign truly is,” he said in a statement. “Excessive use of force, lacking medical and mental health care, and wasted taxpayer dollars are emblematic of this mass deportation scheme. The American people have rightfully expressed outrage at these policies, and it’s time to hold ICE and their private contractors responsible.”

GAO investigators noted several health issues. They pointed out that none of the detainees with HIV or diabetes had treatment plans in place. 

Also, facility employees did not follow proper procedure for tuberculosis screening. One contractor used a questionnaire rather than administering the required skin tests for tuberculosis. 

Investigators found that as a result in November, a detained immigrant with tuberculosis was housed with the general immigrant population. 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts Monday struck down the Trump administration’s efforts to require a $100,000 visa fee for highly skilled immigrant workers, finding the policy is an unlawful tax.

Judge Leo T. Sorokin found the hefty fee placed on the H-1B visa by President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by creating a tax, something that falls under Congress’ authority.  

“The President has no authority to levy a tax unless such a power is delegated by Congress through statute,” Sorokin, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, wrote. “For these reasons, the Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress.”

The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to hire a noncitizen worker in a specialty occupation for a maximum of six years, ranging from the technology industry to healthcare workers. At a minimum, visa applicants have to hold a bachelor’s degree.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in a statement to States Newsroom that the agency disagrees “with this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”

“The recent changes to the H-1B visa program, including the increased fee, are intended to address concerns about program integrity and the impact on the U.S. workforce,” the spokesperson said. “The policy aims to ensure that employers prioritize hiring U.S. workers, particularly in high-skilled fields. The Trump Administration remains committed to safeguarding opportunities for American workers and maintaining the integrity of employment-based visa programs.”

The suit was brought by 20 states: California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin. 

In September the Department of Homeland Security issued a proclamation requiring employers to pay a $100,000 fee for a noncitizen to enter the U.S. under a H-1B visa. 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Rhode Island Friday struck down several Trump administration policies that halted processing for asylum seekers following a shooting in Washington, D.C., that left one West Virginia National Guard member dead and another seriously injured.

In a searing opinion, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. said the Trump administration “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo” when it directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to pause asylum applications and green card paperwork for immigrants hailing from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries subject to the president’s travel ban. 

The policy was announced in November after the two National Guard members were shot. Authorities later charged Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who was granted asylum, with the shooting. He has pleaded not guilty in federal court. A status conference is set for June 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

McConnell, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, said the policy “violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering.”

USCIS is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security that oversees processing of legal immigration, ranging from asylum seekers to work authorization forms.

“USCIS’s hold on adjudications cannot be attributed to anything that these individuals did wrong; rather, it arises solely by the happenstance of their birth,” McConnell wrote.

He added that “the Court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy: If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way.’ This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that.”

New policy paused processing 

Labor unions and immigration advocacy groups in Rhode Island sued the Trump administration over the policies. They brought the suit on behalf of their members, immigrants who had the processing of their work visas and travel documents paused after the new policy following last year’s shooting in Washington, D.C.

After the November shooting, on the eve of Thanksgiving, one guard member, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, was critically wounded, but recovered. 

One of the groups that sued, Democracy Forward, praised the decision. 

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

WASHINGTON — A Louisiana detention center that houses roughly 1,500 immigrants failed to ensure sanitary conditions, properly store perishable food, properly notify use-of-force incidents and maintain medical records of detainees, according to a report published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security’s internal watchdog.

The findings stem from an unannounced visit from federal inspectors in March 2025 to the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. 

The report from the DHS Office of Inspector General comes on the heels of multiple hunger strikes from immigrants at detention centers, protests outside facilities, a rise in deaths in detention and calls from Democratic lawmakers to shut down certain sites due to poor and inhumane conditions.

In a statement, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson characterized the report as showing only “minor infractions” at the facility, but did not address the reports of improper use of force.

“These minor infractions included failing to provide detainees exercise equipment, record keeping errors, and leaking vents,” the DHS spokesperson said. “Another infraction included providing a shared computer for legal research that would allow other detainees to see other detainees’ case information.” 

The spokesperson said that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is working to address the issues laid out in the report, including “by adding additional training to facility staff.”

Use-of-force reporting

Facility staff did not properly notify the ICE field office of several use-of-force incidents, and videos of the incidents that inspectors tried to review were incomplete, according to the report. 

The incidents the OIG reviewed included “applying a choke hold around a detainee’s neck,” and “puncturing a detainee’s skin with a pen to gain compliance.”

In the first video reviewed by inspectors, an officer applied a chokehold to stop an altercation between detainees. OIG investigators noted that the facility agreed “that the officer should receive remedial training.”

In a second video, “an officer could not close and secure a housing unit because a detainee would not remove his hand from the unit’s door. After verbally ordering the detainee to remove his hand, the officer then stabbed the detainee’s right thumb with a pen, puncturing the skin.”

OIG detailed that the “facility investigated the incident and determined that the officer required disciplinary action.”

But because the facility does not have a process to document when staff received extra training or disciplinary actions, inspectors argued they could not tell if staff who used prohibited practices or did not follow standards during use-of-force incidents received the appropriate follow-up training or disciplinary actions. 

“This could lead to staff repeating inappropriate use-of-force tactics that could potentially result in property damage, injury, and death,” according to the report.

Sanitation and recreation

The report recommended that detainees be provided some recreational activities or equipment and noted that ICE complied, adding soccer balls, beanbag toss and pull-up bars.

The OIG report also found three leaking vents in the kitchen area, and raised concerns about sanitation.

“Because Winn did not conduct maintenance sufficient to prevent the leaks or repair or remove these leaking items, the facility risks food-safety hazards, such as residue leaking onto food preparation materials or into prepared food,” according to the report. 

Inspectors also found the refrigerators and freezers that stored the food were not at proper temperatures.

“Storing perishable food at temperatures above the required ranges could cause food spoilage or rotting and potentially place staff and detainees at risk of food borne illnesses if served and consumed,” according to the report.

OIG made recommendations to ICE to fix the leaks and food temperature, and the agency agreed. OIG could not determine if ICE fixed the leaks, but did find ICE resolved the issue of food being stored at the proper temperature. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans fended off an attempt Thursday to block the Department of Justice from using an “anti-weaponization” fund to pay people who feel they were wrongly prosecuted, as well as another proposal that sought to require congressional authorization for a new White House ballroom. 

Debate on amendments and motions, by Democrats and Republicans, is a required part of the special process GOP leaders are using to approve nearly $70 billion for immigration enforcement and deportation activities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, through the end of President Donald Trump’s term.

Votes were expected to last into the evening and possibly overnight as Democrats look to challenge their Republican counterparts on policy while also making their case for control of Congress ahead of this year’s November midterm elections. The U.S. House adjourned for the week Thursday, meaning the measure will not head to the president’s desk until next week at the earliest.

Senators voted 49-50 to reject an amendment from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that would have prevented the Department of Justice from carrying out the “anti-weaponization” proposal by Trump to use $1.776 billion to pay people who feel they were wrongly prosecuted. 

Several Republicans facing tough reelection campaigns joined Democrats in voting for the amendment, including Alaska’s Dan Sullivan, Maine’s Susan Collins and Ohio’s Jon Husted.  

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified earlier this week the administration had scrapped plans for the “anti-weaponization” fund, following intense criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, but Trump later said he wasn’t sure and would have to check with his attorneys. 

“Trump won’t give Americans a penny to help offset the skyrocketing costs he brought on our country,” Schumer said. “But he’s more than happy to charge them nearly $2 billion to line the pockets of his families, his billionaire friends, and the criminals who mauled police officers on January 6. If Republicans truly oppose this corruption, then prove it.”

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis then offered an amendment of his own that would have transferred the funding the administration had proposed for its so-called “anti-weaponization” fund to the Justice Department’s fraud division. 

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward,” Tillis said. “All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is.”

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham raised a procedural objection to Tillis’ amendment, arguing it didn’t comply with the strict rules of the process. 

Tillis tried to waive that maneuver, but a 15-84 vote didn’t achieve those goals and the amendment failed. 

White House ballroom construction

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley offered an amendment that would have required congressional authorization to proceed with Trump’s  White House ballroom renovations. 

“All of us here have a responsibility to follow the power of the purse responsibility in the Constitution. Let’s all support the idea that it must proceed, if it’s to proceed, with a congressional authorization,” the Democrat said. 

Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul called the amendment a “poison pill” and raised a procedural issue on the grounds that Merkley’s measure is not under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.

“There is no money in this bill for a ballroom,” Paul said. 

Merkley tried to waive the procedural objection, but it failed in a 53-46 vote, which required at least 60 to agree in order to move forward. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed a resolution Wednesday to force President Donald Trump to withdraw from the war with Iran and require congressional approval for further military action in the country.

The 215-208 vote, in which four Republicans voted with all Democrats to adopt the resolution, is the strongest rebuke to date against Trump’s handling of the months-long war that has left more than a dozen military troops dead, killed thousands of Iranian civilians and disrupted global supply chains of fertilizer and oil with the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Republican Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted in favor.

The War Powers Resolution nearly passed the House last month, but failed on a 212-212 tie. The measure is a tool for Congress to limit the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions.

Several similar efforts in the Senate have failed. However, following the Republican primary loss of Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisianan joined with Democrats and several GOP senators in a vote to move the measure forward. A vote on final passage on the Senate measure has not been scheduled.

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sponsored the resolution in that chamber.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib has a separate War Powers Resolution that would force the president to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Israel, with weapons and funding from the United States, has launched an assault on that nation.

The passage of the resolution in the GOP-controlled House was the latest sign of growing dissent against Trump among congressional Republicans. 

Senate Republicans balked at Trump’s effort to create a nearly $1.8 billion fund to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department, including those who were convicted and later pardoned by the president for attacking the U.S. Capitol in January 2021. 

The Trump administration backed away from the fund after disputes over it halted work on legislation to fund immigration and deportation activities for the rest of the president’s second term.

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin appeared before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Homeland Security panel Tuesday and defended his threats to cripple international air travel into some cities led by Democrats.

Democratic senators on the panel also pressed Mullin about aggressive immigration tactics from federal officers; whether the department would follow court orders from federal judges; and his recent televised comments floating plans to pull customs employees from airports in cities that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

Republicans also probed Mullin about visa issues affecting rural hospitals and employers in the hospitality industry.

It was the first time Mullin, who was advocating for President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request, has appeared before Congress since the Senate confirmed his nomination to lead the Department of Homeland Security in March. 

The top Democrat on the panel, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, asked Mullin if DHS would implement court orders from federal judges. 

Mullin did not answer the question, but said he would “never break the Constitution.” 

Murphy pressed him several more times, but Mullin only argued that some judges make a “political opinion from the bench.”

“If we didn’t think the courts were politicized then I’d be able to answer that,” he said.

Airspace in ‘chaos’?

Murphy criticized Mullin’s first few months in his role, citing repeated statements he would suspend arrivals of international flights to cities and states that are governed by Democrats. 

“Not only would that throw our airspace into chaos, it’s illegal,” Murphy said. “Do not ask us to fund an agency that makes up its own laws.”

Mullin pushed back on Murphy’s characterizations, calling them “outlandish claims” that “are flat wrong.”

“What’s unconstitutional that we’re doing?” Mullin said. “We’re doing the job that Congress gave us.”

Mullin said in interviews on Fox News and Newsmax last week that he was considering a plan to remove customs officers from airports in cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

“Listen, these sanctuary cities where the local radical left Democrats aren’t allowing us to do our job and enforce federal laws, then we shouldn’t be processing international flights into their cities, either,” he told Fox’s Sean Hannity May 26.

The move would severely harm customs processing. 

The top Democrat on the full Appropriations Committee, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, said it would be “insane.”

“It is not only dangerous but would spell economic crisis for blue and red states,” Murray said.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen brought up the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant who was wrongly deported to a brutal mega-prison in El Salvador last year. Abrego Garcia fought to be returned to the United States, where the Trump administration continues to try to deport him.

Van Hollen asked Mullin if he was aware that Abrego Garcia has agreed to be removed to Costa Rica, and that Costa Rica will accept him.

Mullin said he was not aware of that. 

In a federal court in Maryland, Abrego Garcia is challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to remove him to several African countries, rejecting his offer of moving to Costa Rica. 

Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign. Several courts ruled his deportation illegal and the Supreme Court ruled Abrego Garcia should be returned to the U.S., but stopped short of requiring it. 

The Justice Department indicted Abrego Garcia on human-smuggling charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop, but a federal judge in Tennessee last month found the move to be vindictive and dismissed the charges. 

Prior to the charges being dismissed, the Justice Department offered for Abrego Garcia to be removed to Costa Rica if he were to plead guilty to those initial charges. He refused. Since then, the Trump administration has tried to remove him to Eswatini, Liberia and Uganda.

Van Hollen told Mullin that Abrego Garcia had agreed to be deported to Costa Rica. 

“Great. If he’s willing to do that, we’ll send him,” Mullin said.

Visa restrictions

Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins of Maine asked Mullin about two visa programs, H-1B for high-skill workers and H-2B for seasonal workers. She said the newly imposed visa fee for highly skilled workers the Trump administration placed – $100,000 – is impacting rural hospitals in her state. 

She asked Mullin if the Trump administration would consider making a carveout for healthcare workers on a H-1B visa. 

Mullin said DHS has looked into that issue, but said his ability to address it was limited.

“To have a carveout would be difficult,” he said. “We still have to do our due diligence.” 

Collins asked Mullin if DHS would consider reinstating a visa policy that allowed repeat seasonal workers to not be included in the annual cap for H-2B visas. 

Mullin said his hands were tied and said Congress would have to give him a higher cap.  

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen asked Mullin for a followup on visa processing for international students on F-1 visas, citing her state’s New England College as an example. 

“Without approval by July 1 they will lose 2,000 graduate students,” she said.

Mullin said he had looked into the issue and alerted U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that processes legal immigration paperwork. DHS is “working on it,” he added.

“There’s some real urgency,” Shaheen said. 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has scrapped plans to use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department — a proposal that halted work on legislation to fund immigration and deportation activities. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified Tuesday before a House committee the DOJ will no longer move forward with those plans shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said the administration had reversed course. 

That decision could clear the way for the Senate to debate a roughly $70 billion package meant to fund immigration and deportation for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term. 

“I think his statements are going to be very definitive, very clear and create the certainty that I hope all of our members, and House members need as well, in order for us to proceed on the reconciliation bill,” Thune said, referring to Blanche. “But I’m not guaranteeing that happens yet.” 

Blanche confirmed Thune’s statements when he testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee in the afternoon.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said when pressed by the subcommittee’s top Democrat, Rep. Grace Meng of New York.

“You and Associate Attorney General Woodward signed earlier documents regarding the settlement and this fund, would both of you now sign and release documents reversing the DOJ position on the fund?” Meng asked.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund. I’m not sure what that means to sign documents reversing. There’s nothing to reverse,” Blanche replied.

The DOJ posted on social media this week that it plans to abide by a temporary court ruling that blocked distribution of the funds, but Republican lawmakers said that wasn’t enough to end the impasse it created.

The Justice Department announced the creation of the fund last month as part of a legal settlement between Trump and the IRS over leaked copies of his returns during Trump’s first term. The settlement included provisions that precluded future IRS investigations into Trump and his family.

Senate Republicans weigh in

Thune said GOP senators had a “quite robust conversation” during a closed-door lunch about the DOJ fund and whether to move forward with their immigration and deportation package. 

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said after that meeting it’s up to GOP leaders to determine whether there are enough votes to move forward with the immigration package. 

“I think the next step is for our whip team to find out where everybody’s at based on the administration’s indication that they’re not going to move forward with the fund,” Hoeven said. 

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said there is a “chance” that Republicans could begin a marathon amendment voting session on the immigration bill as soon as Wednesday, if Blanche’s testimony alleviates concerns created by the DOJ fund. 

Montana Sen. Steve Daines, however, said he believes it’s “unlikely” that process begins this week. 

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said earlier in the day, before the lunch, that he wouldn’t accept taxpayer dollars going toward people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

“To provide restitution to somebody who assaulted a police officer and pled guilty to it. I mean, man, I’ve seen some crazy stuff before, but that’s right up there with crazy,” he said. 

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he needs to know “if it’s dead or nearly dead.” 

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said he wants clarification from the White House about the settlement fund in light of the court’s ruling. 

He added that Republicans are waiting to see if “the court case set aside both the settlement fund and the audits.”

“We need clarification for what it is and isn’t, because the White House already said ‘we agree, we don’t like it, but we agree with the courts,’” Lankford said. “What does that mean?”

Amendment to ban fund

Democrats have also criticized Trump and those in his administration over the fund, vowing to block it in law. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during an afternoon press conference that promises from Trump and administration officials are “worthless.” 

“Trump sued his own government, had his own Justice Department settle the case and is now trying to use taxpayer dollars to pay off his MAGA allies, billionaire buddies and cop-beating insurrectionists,” Schumer said. 

“And let’s be clear, Trump has not killed this slush fund,” he added. “He has not revoked the special tax immunity he gave himself and his family. He has not ended the corruption. He hit a temporary roadblock. That’s it.”

Schumer said the first amendment he would offer during debate on Republicans’ immigration and deportation bill would “ban Trump’s slush fund permanently and revoke his family’s free rein to commit tax fraud forever.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Following a dismissal of criminal charges the Trump administration lodged against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland resident Thursday pressed a federal judge to prevent his removal to any country that is not Costa Rica, which has agreed to accept him as a refugee. 

The filing in the federal District Court for the District of Maryland comes after a federal judge in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 22 dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal indictment charges of human smuggling that stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop. The judge called the prosecution “vindictive and selective.”

Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition before Maryland federal Judge Paula Xinis argues that the Trump administration did not make a genuine effort to remove him to a country where he would not be harmed, persecuted, or potentially sent back to his home country of El Salvador. He has had protections against deportation to El Salvador since 2019. 

The Trump administration is trying to again deport Abrego Garcia to the west African country of Liberia. 

Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation to a brutal Salvadoran mega-prison known as CECOT cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign, has agreed to be removed to Costa Rica because the Central American country will grant him protections and refugee status. 

But the Trump administration would only allow for his removal if he pleaded guilty to the Tennessee criminal indictment, which was dismissed last week. Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty and since then, the Trump administration has tried to remove him to the African nations of Eswatini and Uganda.

“Considered cumulatively, the Government’s message is clear: because Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his unlawful removal to CECOT, declined the Government’s plea offer, and has continued to prevail in courts, the Government would rather seek to unlawfully remove him to a distant third country than lawfully remove him to the country he has designated,” according to the filing. “That is not a removal policy. It is punishment.”

The new filing asks Xinis to make a final order to resolve Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition by barring the Trump administration from deporting him to Liberia, or any country that is not Costa Rica. The filing also asks for the Trump administration to be prevented from redetaining Abrego Garcia, unless he will be removed to Costa Rica. 

Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. from El Salvador to face the criminal indictment. Several courts, including the Supreme Court, found his removal to that country illegal, but the high court stopped short of requiring the Trump administration to return him to the United States.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Thursday rejected a proposal to rein in President Donald Trump’s months-long military actions in Iran that have left more than a dozen U.S. military members dead, while killing thousands of civilians and displacing millions in the Middle East, according to third-party monitors. 

The measure, known as the War Powers Resolution, is a tool for Congress to limit the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad. The resolution failed in a 212-212 vote. Most Democrats voted for the measure, though Jared Golden of Maine opposed it. Three Republicans also crossed party lines to vote in favor. They were Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey sponsored the measure, H.Con. Res. 75. 

During Wednesday’s debate on the House floor, Gottheimer said that Congress has still not been briefed on the progress or objectives in the Iran war, and argued it’s a violation of the U.S. Constitution. 

“Oversight is a key constitutional responsibility of Congress,” he said. 

Pentagon officials testified before Congress this week that the war so far has cost $29 billion, not including Iran’s drone and missile damage to U.S. military installations in the region.

Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued on the House floor that Iran was an “imminent threat.” He added that he was satisfied with the briefings from the Trump administration’s top military officials. 

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected an identical measure, its seventh vote on the matter. Three Republicans joined nearly all Democrats, a sign of growing dissatisfaction with the president’s own party amid the war. 

GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Democrats. Sen. John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans. 

The Iran war started on Feb. 28 and so far, at least 13 U.S. military members have died. Human Rights Activists in Iran, a nongovernmental organization based in Fairfax, Virginia, estimated that at least 1,701 civilians, including 254 children have died because of the war. 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated in late March that up to 3.2 million Iranians have been displaced due to the U.S. and Israel attack on Iran.  

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday pressed for increased funding for the Secret Service, arguing most of the money Senate Republicans included for the agency in their immigration enforcement bill is for security needs, not building a new ballroom at the White House. 

But the Louisiana Republican added during a morning press conference he didn’t want to “prejudge” the $72 billion package before the Senate approves a final version this month and sends it to the House. 

“I don’t have the pen in the Senate. They’re writing the bill,” he said. “We’ll see what we get.”

Johnson noted there are several more steps the legislation must go through in the Senate, including a review by the parliamentarian to make sure all of the provisions fit within the strict rules of the reconciliation process, committee debate and a marathon amendment voting session on the floor. 

Johnson said that President Donald Trump “is excited about building a ballroom with private funding,” though that project comes with some additional needs that will likely require taxpayer dollars.  

“The Secret Service says that as we enhance the White House grounds and the modernization there that obviously we have to think differently about security,” he said. “We live in a very dangerous time and there are new and increasing threats that we have never faced before. And so Congress has a role in funding that and we’ll have to see how it all works out.”

‘Urgent request’

Johnson asserted the bill Senate Republicans released last week “very specifically defined” how the Secret Service could use the additional funding.  

The legislation would provide $1 billion that would be available until Sept. 30, 2029 for “security adjustments and upgrades … to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project.”

The bill would limit the Secret Service from using any of the funding “for non-security elements.” 

Johnson said GOP lawmakers added the funding to the immigration enforcement spending bill after the Secret Service “put in an urgent request for additional security measures.”

“We’ve needed some of these security measures for a long time,” he said. “And that’s what this is all about.”

Congress provided the Secret Service with $3.25 billion in the annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security that lawmakers passed in late April.  

Republicans approved an additional $1.17 billion for the Secret Service in their “big, beautiful” law that the agency can use through September 2029 for personnel, training, technology as well as performance, retention and signing bonuses. 

Normally, the White House budget office would publicly send Congress a supplemental spending request, asking lawmakers to approve the additional money. That would then be vetted by the Appropriations Committees, though that didn’t happen in this case. 

The Trump administration also could have included a boost in funding to the budget request officials sent Congress in early April that asked members to approve $3.5 billion for the Secret Service in the annual funding bill for the agency that’s due by the end of September.  

Funding breakdown

Secret Service Director Sean Curran gave Republican senators more details about how the agency plans to use the additional funding during a closed-door lunch this week, though the bill wouldn’t actually require the agency to spend the money as outlined. 

A breakdown obtained by States Newsroom showed: 

• $220 million would go to “hardening” the East Wing Modernization Project with additional bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 
• $180 million would go toward construction of a “long overdue” White House visitor screening facility. 
• $175 million would bolster Secret Service training as well as its training facilities. 
• $175 million would help the agency “secure frequently visited venues facing heightened risk due to their public visibility and static nature.”
• $150 million would go to the branch of the Secret Service that focuses on drones, aircraft incursions, biological threats and “other emerging threats through investments in state-of-the-art technologies.”
• $100 million for “high-profile national events that require significant planning.”

Republican senators said after that meeting they wanted more information from the Secret Service on exactly how the agency would spend the additional funding before they vote on the package. 

Thune predicts passage next week

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday morning most GOP senators will ultimately support the additional funding for the Secret Service “that’s needed to enable them to do their jobs.” 

“Obviously there are security implications related to the modernization of the East Wing. And that represents, I think, of the total request that Secret Service made, about 20%,” he said. “The balance of it, I think, are things that they’ve been putting off for a long time, but need to be done, especially in a modern threat environment where you’ve had, you know, now, three assassination attempts in the last two years.”

Thune said his “aspirational timeline” is to have committees debate their bills early next week, followed by floor action on the full package later in the week.  

“It can always be affected by other factors,” he said. “But I think at least right now, that’s the goal.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech that Trump’s focus on building a “gilded ballroom” shows the president “is living in the theater of the absurd.”

Schumer said Americans don’t want to see government leaders focused on the ballroom project when inflation, food costs and gasoline prices have all increased. 

“I would say Trump has completely lost touch with the American people, but that would assume that Trump was ever in touch with the American people to begin with,” he said. “And on this issue he sure as heck isn’t.”

WASHINGTON — Long-time federal immigration official David Venturella will lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency spearheading President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, according to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson.

Venturella will replace outgoing ICE acting Director Todd Lyons, who last month announced he would leave his position by May 31, the DHS official told States Newsroom on Wednesday. Venturella will also take on the role on an acting basis. ICE has been without a permanent, Senate-confirmed director since Trump first took office in 2017.

Venturella will oversee an agency that has come under intense congressional and public scrutiny after federal immigration agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti led to a months-long shutdown of DHS, after Democrats pushed for constraints on federal immigration officers. The shutdown ended last month, and Republicans are moving forward with funding ICE and Customs and Border Protection for the next three years, through a complex legislative process that does not require Democratic votes. 

Venturella worked at DHS during the Obama administration, when he led the Secure Communities program in which local law enforcement shared fingerprints and booking information with federal immigration officials to identify immigrants in the country without legal authorization. The Obama administration eventually ended the program, but Trump revived it in 2017.

Venturella has also worked for the private prison company GEO, which earns billions in government contracts to detain immigrants across the country. He retired from GEO in 2023 after serving as the vice president of client relations.

WASHINGTON — Several Republican U.S. senators left a closed-door lunch with Secret Service Director Sean Curran on Tuesday saying they still have questions about how the agency would spend an additional $1 billion. 

“I’ve asked for a lot more data,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine. “If there are needs for new training ranges, for example, that should have been in the president’s budget.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tucked the significant increase into a larger immigration enforcement bill, leading to concerns from some of his GOP colleagues and criticism from Democrats the money will go toward construction of a White House ballroom.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said after the lunch meeting the additional funding is predominantly for regular Secret Service activities, not to support the creation of a new ballroom.  

“The ballroom is being financed privately but the security associated with it represents about 20% of what this request was,” Thune said.

A breakdown of how the new funding would be used by Secret Service, obtained by States Newsroom, showed: 

• $220 million would go to “hardening” the East Wing Modernization Project with additional bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 
• $180 million would go toward construction of a “long overdue” White House visitor screening facility. 
• $175 million would bolster Secret Service training as well as its training facilities. 
• $175 million would help the agency “secure frequently visited venues facing heightened risk due to their public visibility and static nature.”
• $150 million would go to the branch of the Secret Service that focuses on drones, aircraft incursions, biological threats and “other emerging threats through investments in state-of-the-art technologies.”
• $100 million for “high-profile national events that require significant planning.”

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott said he wants the Secret Service to share more information. 

“I think the bottom line is, people want to be supportive, right? They want security for the president, but they want more detail,” he said. 

The $1 billion for the Secret Service would be in addition to the $1.17 billion Republicans approved for the agency in their “big, beautiful” law as well as the agency’s annual funding level.

The White House released its budget request in early April, asking lawmakers to approve $3.5 billion for the Secret Service in an annual funding bill, a $36 million increase. 

Senators want more specifics

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he wants “more specifics” from the administration in addition to what lawmakers saw during the lunch. 

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds said he’s asked for more information from the Secret Service about its needs. 

“They’re trying to make it very clear that what they’re talking about are the security improvements that should be included if we’re making major reconstruction within the White House itself,” he said. “So I think as more of the information begins to come out, I think people are going to feel a lot more comfortable with what they’re requesting.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said he supported the additional Secret Service funding, arguing that security at the White House can be complex.

“I’m fine with that,” he said. “So long as it’s used for security purposes.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she wanted to see a detailed breakdown of where the $1 billion would go before committing to supporting the move.

No details from Judiciary chair 

Grassley, who included the line item for “security adjustments and upgrades” for the East Wing Modernization Project in his panel’s immigration enforcement bill, didn’t share details before the lunch about how he landed on the $1 billion figure. 

“It was just kind of a consensus among all of us,” he said, later adding the agreement was among Senate GOP lawmakers, not with the White House.  

Grassley said he didn’t expect to know before the end of the week whether the Secret Service funding would stay in the $72 billion package that is intended to fund immigration activities for the next three years.

The Judiciary Committee bill and one written by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which will be combined in the coming days, would provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement with $38.175 billion, Customs and Border Protection with $26.02 billion, the secretary of Homeland Security’s office with $5 billion and the Department of Justice with $1.457 billion.

GOP leaders in Congress hope to approve the bill next week, sending it to President Donald Trump before the Memorial Day weekend break.

Opportunity for Dems

Senate floor debate on the package includes a marathon amendment voting session that will give Democrats, or even Republicans, the chance to hold up-or-down votes on the additional spending. 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said Democrats “will certainly be able to put our colleagues on record” about the additional Secret Service funding. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats will “fight this bill tooth and nail.”

“We’ll offer amendments and we’ll force Republicans to vote again and again on one simple question — are you with working families or are you with Trump’s ballroom,” he said. 

Thune said earlier in the day that Republicans “can’t have a lot of hiccups right now” and still send Trump the package before the president’s June 1 deadline.