Pedestrians walk through the streets of the Little Haiti neighborhood on June 06, 2025 in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge late Monday blocked the termination of temporary protections for roughly 350,000 Haitians from taking effect, a move that prevents the Trump administration from acting to deport them as litigation continues. 

In a searing 83-page order, District of Columbia federal Judge Ana C. Reyes found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem does not have “unbounded discretion” to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and rejected the Trump administration’s arguments that ending the status is  in the public interest. 

“Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight,” Reyes wrote. “She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer? Turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. This approach is many things—in the public interest is not one of them.”

The decision came the day before hundreds of thousands of Haitians were at risk of losing their work permits and deportation protections, opening them up to removal. 

The Trump administration has moved to strip the legal status of immigrants, as many as 1.5 million, by ending the TPS designation and revoking humanitarian protections initially granted under the Biden administration. So far, Noem has ended TPS for 12 countries.  

Other judges found Noem overreached

Reyes said the Trump administration would face no harm by allowing TPS recipients from Haiti to keep their legal status while they challenge Noem’s move to end their status. 

Last year, Noem initially tried to remove extended protections for TPS holders from Haiti granted under the Biden administration, which meant protections would end by August. But several judges found that move from Noem an overreach of her authority. 

TPS is usually granted for 18 months to nationals who hail from a country deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence and instability. 

In her order, Reyes cited contradictions by the Trump administration in its attempts to end TPS for Haiti. She pointed to Noem’s argument that conditions in Haiti have improved, but at the same time the State Department has a “do not travel” advisory for Haiti because of violence. 

There has been escalating gang violence in Haiti since the assassination of the country’s president in 2021. 

“There is an old adage among lawyers. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table,” Reyes wrote. “Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side—or at least has ignored them. Does not have the law on her side—or at least has ignored it. Having neither and bringing the adage into the 21st century, she pounds X (f/k/a Twitter).”

Reyes was nominated by former President Joe Biden.

‘Hostility to nonwhite immigrants’

Reyes added that one of the arguments from the plaintiffs – Haitian TPS recipients – that Noem “preordained her termination decision and did so

because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants,” is likely substantial.   

Reyes also pointed to the 2024 presidential campaign, where President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance spread false rumors claiming Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, ate residents’ pets. 

In her order, she said Trump referred to those Haitians with TPS as being in the country without legal authorization, despite their legal status, and recalled how the president vowed to revoke “Haiti’s TPS designation and send ‘them back to their country.’”

There are five Haitian TPS recipients who are plaintiffs in the case. They argued that Noem violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the process of how agencies issue regulations, by ending TPS for Haiti. 

Those recipients include Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, who is a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease who has had TPS since 2011; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank who was granted TPS in 2010; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department who’s been a TPS recipient since 2024; Marica Merline Laguerre, an economics major at Hunter College and a TPS holder since 2010; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse and TPS holder since 2021.

A reprieve

This is not the first time the Trump administration has tried to end the TPS designation for Haiti, but the courts blocked those attempts in 2018.

Monday’s decision came as a brief relief for immigrants and advocates in Springfield, Ohio. 

“This 11th hour reprieve is, of course, welcome,” Ohio Immigrant Alliance Executive Director Lynn Tramonte said in a statement. “But people can’t live their lives like this, pegging their families’ futures to a court case. The least this country can do is honor their strength and contributions by giving them a permanent home.” 

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem at a roundtable discussion with local ranchers and employees from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Jan. 7, 2026 in Brownsville, Texas. (Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday that body cameras would be given to federal immigration agents across the country, starting in Minneapolis, where two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by agents in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

“As funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide,” she wrote on social media. “We will rapidly acquire and deploy body cameras to DHS law enforcement across the country.”

Noem did not specifically say agents would be required to wear the cameras.

President Donald Trump said he was supportive of the move, according to White House pool reports.

“It wasn’t my decision,” he said. “I leave it to her. It tends to be good for law enforcement, because people can’t lie about what happened.”

The announcement comes amid a partial government shutdown by congressional Democrats who are pushing to change immigration enforcement operations across the country. One of those proposed policy changes is a requirement for federal immigration officers to wear body cameras. 

Democrats have also called for Noem to resign or be impeached after a second Minneapolis resident was shot and killed on Jan. 24 by federal immigration agents, 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse Alex Pretti. On Jan. 7, Renee Good, a poet and mother of three, was killed by federal immigration agent Jonathan Ross. 

Even without approved funding in the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the agency still has roughly $175 billion in funding for immigration enforcement from the massive tax cuts and spending package passed last year. 

In the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill for Homeland Security, $20 million was set aside for body cameras for immigration agents. That measure would be the subject of two weeks of negotiations under the spending package under consideration in the House.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., answers reporters’ questions after holding a press conference on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House is expected to vote as soon as Tuesday on the government funding package that will end the ongoing partial government shutdown once it becomes law. 

The Senate voted Friday evening to approve the legislation after President Donald Trump and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., brokered a deal to remove the full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and replace it with a two-week stopgap. But the partial shutdown began early Saturday morning because the House had not yet acted on the same measure.

The additional time is supposed to give Republicans and Democrats more leeway to broker a deal on constraints to immigration enforcement after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota within the last month. 

Trump wrote in a social media post that lawmakers in the House need to accept the package cannot change further. 

“I am working hard with Speaker Johnson to get the current funding deal, which passed in the Senate last week, through the House and to my desk, where I will sign it into Law, IMMEDIATELY!” Trump wrote. “We need to get the Government open, and I hope all Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting this Bill, and send it to my desk WITHOUT DELAY. There can be NO CHANGES at this time. We will work together in good faith to address the issues that have been raised, but we cannot have another long, pointless, and destructive Shutdown that will hurt our Country so badly — One that will not benefit Republicans or Democrats. I hope everyone will vote, YES!”

House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a Sunday interview on the Fox News show “Fox and Friends” that he was confident lawmakers would approve the funding package Tuesday. 

“I don’t understand why anybody would have a problem with this, though. Remember, these are the bills that have already been passed, we’re going to do it again,” the Louisiana Republican said. 

The House voted in January to approve two separate bundles of appropriations bills and to pass the full-year Homeland Security bill before sending all six government funding bills to the Senate as one package. 

The other six annual government spending bills have already become law. 

Johnson added during the interview that negotiations between the president and Senate Democrats were an important step. 

“I think there’s some healthy conversations in good faith that’ll be had over the next couple of days, and I look forward to that,” he said. 

Some of those policy negotiations that Senate Democrats are unified on include the banning of unidentified and masked federal immigration agents, requiring the use of body cameras and the end of roving patrols, among other things. 

But House Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee on Sunday issued a letter, urging their caucus to reject funding for DHS.

“Democrats must act now to demand real changes that protect our communities before Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) receive another dollar in funding,” they wrote. “This is what our constituents elected us to do – to hold ICE and this administration accountable when they fail to adhere to the Constitution or follow the law.”

In the letter, House Democrats are pushing for the Trump administration to end the months-long immigration operation in Minneapolis and requiring immigration agents to get judicial warrants, among other things.

U.S. House Democrats, from left, Kelly Morrison, Ilhan Omar and Rep. Angie Craig, all of Minnesota, arrive outside of the regional Immigration and Customs Enfrocement headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis on Jan. 10, 2026. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a Trump administration policy that prevented members of Congress from making unannounced oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants.

The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of District of Columbia federal court blocked a seven-day notice requirement that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem established earlier this month. The order allows congressional Democrats to access facilities that are central to the national debate over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

“The Court’s decision today to grant a temporary restraining order against ICE’s unlawful effort to obstruct congressional oversight is a victory for the American people,” Colorado Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse, who is the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. “We will keep fighting to ensure the rule of law prevails.”

Noem issued the policy Jan. 8, one day after federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis, the site of an aggressive immigration operation for nearly two months. 

A second Minneapolis resident, 37-year-old Alex Pretti, was shot and killed by a Customs and Border Protection officer and Border Patrol agent on Jan. 24. 

Following the Jan. 7 shooting, U.S. House Democrats from Minnesota tried to conduct unannounced oversight visits at a Department of Homeland Security facility that held immigrants, as allowed under a 2019 appropriations law. Democrats have argued the notice policies issued by Noem violate that appropriations law. 

Noem argued the notice policy was acceptable, despite the spending law, because the facilities were funded through the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” not an appropriations law, and were therefore exempt from the unannounced oversight visit policy.

Cobb rejected that argument, for now, while the case continues, saying the administration had not shown how the department could effectively separate the funds from each law. Cobb said the argument raised “practical challenges.”

“Perhaps reflecting that difficulty, Defendants have not seriously attempted to argue that DHS and ICE ensured that only OBBBA-funded resources were used before promulgating and first implementing the January 8 policy,” she wrote. 

A dozen Democratic lawmakers brought the suit in July, after DHS created a seven-day notice policy to visit a facility where immigrants are detained. In the filing, lawmakers argued that DHS overreached its authority in creating the policy and that it violated a 2019 appropriations law.

Cobb in December also issued a temporary block on that policy.

The House Democrats who sued include Neguse, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., surrounded by snow and ice, on Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The federal government began a partial shutdown early Saturday, even though Senate Democrats and President Donald Trump reached a deal that allows lawmakers more time to negotiate new constraints on immigration enforcement. 

The Senate voted 71-29 on Friday evening to pass the reworked government funding package before a midnight deadline. But the earliest the House could clear it for Trump’s signature is Monday evening, when members return from a recess.

The scheduling problem guarantees the current spending law, which Congress approved in November at the end of the last shutdown, will expire without a replacement. 

However, the effects on the nation are not expected to be as dramatic as those during the historic 43-day shutdown last year. Since Congress has already passed half of the dozen annual appropriations bills, this shutdown will only affect part of the government, and possibly with moderate impacts since it may only last a few days until the House acts.

The unexpected hitch in progress toward passing the $1.2 trillion package came about after immigration agents killed a second person in Minneapolis and Senate Democrats demanded reforms be included in the Department of Homeland Security spending bill. Trump has agreed to two weeks of negotiations on the DHS bill, which includes funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and other immigration enforcement agencies.

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the full-year measures are “fiscally responsible bills that reflect months of hard work and deliberation from members from both parties and both sides of the Capitol.”

“The package also continues funding for the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks to allow us additional time to evaluate further changes in ICE procedures beyond those that we have already included in this bill,” she said. 

Once the package becomes law, she said, 96% of government will be funded for the fiscal year that began back on Oct. 1. 

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said approving the five full-year bills and a stopgap for the Homeland Security Department represented “a simple, commonsense path forward.”

“It is good news we have a deal to fund these key programs families count on while work continues on serious DHS accountability over the next two weeks,” Murray said. “It could not be more clear that ICE and CBP are out of control and that we cannot just wait for the same president who caused this mess to address it.”

Senators from North Carolina, South Carolina tangle

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a floor speech several hours before voting began that he would hold up quick consideration of the funding package until leaders agreed to schedule floor votes on two separate proposals. 

The first would establish some sort of criminal penalty for local or state officials who do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement agents, often called sanctuary cities. The second would clear the way for conservative organizations to file lawsuits against former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith for his investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. 

“What is the right answer when a state or a mayor says, ‘I don’t like this federal law, I’m not going to do it because there’s good politics for me.’ I think you risk going to jail,” Graham said. “We cannot live in a country this way, where you get to pick and choose the laws you don’t like.”

A spokesperson for Graham later confirmed to States Newsroom that the senator didn’t want the votes Friday but “just sometime down the road.” Graham released a statement later in the afternoon that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., had agreed to schedule floor votes “at a time to be determined.”

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis spoke directly after Graham and rebuked him for delaying the entire funding package. 

Tillis called on senators from both political parties to start negotiations about “common sense sorts of ways to lower the temperature” on immigration enforcement.

He said officials should “hold people accountable when they’re harming ICE agents, and hold ICE agents accountable if they reacted in a way that’s not consistent with their law enforcement training.”

Tillis argued that Graham’s approach to pushing for amendment votes that are unlikely to succeed wouldn’t have any tangible, real-world impacts. 

“One senator has a lot of power. And if you use it judiciously, you can be productive and make a difference,” Tillis said. “But if you use it in the heat of the moment, you can make a point that not a damn person is going to remember a month later.”

Some departments, judiciary affected

The departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State, Transportation and Treasury will all experience the funding lapse. The Executive Office of the President, Supreme Court and judicial branch will also be affected. 

All other federal programs will continue uninterrupted, since their spending bills have become law, including those at the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Justice and Veterans Affairs, as well as military construction projects and funding for Congress. 

A spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts wrote in a statement earlier this week that “operations would continue using court fees and other available balances through Wednesday, February 4. 

“The following day, on February 5, the Judiciary would begin operating under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act. Federal courts would continue operating, but would be limited to activities needed to support the exercise of the Judiciary’s constitutional functions and to address emergency circumstances.”

House Democrats demand changes in DHS bill

A spokesperson for the White House budget office said the departments and agencies affected by the funding lapse can use their contingency plans from the last shutdown unless they had “big changes.”

Those documents detail how many employees continue working without pay during a shutdown and how many are furloughed. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats wouldn’t support the spending bill unless major reforms are made in the way immigration officers conduct enforcement.

“We’re going to have to evaluate what the real opportunity is to get dramatic changes at the Department of Homeland Security. It has to be bold,” he said during a morning press conference. “The Senate has to do its thing before we have anything to evaluate.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 28, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate could vote as soon as Thursday night to approve a government funding package after Democrats brokered a deal with the White House to strip out the full-year spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. 

That bill will be replaced by a two-week stopgap for programs run out of DHS, which includes the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency — at a time when the agency is responding to a major winter storm — and the Secret Service. 

The change is intended to give Republicans and Democrats more time to reach agreement on restrictions to federal immigration enforcement after the deadly shooting of a second U.S. citizen by immigration agents in Minneapolis on Saturday.

President Donald Trump wrote in a social media post that he wanted lawmakers to send him the reworked package in time to avoid a partial government shutdown, which would likely begin this weekend after a stopgap spending law expires. 

“I am working hard with Congress to ensure that we are able to fully fund the Government, without delay,” Trump wrote. “Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together to get the vast majority of the Government funded until September, while at the same time providing an extension to the Department of Homeland Security (including the very important Coast Guard, which we are expanding and rebuilding like never before). Hopefully, both Republicans and Democrats will give a very much needed Bipartisan ‘YES’ Vote.”

The package, once through the Senate, will need to go back to the House for final approval, though GOP leaders in that chamber haven’t announced if they will bring lawmakers back before Monday, when members are scheduled to return to Capitol Hill from a weeklong break. 

Once the House clears the package, it will head to Trump for his signature.

Senators did not change or remove the Defense, Financial Services and General Government, Labor-HHS-Education, National Security-State and Transportation-HUD appropriations bills from the package.

Congress previously approved half of the dozen annual spending bills, so once this package becomes law, the Department of Homeland Security will be the only division of the federal government without its full-year funding bill.

List of Democratic demands

Democrats and Republicans reached consensus on some changes to the Homeland Security appropriations bill after the Jan. 7 shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, including funding for body cameras and additional oversight of detention facilities. 

The House approved that bill last week and sent it to the Senate as part of the larger package.  

But Border Patrol agents’ shooting and killing of Alex Pretti led Democrats to call for the DHS spending bill to be pulled to give lawmakers time to negotiate additional guardrails on federal immigration actions. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., outlined a list of proposed changes Tuesday that included: 

• The end of roving patrols;
• Tightening the rules governing the use of warrants;
• Requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement to coordinate with state and local law enforcement;
• Implementing a uniform code of conduct that holds federal law enforcement to the same set of standards that apply to state and local agencies;
• Barring the wearing of masks;
• Requiring the use of body cameras; and
• Mandating immigration agents carry proper identification. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Thursday morning that “there’s a path to consider some of” the changes to federal immigration during bipartisan negotiations.

But he expressed doubt later in the day that a two-week stopgap bill for DHS would give lawmakers enough time to find agreement on changes to immigration enforcement, saying there’s “no way you could do it that fast.”

“At some point we want to fund the government,” Thune said. “Obviously the two-week (continuing resolution) probably means there’s going to be another two-week CR and maybe another two-week CR after that. I don’t know why they’re doing it that way.”

Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Katie Britt, R-Ala., also expressed doubt a two-week stopgap would provide enough time for negotiators to broker a bipartisan deal and hold votes in each chamber. 

“I think, obviously, four weeks would be much better when you’re looking at what’s in front of us,” she said. 

Britt said she’d decide on any counter-proposals to Democrats after the government was funded. 

“We’re going to land this plane and then we’re going to figure it out,” she said. 

Homan comments please Tillis

In response to immigration agents killing Pretti, the president directed his border czar, Tom Homan, to head to Minneapolis. 

Homan said during a morning press conference that immigration enforcement would only end if state officials cooperate and aid the federal government in the Trump administration’s immigration campaign. States and localities are not required to enforce immigration law, as it’s a federal responsibility. 

Homan did not specify how long he would remain in Minnesota, only “until the problem’s gone.”

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said in the afternoon that he had messaged Trump to express his appreciation for sending Homan to Minneapolis, saying it led to a “sea change.”

“I texted the president and said, ‘great job,’” Tillis said. “You know, I can’t imagine we would be in this place if he’d been there to begin with.”

Tillis said he thought Homan’s press conference had been “perfect.”

“He said at least twice he wasn’t there for a photo op and he was there to de-escalate,” Tillis said. “That’s what happens when you put a professional law enforcement officer in the role versus people who have no experience in it.”

A masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent knocks on a car window in Minnesota on Jan. 12, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday detailed the “common sense” changes they want to implement for federal immigration enforcement, saying reforms must be added to a funding package that needs to become law before the weekend to avoid a partial government shutdown. 

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said after a closed-door lunch that lawmakers in the conference are united on several policy restrictions.

They include:

• The end of roving patrols;
• Tightening the rules governing the use of warrants;
• Requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement to coordinate with state and local law enforcement;
• Implementing a uniform code of conduct that holds federal law enforcement to the same set of standards that apply to state and local agencies;
• Barring the wearing of masks;
• Requiring the use of body cameras;
• Mandating immigration agents carry proper identification. 

“These are common-sense reforms, ones that Americans know and expect from law enforcement,” Schumer said. “If Republicans refuse to support them, they are choosing chaos over order, plain and simple. They are choosing to protect ICE from accountability over American lives.”

Schumer said Democrats want to negotiate with Republicans, but called on Senate GOP leaders to separate out the funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security from a package that includes five other full-year appropriations bills. 

The bills must become law before a Friday midnight deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown. 

Schumer said he expects senators could “very quickly negotiate a bipartisan proposal” on restrictions to federal immigration activities.

Thune, White House weigh in

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said shortly before Schumer spoke that he isn’t ruling out any options for funding the government.

“These are all hypotheticals at this point, and I will reserve optionality to consider that,” Thune said. “But I think the best path forward, as I’ve said, is to keep the package intact. And if there are things that the Democrats want that the administration can agree with them about, then let’s do that.”

Thune expressed concern that any changes to the six-bill government spending package, which includes funding for the Department of Defense, would require it to go back to the House for final approval before it could become law. 

The House is out this week and isn’t scheduled to return to Capitol Hill until 

Monday, possibly causing a brief funding lapse if Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., doesn’t call that chamber back early. 

A White House official said in a statement to States Newsroom the administration wants to avoid a shutdown and is committed to a “productive dialogue with the Congress.”

“A demand for agreement on legislative reforms as a condition of funding the Department of Homeland Security with a government funding deadline just 48 hours away is a demand for a partial government shutdown,” according to a White House official. “This bipartisan appropriations package, which the Democrats agreed to and have now walked away from, has been under negotiation for more than a month. The White House urges congressional Democrats not to subject the country to another debilitating government shutdown.”

Schumer said during his press conference the White House “has had no specific, good, concrete ideas.”

Alex Pretti killing

Congress has approved half of a dozen full-year government funding bills, but hasn’t yet cleared the remaining measures, which make up a huge swath of government spending. 

A partial government shutdown would affect the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State, Transportation and Treasury. The Executive Office of the President, Supreme Court and judicial branch would also go without funding. 

Democrats’ insistence for additional guardrails on how federal immigration officers operate follows the death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti, the second person in Minneapolis shot and killed by federal immigration agents.

ICE would still be able to operate during a shutdown, due to an influx of funding from the massive tax and spending cuts package Republicans passed and President Donald Trump signed into law last summer.

The “One Big Beautiful Act” provided the Department of Homeland Security with $170 billion for immigration enforcement spread across four years, with $75 billion of that going directly to ICE. 

The Homeland Security appropriations bill at the center of the current dispute in Congress keeps ICE flat funded at $10 billion for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 and will end on Sept. 30.

In the wake of the Jan. 7 shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross, Democrats and Republicans agreed to some changes for the department that are provided for in the bill. That includes $20 million for body cameras for ICE and other federal immigration officers, $20 million for independent oversight of detention facilities and a $1 billion cut to Customs and Border Protection funding, which totals $18.3 billion.  

Border Patrol agents’ shooting of Pretti on Jan. 24 spurred Democrats to call for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign and demand additional reforms at DHS. 

No masks, body cameras required

Maine independent Sen. Angus King said Wednesday while the funding bill up for debate allocates money for optional body cameras, he wants to require immigration agents to wear them and to identify themselves. 

“I think one of the things that should be in it is no masks,” King said. “There’s not a law enforcement agency in the United States that wears masks. I’ve never encountered that before in my life.”

King added he wants to see increased “accountability” for federal immigration officers, including “independent investigations of injuries to either detainees or private citizens.”

The top Democrat on the panel that deals with Homeland Security funding, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, said the proposed changes are a start.

“I’ve got a much longer list of reforms that I would like, but we’re operating in a world of possibility, and I think that these reforms are things that we could get done in the next couple days, or the next week,” he said. 

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she’s okay splitting off the Homeland Security spending bill from the rest of the package. 

Murkowski also said she believes Trump should replace Noem.

“Ultimately it’s his call as to who he keeps in this position, whether it’s Secretary Noem or someone else. I understand that. And he’ll decide,” she said. “I just think that he deserves better.”

Two ‘losers,’ Trump says

North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis also called for Noem’s resignation, and for White House senior advisor Stephen Miller to be removed. Miller is the main architect of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, and played a pivotal role in the president’s first administration.

On Tuesday during an interview with ABC News, Trump called Tillis and Murkowski “both losers” for calling for Noem’s resignation and criticizing her handling of immigration operations in Minnesota. The president has stood by Noem.

“I’m kind of excited about being called a loser,” Tillis said. “Apparently, that qualifies me for DHS secretary and senior advisor to the president.”

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds didn’t entirely rule out supporting a five-bill funding package if GOP leaders agree to remove the DHS appropriations bill. 

“I won’t get ahead of the president on it … but even if you do that, the House still has to approve that,” Rounds said. “The question is, logistically, can they get back in time to do it by Friday night?”

Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, ranking member on the House Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, wrote in a social media post that while the current bill isn’t perfect, it “is better than those alternatives.”

“But the worst thing Congress could do is allow a powerful department to operate with a blank check under a continuing resolution or shut the government down entirely.”

Hundreds gather around a growing memorial site at 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue South in Minneapolis, where federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026 earlier in the day. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is facing mounting criticism, including from some congressional Republicans and moderate Democrats, for her response to a second killing by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis.

President Donald Trump reiterated his confidence in Noem Tuesday, but several Republican senators, a group that overwhelmingly voted last year for Noem to lead the Department of Homeland Security, are pushing for an independent investigation into the Saturday killing of 37-year-old Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents and calling for her to testify before Congress.

And Democrats who are generally not among their party’s most aggressive members in opposing the Trump administration have joined a call to impeach Noem and restrict her department’s funding.

Trump told reporters, though, that the former South Dakota governor had done a good job, especially on controlling border crossings.

“No,” he said, when asked if she would step down, according to White House pool reports. 

He made a similar statement to Fox News’ Will Cain during an afternoon appearance in Iowa. 

“She was there with the border,” he told Cain. “Who closed up the border? She did.” 

GOP calls for investigation

The calls for an independent investigation signaled something of a loss of confidence in Noem from some Republicans in the wake of missteps following Pretti’s killing. No Republican senators voted against her confirmation last year.

Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, criticized Noem Tuesday for not placing the agents involved in shooting Pretti on administrative leave.

“That should happen immediately,” Paul wrote on social media Tuesday, adding that “for calm to be restored” an independent investigation needs to happen.

Within hours of Saturday’s shooting Noem labeled Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse, as a “domestic terrorist” who intended “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement.”

Noem used similar terminology after federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good on Jan. 7. 

Both Good and Pretti’s shootings were widely caught on camera, contradicting claims by Noem that both posed a threat.

Multiple videos show that Good was driving away when Ross fired three shots into her windshield. 

Video analysis by the New York Times shows Pretti wrestled to the ground by multiple agents and, while pinned down, two officers fired 10 shots. The analysis also showed that an officer took away a handgun from Pretti, which he had a permit for, while he was pinned down.

The contradictions hurt Noem’s standing with some Republicans.

“I can’t recall ever hearing a police chief immediately describing the victim as a “domestic terrorist” or a “would-be assassin,’” Paul said, taking aim at Noem as well as White House senior advisor Stephen Miller, who called Pretti a “would-be assassin.”

Hearings

Noem also said that because Pretti had a handgun, he inherently posed a danger to DHS agents, a claim that has divided Republicans.

Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho took issue with Noem’s criticism of Pretti’s possession of a gun. 

“His family, law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment right and the trust of the American people deserve a fair process,” he said on social media Monday.

Sen. John Curtis, Republican of Utah, criticized Noem for her handling of Saturday’s shooting.

“Officials who rush to judgment before all the facts are known undermine public trust and the law-enforcement mission,” he wrote on social media Monday. “I disagree with Secretary Noem’s premature DHS response, which came before all the facts were known and weakened confidence.”

He also called for an independent investigation. 

Paul on Monday called for several leaders of agencies within Homeland Security to testify before his committee – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Those same agency leaders are scheduled to appear before the House Committee on Homeland Security on Feb. 10.

Dems ramp up impeachment talk

Democrats are calling for Noem’s removal, along with pushing for changes to the Homeland Security funding bill, increasing the chances of a partial government shutdown at midnight Friday. 

In the House, 162 Democrats had co-sponsored articles of impeachment against Noem by Tuesday afternoon, a number that climbed throughout the day. The articles were first introduced shortly after Good’s death.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other House Democratic leaders issued a joint statement Monday calling for Noem to be fired. If she’s not, Democrats would move forward with impeachment, the leaders said. The effort is unlikely to move in the House-controlled GOP.

“Dramatic changes at the Department of Homeland Security are needed,” Jeffries said. “Federal agents who have broken the law must be criminally prosecuted. The paramilitary tactics must cease and desist.”

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called for Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio to begin impeachment proceedings into Noem, noting that masked agents of her department “brutally killed two American citizens.” 

“Far from condemning these unlawful and savage killings in cold blood, Secretary Noem immediately labeled Renée and Alex ‘domestic terrorists,’ blatantly lied about the circumstances of the shootings that took their lives, and attempted to cover-up and blockade any legitimate investigation into their deaths,” Raskin said.

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, a moderate Democrat who voted to confirm Noem, made a direct appeal to Trump to fire her.

“Americans have died,” Fetterman said in a statement. “She is betraying DHS’s core mission and trashing your border security legacy.”

Nevada Sen. Jacky Rosen, another moderate Democrat, also called for Noem to be impeached.

Trump pivots

Facing mounting pressure, Trump has softened his tone with state and local officials and walked back his administration’s aggressive immigration operations in Minnesota that Noem has overseen.  

Trump directed border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota to take over ICE operations, effectively sidelining Noem, who in December deployed 3,000 federal immigration officers to the state after right-wing media influencers resurfaced reports of fraud in the state’s social service programs. 

By Monday evening, top Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino was removed from his position as at-large commander and sent back to California, according to multiple media reports. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the decision to send Homan to Minnesota, arguing that Noem is occupied with managing FEMA operations as a winter storm covers much of the country. 

Funding bill

In the wake of Saturday’s shooting, Senate Democrats quickly opposed the Homeland Security spending bill the chamber was set to pass this week. 

Instead, Democrats argued the measure must be stripped from the government funding package of six bills and renegotiated to include more constraints on federal immigration enforcement.

The funding package passed the House this month, but a majority of Democrats opposed any funding for ICE, which would maintain a flat funding level of $10 billion. 

Even if there is a partial government shutdown, DHS still has up to $190 billion it can spend from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the president’s signature tax and spending cuts package signed into law last summer.   

U.S. Border Czar Tom Homan speaks at the Tampa Convention Center on July 12, 2025. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix)

WASHINGTON — U.S. border czar Tom Homan is expected in Minneapolis by Monday evening, President Donald Trump said, amid increasing criticism of the administration’s immigration enforcement methods following the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by immigration officers in Minneapolis already this year.

The move was part of an apparent toning down of the administration’s rhetoric against the city as a growing number of members of Congress from both parties raised concerns about the Saturday shooting death of 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti by federal immigration agents.

Trump reported a notably civil call with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat with whom the president has often clashed, around midday Monday.

“It was a very good call, and we, actually, seemed to be on a similar wavelength,” Trump said of the conversation. “The Governor, very respectfully, understood that, and I will be speaking to him in the near future. He was happy that Tom Homan was going to Minnesota, and so am I!”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during an afternoon briefing that Gregory Bovino, the U.S. Border Patrol commander-at-large, would “continue to lead” immigration agents across the country, but did not address whether he would be active in Minneapolis once Homan arrived. 

CNN reported Monday afternoon  Bovino and some of his agents were set to depart the city. 

The Atlantic reported late Monday that Bovino would be removed from his position of commander-at-large and return to his former job as chief of Border Patrol’s El Centro, California, sector ahead of an imminent retirement. The New York Times also reported Bovino was being reassigned.

Homan “has not been involved in that area, but knows and likes many of the people there,” Trump wrote on social media. “Tom is tough but fair, and will report directly to me.”

Leavitt repeated throughout a 20-minute White House press briefing the administration’s position that Democratic state and local officials were responsible for the situation in Minneapolis, but declined to endorse the harshest descriptions of Pretti that administration leaders, including top White House aide Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, have used.

Border czar

Early in his second administration, Trump tasked Homan with carrying out the president’s mass deportation campaign, which has faced significant pushback in Minneapolis.

Homan, who is expected to be in Minnesota by the evening, is the former ICE head of removal operations during the Obama administration and served as acting ICE director during the first Trump administration. 

Leavitt said Monday that Homan will be “the point person for cooperating with state and local authorities in corresponding with them, again, to achieve this level of cooperation to subdue the chaos on the streets of Minneapolis.”

Homan’s arrival comes while thousands of Minnesotans mourn and protest Saturday’s killing of Pretti, an intensive care nurse who appeared to be acting as a legal observer when Border Patrol agents tackled him to the ground, pinned him and shot him multiple times.

His was the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by immigration officers in Minneapolis this year. Federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, a mother and poet, Jan. 7. 

Multiple videos captured the killings of both Good and Pretti, further sparking outcry from the community. 

Investigation underway

Leavitt said an investigation into Pretti’s killing is underway with the FBI, Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations. Noem, who oversees HSI and CBP, labeled Pretti “a domestic terrorist,” the same term she applied to Good.

“The administration is reviewing everything with respect to the shooting, and we will let that investigation play out,” Leavitt said. 

Bovino said on CNN Sunday that the agents involved in the shooting of Pretti, are still on duty and while they will be taken off the streets of Minneapolis, they will still be allowed to conduct immigration enforcement.

The top Democrat on the House Committee on Homeland Security, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said in a statement Monday that those officers still being on duty is contrary to CBP’s use-of-force policy, which requires three days of paid leave after an agent uses deadly force either on duty or off.

“It defies commonsense – and is completely inexcusable – that the agent who killed Alex Pretti Saturday is already back in the field terrorizing our communities and believing – as Greg Bovino has so wrongly asserted – that he is the victim,” he said. “At a minimum, the agent should be on Administrative Leave.”

Congressional response

Saturday’s killing could have far-reaching consequences on Capitol Hill.

Several congressional Democrats over the weekend coalesced to oppose any funding for the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement, increasing the chances of a partial government shutdown at the end of the week. 

The shooting also appeared to prompt a handful of congressional Republicans to adjust their position on Trump’s year-long immigration crackdown. 

The chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland and Governmental Affairs, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, called Monday for the heads of ICE, CBP and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to testify for a hearing by Feb. 12.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, a New York Republican, also called on the same officials to testify in front of his committee. 

Sen. John Curtis of Utah was the latest of a handful of Senate Republicans calling for a thorough investigation into the killing and for “those responsible—no matter their title—” to be held accountable.

“I disagree with Secretary Noem’s premature DHS response, which came before all the facts were known and weakened confidence,” he wrote on social media. “I will be working with a bipartisan group of senators to demand real oversight and transparency, including supporting calls from @RandPaul for leaders of these operations to testify, so trust can be restored and justice served.”

White House’s terms for Minnesota

For nearly two months, 3,000 federal immigration officers have descended on Minneapolis, dwarfing the city’s police force of roughly 600. The Trump administration deployed the officers for immigration enforcement after right-wing media influencers resurfaced instances of fraud in Minnesota’s social service programs. 

Leavitt said Monday the Trump administration would only end immigration operations if state and local leaders instructed police to cooperate closely with federal immigration officers.

Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and states and localities are not required to assist.

Some localities and states have agreements that local police will notify federal immigration officers if a person they arrest is an immigrant without legal authorization. 

But some jurisdictions don’t participate because the practice can divert resources or can open law enforcement up to lawsuits for unlawfully detaining an individual for an immigration violation, unless there is a judicial warrant. 

Attorneys representing the state of Minnesota and city of Minneapolis argued to Judge Kate M. Menendez on Monday that the Trump administration was trying to bend the state to the federal government’s will, a violation of the Constitution’s 10th amendment. 

The suit, in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, is attempting to block the ICE surge in the state. 

Trump, in his Monday social media post, blamed the massive protests in Minnesota on “Welfare Fraud that has taken place in Minnesota, and is at least partially responsible for the violent organized protests going on in the streets.” 

Smoke is seen over buildings after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard on Jan. 3, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House failed Thursday to back a resolution curbing President Donald Trump’s military operations abroad, following U.S. intervention to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Thursday’s resolution tied at 215-215. If passed, it would have directed “the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force.”

Republicans Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Don Bacon of Nebraska voted in favor, along with all Democrats present. The vote was held open for about an hour to allow Texas Republican Wesley Hunt to arrive and cast a vote against the resolution.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, earlier this month were taken by the U.S. military to face an indictment in New York City on narco-terrorism and conspiracy charges originally levied in 2020. The couple has pleaded not guilty. 

The Jan. 3 military operation in Venezuela was conducted without approval of or notification to Congress.

Prior to the military operation in Venezuela, the Trump administration had conducted a monthslong bombing campaign of small boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The U.S. strikes have killed more than 115 people whom Trump officials have alleged, without proof, were smuggling drugs to the U.S.

Both chambers have now tried to curb Trump’s military actions in Latin America through a war powers resolution, but have not been able to gain enough votes. 

The Senate earlier this month was initially successful in a procedural vote on a war powers resolution, but the measure eventually failed after two Republicans who had backed the measure voted against it.

Congress passed a war powers resolution in 1973 to limit the president’s authority to wage war overseas after the Nixon administration secretly bombed Vietnam and Cambodia, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Then-President Richard Nixon vetoed the resolution, but Congress overrode the veto. 

Federal agents block in and stop a woman to ask her for another person’s whereabouts Monday, Jan. 19, 2026 in south Minneapolis. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — The House Thursday passed four appropriations bills to fund the government and avert a partial shutdown, but Democrats largely objected to spending on the Department of Homeland Security amid aggressive immigration enforcement in communities across the country. 

Democrats have pushed for tougher oversight of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In addition, members of the progressive wing of the caucus vowed to not approve any funding for DHS after federal immigration agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis earlier this month. 

The 37-year-old mother’s death led to massive community protests and  thousands of ICE agents have aggressively descended into Minnesota.

“(Homeland Security Secretary) Kristi Noem and ICE are out of control,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. “Taxpayer dollars are being misused to brutalize U.S. citizens, including the tragic killing of Renee Nicole Good. This extremism must end.” 

The four bills — Defense; Homeland Security; Labor, Health and Human Services and Education; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development — are the last remaining appropriations bills needed to avoid a partial government shutdown by Jan. 30. 

The Homeland Security funding bill passed 220-207. The remaining bills passed 341-88.

Democrats who joined Republicans in voting for the Homeland Security bill included Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state, Tom Suozzi of New York, Don Davis of North Carolina, Laura Gillen of New York and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted against the DHS funding bill.

Separately, GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx, chairwoman of the Rules Committee, added a provision to repeal a law that allows members of the U.S. Senate to sue for up to half a million dollars if their phone records were obtained by special counsel Jack Smith during his investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. In a rare move, the provision passed unanimously. 

Smith was also on Capitol Hill Thursday to testify about his investigation before lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

The Senate will take up the appropriations bills when senators return from recess next week.

What does the Homeland Security bill include?

The Homeland Security bill provides $64.4 billion in funding for fiscal year 2026. It cuts funding for Customs and Border Protection by $1.3 billion, and maintains flat funding for ICE at $10 billion.

The bill attempts to put guardrails around immigration enforcement by allocating $20 million for body cameras for ICE and CBP officers. 

It also requires DHS to provide monthly updates on how the agency is spending the $190 billion it received from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the president’s signature tax and spending cuts package signed into law last summer.  

The bill also restricts ICE to spending only $3.8 billion of its fiscal budget on detention. However, the agency will still be able to pull $75 billion from OBBBA, including for detention.

Most Dems say they can’t back any ICE funding

During Thursday’s debate of the bill, Republicans supported the Homeland Security bill, and argued that it contains other agencies beside immigration enforcement. 

But a majority of Democrats said they could not vote to approve the agency’s funding because of ICE’s actions.

“I think we should look at the bill in its totality,” GOP Appropriations Chair Tom Cole of Oklahoma said. “Encouraging people to believe we have massive bad actors in a particular agency… comparing law enforcement officers to the Gestapo or Nazis, that’s not true. The right thing to do is to fund the people who protect America.”

Foxx criticized Democrats for their concerns over ICE enforcement tactics. On the House floor, she defended the agency, arguing that “ICE agents are arresting some of the worst criminals imaginable.”

“The issue is that ICE is terrorizing communities and attacking people, including U.S. citizens,” countered the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. “This is an out-of-control agency at war with communities across the country and they don’t give a damn that you are a U.S. citizen.”

The top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said he could not support voting for the bill because the Trump administration has weaponized the agency and “DHS has strayed from its core mission.”

“Republicans in control of Congress, however, are conducting zero oversight and do nothing but send blank check after blank check to DHS,” he said in a statement. “I have consistently supported the DHS workforce over the past two decades and continue to do so, but I cannot – in good conscience – vote to send another dime to CBP and ICE as they terrorize our communities and sully the constitution.”

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said she will vote against the bill, even though she is proud of several provisions, such as the increase to Federal Emergency Management Agency funding and a pay raise for air traffic controllers. 

But, she said, “It is impossible to ignore the impact ICE has had.”

“ICE is an agency that has shown itself to be lawless,” she said.

Republicans tout body camera provision

GOP Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, the chair of the panel that deals with funding for Homeland Security, defended the funding bill, and noted that it provides immigration officers with body cameras. He said funds are also provided in the measure for the Coast Guard and agencies dealing with cybersecurity. 

Cuellar of Texas, the top Democrat on that same panel, acknowledged that “this bill is not perfect.” 

“It’s better than the alternative, leaving the department with a blank check,” he said. “This bill flat funds ICE but at the same time, we strengthen oversight of ICE.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum said the ICE enforcement in Minnesota and across the country is one of the “worst cases of civil rights violations by the federal government in recent history.”   

“Minnesotans are being racially profiled on a mass scale, assaulted on our streets, kidnapped from our communities,” she said. 

People travel through Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Nov. 7, 2025 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Megan Varner/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials placed an asylum seeker who is eight months pregnant on a deportation flight Wednesday afternoon, even though she was in medical distress, her attorneys told States Newsroom.

ICE officials and the Department of Homeland Security responded to States Newsroom’s requests for comment, but did not answer questions about the specific case. 

Zharick Daniela Buitrago Ortiz, a 21-year-old national of Colombia, has a pending asylum case, said one of her attorneys, Nora Ahmed, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. Buitrago Ortiz was also represented by the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center. 

As an asylum seeker, she was going through the credible fear process, a key step to establish an immigrant’s claim for asylum if they can show a fear of persecution or torture in their home country. Asylum seekers are typically allowed to live in the United States while their case proceeds.

Buitrago Ortiz is between 32 and 33 weeks pregnant and was deported from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Airport officials did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

Ahmed said flying late in pregnancy can have serious risks. 

Buitrago Ortiz earlier had been detained in a center in Louisiana. She was placed by ICE on a flight from there to Atlanta prior to her removal to Colombia, her attorneys said.

As she waited for the flight to Colombia, Buitrago Ortiz experienced intense, shooting pain in her back and abdomen, according to her attorneys. They said they were also concerned about the risk to her health and that of her unborn child if she was placed on the flight, which is roughly five hours nonstop. 

ICE generally has a policy to not detain immigrants who are pregnant unless there are exceptional circumstances. Democrats in Congress have raised concerns about reports of ICE detainment of pregnant immigrants, and urged ICE acting Director Todd Lyons to order the release of any immigrants who were pregnant from ICE detention facilities. 

Travel during pregnancy can be risky past 28 weeks and can increase the chances of going into labor, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Ahmed said as recently as Jan. 18, there had been no indication that Buitrago Ortiz would be removed from the United States. 

Ahmed said Buitrago Ortiz came to the U.S. with her family. Her mother received a favorable credible fear interview, meaning an immigration official believed there was a possibility of harm if she returned to her home country. 

The family arrived in El Paso, Texas, in early November, according to Buitrago Ortiz’s mother, who asked not to be named for fear of harming her own asylum case.

Additionally, Ahmed said the father of Buitrago Ortiz’s child was murdered earlier this month in Colombia. 

“It’s important that we understand that there is a woman in medical distress,” Ahmed said. “The clock is ticking.” 

Minnesota Democratic U.S. Reps. Kelly Morrison, Ilhan Omar and Rep. Angie Craig arrive outside the regional Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis on Jan. 10, 2026. The lawmakers were denied entry to  the facility where the Department of Homeland Security has been headquartering operations in the state. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A Department of Homeland Security policy that barred unannounced visits for lawmakers seeking to conduct oversight at facilities that hold immigrants will remain in place, as ordered by a federal judge Monday.

District of Columbia federal Judge Jia Cobb issued an order that denied a request from a dozen Democratic lawmakers, on the technical grounds that an amended complaint or a supplemental brief must be made to challenge a seven-day notice policy instituted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem this month for oversight visits.

“The Court emphasizes that it denies Plaintiffs’ motion only because it is not the proper avenue to challenge Defendants’ January 8, 2026 memorandum and the policy stated therein, rather than based on any kind of finding that the policy is lawful,” according to Cobb’s order.

Earlier this month, Democrats brought an emergency request to Cobb after a handful of Minnesota lawmakers were denied an unannounced oversight visit to a federal facility that holds immigrants following the deadly shooting of a woman in Minneapolis by a federal immigration officer.

Under a 2019 appropriations law, any member of Congress can carry out an unannounced visit at a federal facility that holds immigrants, but in June, multiple Democrats were denied visits to Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. 

Those 12 Democrats sued over the policy that required a week’s notice, and in December, Cobb granted the request to stay Noem’s policy, finding it violated the 2019 law. 

Noem has now argued that the January incident does not violate Cobb’s stay from December, because the ICE facilities are using funds through the Republican spending and tax cuts law, known as the “One, Big Beautiful Bill,” and not the DHS appropriations bill. Noem argued that those facilities are therefore exempt from unannounced oversight visits by members of Congress. 

House Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to a crowd of people who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the ICE building in Baltimore on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

WASHINGTON — The first year of President Donald Trump’s return to the White House was defined by clashes with the judiciary branch, as the president and his administration pushed forward with an aggressive immigration agenda.

In the past year, the Trump administration has aimed to drastically change immigration policy in the United States, including by stripping millions of immigrants of their legal status and attempting to redefine the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.  

The moves have often run directly against the judiciary branch. 

Federal judges briefly stalled the Trump administration’s plans to deploy the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, for immigration enforcement. They also blocked the invocation of an archaic wartime law to expel immigrants from the country — a move that raised concerns, all the way up to the Supreme Court, about skirting the due process rights of immigrants.

In response, the president for the last year frequently battled with federal judges, such as in June, when the Justice Department sued all judges in federal court in Maryland over a two-day pause in deportations to ensure due process rights for immigrants.

Trump also fixated on certain judges that put his policies on hold, such as the District of Columbia’s Chief Judge James Emanuel Boasberg.

Boasberg blocked the Trump administration from deporting certain immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and ordered the return of deportation flights that, despite his restraining order, still landed at a brutal prison in El Salvador. 

Trump’s singling out of Boasberg in late March, and calling for his impeachment, prompted a rare rebuke from conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

But the Supreme Court has often handed wins to the Trump administration on numerous emergency appeals. The high court allowed for deportations of immigrants to countries they have no ties to, referred to as third-country removals, and allowed the use of race in immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. 

The president has found himself at odds with a range of groups in response to his harsh immigration policy.

A group of Quakers sued the Department of Homeland Security after officials removed a so-called sensitive locations policy that limited immigration enforcement in places of worship. 

The Trump administration also faced backlash in its attempt to quickly deport Guatemalan children in the middle of the night, where a Trump nominated judge said the Department of Justice’s arguments for the move “crumbled like a house of cards.”

Out of the dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration, here are the five most significant court cases related to the president’s immigration policies:

Alien Enemies Act

Last March, two deportation planes carrying immigrants removed under an 18th-century wartime law were ordered to return to the U.S. by Boasberg, chief judge for the District Court for the District of Columbia. 

But the planes still landed in El Salvador, and 137 Venezuelan men were sent to a brutal prison known as CECOT after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The wartime law would apply to any Venezuelan national 14 and older who was suspected of being a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. 

Boasberg then spent months probing whether Trump officials defied his order to turn the planes around. Last month, he concluded that the deportations were illegal and carried out in defiance of his order.

The 137 Venezuelan men were eventually released from CECOT last summer through a prisoner exchange. Boasberg determined that even though the men are no longer imprisoned, they still need to be afforded their due process rights and he ordered the Trump administration to propose a way to afford those due process rights. 

In the latest major development, last month he directed the administration to create a plan on how to do that, such as providing some form of video interview before an immigration judge. 

The Trump administration has argued because of the U.S. military operations to extract Venezuela’s president from the county, the situation is fluid, and they cannot provide a timeline for complying with Boasberg’s order from last month. 

The Justice Department’s most recent filing, from Jan. 12, objects to the court’s order to facilitate remote due process hearings, and “given the current political instability in Venezuela, there is a serious risk of intentional interference with remote proceedings.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also submitted a Jan. 12 declaration to the court, saying that “introducing the matter of the disposition of the 137 class members into these discussions at this time would risk material damage to U.S. foreign policy interests in Venezuela.” 

He added that the U.S. does not know where the 137 Venezuelan men are. 

“Given the passage of time, the U.S. government does not know—nor does it have any way of knowing—the whereabouts of class members, including whether anyone has departed Venezuela or whether the regime subsequently took anyone back into custody,” Rubio said. 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

The wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and longtime Maryland man, cast a national spotlight on the president’s aggressive immigration crackdown. 

Abrego Garcia’s case has highlighted the Trump administration’s appetite for mass deportations. The case started last March in the District Court of the District of Maryland, after Trump officials mistakenly removed Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, despite removal protections placed by an immigration judge in 2019 because it was likely Abrego Garcia would face violence if returned to his home country. 

But in March, Abrego Garcia was placed on a plane, along with Venezuelans removed under the Alien Enemies Act, to the brutal El Salvador mega-prison known as CECOT.

Federal Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return, but the Trump administration took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that it could not force another government to comply with the U.S.

The Supreme Court sided with Abrego Garcia, but stopped short of ordering his return.   

Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. several months later to face a criminal indictment in Tennessee over allegations of human smuggling. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges, and another federal judge has found cause that the Justice Department brought the indictment in a vindictive move against Abrego Garcia.

Since his return, Abrego Garcia has detailed psychological and physical torture he experienced at CECOT. The Trump administration has also tried to remove him to a country to which he has no ties because of the 2019 removal protections.

Trump officials re-detained Abrego Garcia and have tried to remove him to the African nations of Eswatini, Ghana, Uganda and Liberia, despite Costa Rica’s willingness to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee and his willingness to go. 

For that reason, Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia’s release from an ICE facility in Pennsylvania and barred the Trump administration from re-detaining him. 

She is currently overseeing Abrego Garcia’s challenge to his detention on the grounds that the Trump administration is using his imprisonment as punishment rather than for the purpose of removal. 

A Jan. 14 hearing was the most recent development in Abrego Garcia’s case. 

There, Xinis briefly conferred with his lawyers and Department of Justice attorneys regarding the timing of a final order of removal for Abrego Garcia was issued — the question was whether it was in 2019 or January 2025. 

The timing of the order of removal could determine whether the Trump administration can re-detain Abrego Garcia for removal. Xinis in December ordered Abrego Garcia’s release, because she determined the Trump administration was unlawfully detaining him and said ICE failed repeatedly to show a final order of removal existed.

Xinis said she plans to make a final decision in Abrego Garcia’s case by Feb. 12.

Birthright Citizenship

One of Trump’s first executive orders he signed on Inauguration Day was ending the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. 

Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status. There is a small carve-out for the children born of diplomats. 

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship and it would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to a recent study by the think tank the Migration Policy Institute.

In response to Trump’s executive order, multiple lawsuits were filed and lower courts across the country have granted preliminary injunctions against the order. 

One of the challenges to birthright citizenship, brought by Democratic attorneys general, made its way to the Supreme Court, but the Trump administration asked the justices to weigh in on the issue of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship. 

The justices decided on an order that limited nationwide injunctions, such as class action suits. 

The merits of birthright citizenship are now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear oral arguments in February. 

That birthright citizenship case is Barbara v. Trump, which stems from a case in New Hampshire. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to bar the executive order from taking effect against a class of babies born on or after Feb. 20, 2025. Those children would have been denied citizenship under the president’s executive order.  

Lawmakers’ Access to ICE Facilities 

As the Trump administration continues with aggressive immigration enforcement and detention, one of the few tools Democrats have, as the minority party, is oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. 

More than 60,000 immigrants are detained across various ICE facilities in the country, and Democrats argue they need access to conduct oversight at the facilities. Under a 2019 appropriations law, any lawmaker can carry out an unannounced visit at a federal facility that holds immigrants. 

But after several Democrats were denied access to ICE facilities in July, due to a policy instituted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that required seven days notice, a dozen House Democrats sued. 

Last month, a federal judge granted the lawmakers’ request to stay the new policy by Noem. But after Minnesota lawmakers said they were denied an oversight visit to an ICE facility following a deadly shooting by an immigration officer in Minneapolis, Democrats were back in court Jan. 14.

Noem required a seven-day notice, nearly identical to the policy that initially prompted the suit from Democrats last year. 

The federal judge handling the case, Jia Cobb, is probing whether the Trump administration has violated her court order.

Democrats who sued include: Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Expanded Use of Expedited Removal 

A pillar of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign is the expanded use of expedited removal. The Trump policy allows the removal of immigrants through the interior of the country without an appearance before an immigration judge.

In March, immigration advocacy groups sued the Trump administration over the policy, arguing it stripped due process rights of immigrants. 

In August, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a stay in the policy, temporarily blocking the Trump administration from using it. The Department of Justice appealed, and in September a panel of appellate judges denied the Trump administration’s request to lift the lower courts’ stay. 

Most recently, in December, the Trump administration defended the merits of its fast-track deportation policy before a panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Department of Justice argued that immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years without legal authorization are not guaranteed due process.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Nashville press conference on July 18, 2025, to discuss arrests of immigrants during recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps. (Photo by John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

WASHINGTON — A panel of appellate judges Wednesday heard a challenge from civil rights groups to the Trump administration’s decision to revoke an extension, as well as end, temporary protections for nearly 1 million immigrants from Haiti and Venezuela. 

The challenge comes from the National TPS Alliance, which represents immigrants with Temporary Protected Status because their home country is deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, war, natural disasters or other instability. 

The hearing came two weeks after the U.S. military actions in Venezuela, where the country’s president and his wife were captured and brought to New York City to face an indictment. 

Despite the upheaval in the Venezuelan government from the U.S. operation, the Trump administration has continued to move forward with stripping TPS for more than 600,000 Venezuelans. 

Before Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem vacated extended protections put in place by the Biden administration, TPS for Venezuelans was set to expire in October. TPS for roughly 330,000 nationals from Haiti is set to expire Feb. 3, which the panel of judges acknowledged could make the issue of TPS for Haiti moot.

Ahilan T. Arulanantham, from the UCLA Center for Immigration Law, who is representing the National TPS Alliance, said there are members in all 50 states who are experiencing harm as a result of their TPS being terminated by the Trump administration.

He said some of those harms include “people separated from their infant children, families deported, people detained, lots of people detained.”

The panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Wednesday’s oral arguments are Kim McLane Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza, Jr. and Anthony D. Johnstone. 

Former President Bill Clinton nominated Wardlaw and former President Joe Biden nominated Mendoza and Johnstone.

DOJ says Supreme Court in agreement

Department of Justice attorney Sarah Welch said because the Supreme Court has twice granted the Trump administration’s request to move forward with TPS termination for Venezuelans, the high court must have determined the Trump administration was likely to prevail in court. 

A lower court in December found that Noem’s decision to vacate protections for Venezuelans and end their TPS destination was unlawful.  

Wardlaw questioned how the Supreme Court’s decision, which was made on an emergency basis and gave no reasoning, impacted the case before the panel.

Welch said the Supreme Court “must have concluded that we were likely to succeed on the merits of that claim, whether or not it provided reasoning published in an opinion.”

Arulanantham said the Supreme Court’s orders regarding TPS for Venezuelans are “not precedent because the Supreme Court does not treat them as precedent.” He added that in the past, the Supreme Court has reversed its initial rulings, especially those made on an emergency basis. 

He also pushed back against Welch’s argument that Noem had the statutory authority to vacate an extension granted under TPS for Venezuelans. 

“The statute says once you have made an extension, it lasts for the time prior that’s given in the Federal Register notice,” Arulanantham said, referring to the TPS statute.

He added that the authority to vacate a TPS extension that Noem claimed is “nowhere written in the statute.” 

Federal agents stage at a front gate as Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison and Angie Craig of Minnesota attempt to enter the regional ICE headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building on Jan. 10, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON —  U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb Wednesday probed whether the Trump administration has violated her court order, after Minnesota lawmakers said they were denied an oversight visit to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility following a deadly shooting by an immigration officer in Minneapolis. 

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison of Minnesota said they were denied entry to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis last weekend. 

An attorney representing the lawmakers, Christine L. Coogle, asked Cobb to make it clear to the Trump administration that her stay order is in place. 

Last month, Cobb issued a temporary block on a policy by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that required seven days notice for lawmakers to conduct oversight visits at ICE facilities.

Cobb found Noem violated a 2019 appropriations law, referred to as Section 527, that allows for unannounced oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants. 

“If the government is using 527 funds to exclude members of Congress from (ICE) facilities, that does run afoul of my order,” Cobb said during Wednesday’s hearing.

Dems eye DHS funding 

As the Trump administration has carried out an aggressive immigration campaign, and with Democrats the minority party in both chambers of Congress, unannounced oversight visits to ICE facilities are one of the few tools Democrats can use. The other way they could try to counter the enforcement push is through appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security.

For example, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is made up of nearly 100 Democrats, vowed on Tuesday to vote against any DHS appropriations bill unless major changes are made at ICE regarding immigration enforcement.

Separately, Democrats on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Noem. One count is connected to the denial of oversight visits. 

New Noem policy after Renee Good killing

One day after federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross killed 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis, Noem issued a new memo for members of Congress who want to conduct oversight visits at ICE facilities. 

She required a seven-day notice, nearly identical to the policy that initially prompted the suit from Democrats last year.

Noem argued in her new policy that because those federal ICE facilities are using funds through the spending and tax cuts package, and not the DHS appropriations bill, they are therefore exempt from unannounced oversight visits by members of Congress. 

In an emergency request, Democrats argued the funds DHS is using apply under Section 527, and DHS is violating Cobb’s stay.

Cobb said on Wednesday she could not make a determination if her order was violated until she can get a clear answer from the Trump administration as to the source of the funds. She directed Department of Justice lawyers to determine what it is.

Funding stream question

In court filings, DOJ argued the facilities are funded through the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” passed and signed into law last year, and that DHS does not need to comply with Section 527.

The OBBBA, passed through a congressional process called reconciliation, is allowed to adjust federal spending even though it is not an appropriations law.

Coogle said until OBBAA, the only funding for ICE came from appropriations, and argued the two funding streams can’t be separated. She said the Trump administration is trying to “make a game here” with appropriations law.

“Appropriations are not a game. They are the law,” Coogle said.  

The House Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Exterior of the U.S. Department of State Harry S. Truman Building, in Washington, D.C., in May 2024. (Official State Department photo by Linda D. Epstein)

WASHINGTON — The State Department announced Wednesday it would suspend all visa processing for immigrants hailing from 75 countries because they are deemed likely to need governmental assistance in the United States, known as a “public charge.” 

The State Department did not answer States Newsroom’s inquiry as to when the policy would take effect or a list of the 75 countries in question. The State Department, in a social media post, listed several that would be affected, including Somalia, Haiti, Iran and Eritrea.

“The State Department will pause immigrant visa processing from 75 countries whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates,” the State Department wrote. “The freeze will remain active until the U.S. can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people.”

It will take effect Jan. 21 and other countries affected include Afghanistan and Russia, according to The Associated Press.

The Department of Homeland Security in November published a notice for proposed rulemaking that outlined major changes to how immigration officials assess whether certain immigrants are likely to become a public charge and if that constitutes grounds for inadmissibility, meaning a noncitizen would be ineligible for admission or adjustment of their immigration status.

During President Donald Trump’s first administration, he tried to broaden the definition of public charge to include any immigrant who had received certain public benefits for more than 12 months in a 36-month period. The move was tied up in the courts.

One of the earliest federal immigration laws is an 1882 law that barred the immigration of people to the U.S. if they were likely to become a public charge. The Clinton administration in 1999 formally defined public charge as those who were dependent on cash assistance, such as food assistance. 

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

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats Wednesday introduced three articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, after a deadly shooting of a woman in Minneapolis by a federal immigration officer.

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

The three articles of impeachment were introduced by Illinois Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly. Nearly 70 Democrats have co-signed, but as the minority party in both chambers, any support or movement for the articles will likely only occur if Democrats win the midterm elections and flip the House. 

“She needs to be held accountable for her actions,” Kelly said. “Renee Nicole Good is dead because Secretary Noem allowed her DHS agents to run amok.”

On Jan. 7, 37-year-old Renee Good was shot and killed by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis. Federal immigration officers have intensified immigration enforcement, leading to massive pushback from the community there and protests across the country. 

The articles from Kelly accuse Noem of obstructing Congress after lawmakers were denied oversight visits at DHS facilities that hold immigrants; violating public trust through due process violations of U.S. citizens’ and immigrants’ rights and aggressive warrantless arrests in immigration enforcement; and misusing $200 million in taxpayer funds by awarding a contract to a company run by the husband of DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, according to ProPublica.

A dozen members of Congress have sued Noem over those denied visits at ICE facilities to conduct oversight and were granted a stay to that policy by a federal judge. But Noem issued a new policy and last weekend several Minnesota lawmakers were blocked from visits to ICE facilities. 

A federal judge is currently probing to see if the new policy from Noem violates her court order from December. 

Kelly was joined by several Democrats, including Minnesota’s Angie Craig, who represents a swing district. 

“We are being terrorized by Homeland Security and ICE,” Craig said. “This has crossed a line. This rogue agency is violating the rights of American citizens in our communities, and last Wednesday … the escalation by ICE in our communities got Renee Good killed.”

Noem would not be the only Homeland Secretary to be impeached, should the House take that action. 

In 2024, Republicans impeached the Biden administration’s DHS secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, on the grounds that he lied to Congress that the southern border was secure and that he violated his duty when he rolled back several Trump-era immigration policies. 

The Senate, then controlled by Democrats, dismissed the articles of impeachment. 

Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, speaks at a press conference with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Jan. 13, 2026. At left is a photo of Renee Good, 37, who was killed by an immigration officer in Minneapolis.(Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced Tuesday they will oppose any federal funding for immigration enforcement following the deadly shooting of a woman by an immigration officer in Minneapolis. 

“Our caucus will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement in any appropriations bills until meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices,” Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who represents Minneapolis, said during a press conference.

Last week, federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross killed 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis, which has seen a drastic increase in immigration enforcement for weeks following allegations of fraud. After the shooting, massive protests against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement occurred in Minnesota and across the country.

The U.S. Senate is moving forward with the remaining appropriations bills for Congress to avoid a partial shutdown by a Jan. 30 deadline, and negotiations continue over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that  funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “one of the major issues that the appropriators are confronting right now.” 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said the appropriations bill for “Homeland is obviously the hardest one,” and that flat funding, or a continuing resolution, for the agency is the likely outcome.

Members of the Progressive Caucus are pushing for reforms including a ban on federal immigration officers wearing face coverings, the requirement of a warrant for an arrest and greater oversight of private detention facilities that hold immigrants. 

Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal said Congress also needs to pass legislation to roll back the billions allocated to the Department of Homeland Security last summer in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The massive GOP spending and tax cuts package provided a huge budget increase to DHS for immigration enforcement of roughly $175 billion. 

“We have to urgently pass legislation to roll back the excessive funding for immigration enforcement” in the spending and tax cuts package, Jayapal said. “We cannot support additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security without seriously meaningful and significant reforms to the way that federal authorities conduct activity in our cities, our communities and our neighborhoods.”

Progressives press Jeffries

The Progressive Caucus has nearly 100 Democratic House members. Those members joining the press conference included Omar, Jayapal, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Chuy Garcia of Illinois, Delia Ramirez of Illinois and Maxine Dexter of Oregon. 

Garcia, who is the whip of the Progressive Caucus, said the group has informed House Leader Hakeem Jeffries of their position, but did not say if Jeffries supported slashing DHS funds. 

“They are very concerned, and they also share our sentiment that we need to do something to bring reform, to bring change to stop the lawlessness, the cruelty and the abuse of power that’s taking place within ICE and (Customs and Border Patrol) and DHS,” he said of Democratic leadership. 

While Democrats do not control either chamber, one tool lawmakers have used amid the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration campaign is the power of congressional oversight of federal facilities that house immigrants and are funded by Congress. 

But following the shooting in Minnesota, several lawmakers were denied an oversight visit to a federal ICE facility, a move that Democrats argue violates a court order. 

There will be an emergency hearing in the District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday on a new Trump administration policy that argues those facilities are funded through the spending and tax cuts package and therefore exempt from unannounced oversight visits. 

Jayapal called the reasoning “a B.S. argument, and hopefully the court is going to see that.” 

Investigations urged

Jayapal added that there also needs to be “independent investigations of lawlessness and violence by immigration agents and border patrol agents, and meaningful consequences for those who commit these acts of violence, not a slap on the wrist.”

Dexter, who represents part of Portland, Oregon, where two people were shot by CBP the same week Good was shot and killed, agreed.

“One thing is absolutely clear, when any law enforcement officer fires a weapon in any community, the public must have answers to questions,” Dexter said.

Ramirez said there needs to be greater accountability beyond appropriations, and said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should be impeached. 

Illinois Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly is planning to introduce articles of impeachment for Noem on three counts: obstructing Congress, violating public trust and self-dealing. While such a move likely would be uphill in the House, Republicans at the moment control the chamber by a very narrow margin.

“DHS and ICE have been empowered through a lack of oversight and too much latitude to violate our rights under the pretense of security and safety,” Ramirez said.

Frost said that Congress needs to assert its control over appropriations as a check against the Trump administration.  

“We cannot depend on this administration to police themselves and an end to the enforcement practices that are terrorizing our communities,” Frost said. 

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report. 

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, and Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., arrive at the regional ICE headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building on Jan. 10, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lawmakers attempted to access the facility where the Department of Homeland Security has been headquartering operations in the state. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A dozen Democratic members of Congress Monday asked a federal judge for an emergency hearing, arguing the Department of Homeland Security violated a court order when Minnesota lawmakers were denied access to conduct oversight into facilities that hold immigrants.

The oversight visits to Minneapolis ICE facilities followed the deadly shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross. Federal immigration officers have intensified immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities following the shooting, leading to massive protests there and across the country. 

“On Saturday, January 9—three days after U.S. citizen Renee Good was shot dead by an ICE agent in Minneapolis—three members of Congress from the Minnesota delegation, with this Court’s order in hand, attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis,” according to Monday’s filing in the District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Democratic U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison of Minnesota said they were denied entry to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building shortly after arriving for their visit on Saturday morning.

Lawmakers said in the filing the Minnesotans were denied access due to a new policy from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The new Noem policy, similar to one temporarily blocked by U.S. Judge Jia Cobb last month, requires seven days notice for lawmakers to conduct oversight visits.

“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will … and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” according to the new filing by lawyers representing the 12 Democrats.

DHS cites reconciliation bill

Noem in filings argued the funds for immigration enforcement are not subject to a 2019 appropriations law, referred to as Section 527, that allows for unannounced oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants.

She said that because the facilities are funded through the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” passed and signed into law last year, the department does not need to comply with Section 527.

The OBBBA, passed through a congressional process called reconciliation, is allowed to adjust federal spending even though it is not an appropriations law.

“This policy is consistent with and effectuates the clear intent of Congress to not subject OBBBA funding to Section 527’s limitations,” according to the Noem memo.  

Congress is currently working on the next funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The lawmakers in their filing argue “members of Congress must be able to conduct oversight at ICE detention facilities, without notice, to obtain urgent and essential information for ongoing funding negotiations.”

“Members of Congress are actively negotiating over the funding of DHS and ICE, including consideration of the scope of and limitations on DHS’s funding for the next fiscal year,” according to the filing.

The Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Neguse, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that the “law is crystal clear.”

“Instead of complying with the law, DHS is abrogating the court’s order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy,” he said. “Their actions are outrageous and subverting the law, which is why we are going back to court to challenge it — immediately.”