Schumer and Jeffries Refuse to Back Growing Democratic Calls to Defund ICE

[Mysterian]

Amid outrage over the killing of Renee Good, Democratic leaders are declining to use their leverage to fight the agency. The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis this week came as Republicans in Congress were planning to bring a homeland security spending bill to the House floor, deciding on whether the agency that’s surged thousands of armed agents into communities across the country should have increased funding — and progressive lawmakers are demanding that the Democrats use the upcoming government funding deadline to hopefully reduce the department’s ability to wreak further havoc.

“I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told CNN Thursday. “I know we can’t fix everything in the appropriations bill but we should be looking at ways we can put some commonsense limitations on their ability to bring violence to our cities.”

But the top Democratic leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) both appeared to have little interest in discussing how their party can use the appropriations process as leverage to rein in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that have taken part in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation operation.
...
Schumer also refused to say whether the Democrats would use the appropriations process as leverage to cut funding to ICE, whose budget is set to balloon to $170 billion following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year. Republicans will need Democratic support to pass a spending bill in the Senate, where 60 votes are required.

https://truthout.org/articles/schumer-and-jeffries-refuse-to-back-growing-democratic-calls-to-defund-ice/

[Just_Vote_Dem]

1. I don't know if they want to reveal everything in their toolbox right now, so to speak

They've commented on the situation, but sometimes you don't want to signal everywhere you're going till a more appropriate time

[Kid Berwyn]

7. Keeping one's powder dry.

Still waiting for us to sink the Swift Boat liars.

[vapor2]

17. Seriously your comment is a bit reassuring

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. This is kinda the same argument many of us here on DU, including me, were making in regards to Merrick Garland,

look where that has gotten us.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

20. I hear you, but

I've learned being a poker player not to show my opponent I've got the aces till the right time, heh

[orangecrush]

76. ...

[ret5hd]

101. maybe we could try...

showing our aces sometime before they have taken the pot and spent it all on cocaine and hookers and are telling stories about what a great time they had.

[Scrivener7]

102. If a rogue militia gunning down American citizens with impunity is not the right time, what is?

[Maru Kitteh]

27. 1000% TIMES THIS. No more M.Garland-style hope. No more wishing

and just “having faith” that leadership is doing the right thing. That was somewhat acceptable back when we had a democracy, sometimes. That’s not where we are.

[bigtree]

48. Garland handed over a fast moving investigation to Smith who brought an indictment with more than enough time to convict

...but the Trump allies in the courts prevented it from going to trial.

Likewise, making Democratic leaders the target of this ire is seriously misleading and just false.

They don't make those decisions on their own, nor are they responsible for who voters sent them in the pathetic numbers that we saw in the last election.

People constantly set up these performative expectations for Democrats as if chattering about it on the internet was some substitute for the actual legislative realities that these Dem leaders face.

NO Democrat voted for the funding being advantaged right now. There is no legislative vehicle for Democrats to undo that funding right now.

Both leaders are working with the legislators who elected them to represent them. They aren't going to make those negotiations or decisions with the press. They just aren't. They make those decisions through the consensus of the caucus.

Voters didn't elect the leadership of those bodies of Congress; the legislators in the respective parties did that; so casting them as more consequential than the people mulling on their own votes behind them is just silliness.

Besides, who is saying they will vote for ANY republican budget resolution or initiative? What Democrat has said that?

Just as Garland had zero control over how quickly the courts dispatched the record number of frivolous appeals to every scrap of evidence or testimony sought - including the successful effort which began well before Smith came onboard to obtain the testimony of key WH officials and attorneys against privilege claims and challenges in successive courts, including the SC, packed with Trump appointees - these Democratic leaders have not faltered on ANY challenge to republicans in gaining overwhelming support from their membership in both bodies.

Whatever Truthout wants them to say will need to wait until they have Democratic votes in hand to back up their intentions. Both have said they're caucusing on these issues and more this week.

But, let's blame the prosecutors for the obstruction by the perps and their court enablers. And, by all means, let's blame the Dem leaders for the minority of members Democrats afforded them with in a binary system of elections in which the opposition is a fascist dictator leading a cult of corporatist simps. /s

[betsuni]

57. Thank you!

[MorbidButterflyTat]

71. Hey there, posse pal!

[betsuni]

77. Giddy-up, partner!

[MorbidButterflyTat]

70. You're preaching to the choir

No more hope!! Hope is for suckers. The world is burning. It's over. It's the end of the world as we know it. We've lost. The end.

I think I've covered it all, except for the endless blame.

Seriously, I always appreciate your posts.

[questionseverything]

81. When it was discovered he had stolen all that classified material

All that top secret material, he should of been arrested and jailed until trial w/o media access



Anyone else would of been held accountable

[CrispyQ]

87. This! A hundred times this!!

Just think if a dem ex-president had been found with that much classified material. Think if Obama had. I can believe they would have executed him. He for sure would not have been free to live his life normally, until the trial was over.

[questionseverything]

88. He for sure wouldn't be walking around freely

[bigtree]

89. anyone looking at how high profile prosecutions are challenged and appealed

...with the maga majority on the SC at the end of the process, telling you how easy it should have been to do this or that like they had some actual knowledge of the state of ADMISSible evidence that could be used in court when they claim Garland or anyone else should have done this or that is just projecting about things they know absolutely nothing about.

If you can't discuss specific evidence and tell what the state of admission it was in at the time you're claiming DOJ should have done something something you should just admit you're talking off of the top of your head and have no idea what the prosecution was doing.

ALL of the evidence Garland gathered as early as fall of 2021 was challenged and held up in multiple appeals in successive courts, delaying their use for months and even years, as in the case of Guiliani's phone, for example.

You don't sound like you're familiar with any of that.

[questionseverything]

90. If he was sitting in jail, waiting for trial like any other traitor would be

He couldn’t of campaigned at all

And democrats should of been able to control that narrative

[bigtree]

91. that possibility just existed in the internet fantasy prosecution

...where you can just do as you please.

[questionseverything]

92. We disagree and I don't feel the need to belittle you and that's your entire argument

So there’s really no point

[bigtree]

94. lol

...why aren't you belittling and arguing with the lie in the op that they've 'refused' to commit to something or the other?

Why aren't you belittling the implication that there's a speck of daylight between them and the majority of the Democrats who put them in the leadership?

Why don't you belittle the article that provided less than half a dozen Democrats divided between houses of Congress griping about the funding, but not ONE criticizing their leadership for the same?

No, just more of the 'blame the prosecution instead of the perps' protectors in the courts shit (or blame the leadership instead if the people who chose them to represent them; or blame the pols stuck with a minority, instead of the people who refused to show up and provide them with one) that is all the rage these days from so many quarters.

[choie]

33. Yeah right.

[angrychair]

41. Respectfully, I understand the optimism

We all want to believe there is a bigger, better plan but history has shown us that is unlikely.

Unfortunately this is is sending the wrong message and could very much leave people feeling the Democratic Party is out of touch with its constituents.

(Frozen Water) Is terrorizing and murdering people. This is NOT an organization that can be reformed by a couple of policy changes. It is a paramilitary organization filled with illiterate, racist, xenophobic, violent, thugs that truly believe they are above the law and nothing about what Schumer and Jefferies are saying changes that.

Combined with Newsom's overt defense of billionaires and coming out completely against the idea of a billionaire tax and this has not been a good day for Democrats.

This is NOT what Democrats and Independents looking for a new way forward, what they want to hear. What is sounds like is more of the same if I'm being honest.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

42. I appreciate the response

I'm dealing with some medical issues right now so I'm trying to look at things as optimistically as I can so I can heal and deal with whatever the future holds for all of us.

[angrychair]

44. No worries at all

I understand . I truly hope you get better soon.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

46. Thank you!

My best to you as well

[hamsterjill]

68. Seconding angrychair in my hopes that you improve

All the very best...

[Just_Vote_Dem]

84. Thank you so much!

[leftstreet]

2. They need to meet this moment

Tune out the expensive consultants. Read the room instead.

[Scrivener7]

105. Sadly, I think we need to face the fact that they won't. And our Democratic popularity will stay in the tank.

This is an interesting article:
https://prospect.org/2025/11/11/one-weird-trick-to-get-rid-of-chuck-schumer/

Not sure what the rules for the House would be. Jeffries is up for re-election.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Gosh I hope they don't listen. Everyone knows defund is a TERRIBLE slogan. Maybe something like "we want nicer ICE?"

Just kidding. Abolish ICE.

[CrispyQ]

8. Seen on social media: I like my ICE crushed.

Didn't ICE just get a HUGE bump in funding in the last bill? Didn't Noem burn through most of her budget in half a year? Are she, Hegseth, & Rubio still living large in military leadership's quarters?

Schumer & Jeffries are not the leaders we need if they don't see how out of touch their position is.

[peggysue2]

65. Saw the same meme the other day

I like my ICE crushed. Good one.

All this money sloshing around to fund DHS and ICE specifically is because Agent Orange wants his own private army, a bunch of psychopaths loyal only to him. We've already seen, heard and read about the obscenities this para-military force is willing to carry out. They're beating their chests, wagging fingers in people's faces as they throw them to the ground:

Didn't you learn a lesson when we killed that fucking bitch?

This isn't law enforcement. ICE is here to control the population, citizen and immigrant alike. They're here to intimidate and convince Americans that resistance is futile, that if we don't like what's happening, if we struggle, we too can be shot in the face.

Evil, up close and personal, with a man in the Oval Office and his lackeys defending all of it.

A tipping point is coming. Which unfortunately is exactly what they're hoping for.

[Johonny]

4. Defund is a third rail term

But jeepers, scaling back funding since obviously they don't need personal jets for Noem etc . . . Waste, fraud, and abuse is fair game

[Ars Longa]

23. How about " Keep the Border Sealed-- Re-form Ice"

"DISARM ICE", "UnMask ICE ", "New Boss for ICE"

"Adults in charge"

something like that??

Avoid using words like Defund..

[dem4decades]

34. Build the case that ICE is wasting money, on jets for instance.

[angrychair]

47. I didn't want to defund them

Most people should not be saying they want to defund (frozen water).

I want to abolish them. Dissolve them as an entity from the federal government. I want them to cease to exist as an organization.

No one wants to defund them. We want them permanently, irrevocably to cease to exist. Forever.

They are a criminal organization and their very existence is antithetical to the values and principles of true American society.

[Ms. Toad]

35. Unlike Defund the Police, this is a movement/term I can 100% back. n/t

[Kid Berwyn]

5. "There is nothing impossible to him who will try."

— Alexander III of Macedon (the Great)

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. They could write strict regulations into the bill

Regulations for hiring (currently you can work for ICE if you have a criminal record or pending charges), regulations for conduct- no entrance onto private property without a judicial warrant , and only for the persons named on the warrant, etc.

That should be the headline- what the leadership is for, rather than letting the Defund ICE clickbait suck all the air out of budget discussions.

[bigtree]

59. what bill?

...what bill do you imagine the Democratic minority has the numbers and authority to even schedule out of a committee, much less add something to on their party's votes or initiative?

Most of the ICE funding is ALREADY in the budget bill, not appropriations.

What is this false dichotomy that you've set up here? The most they can accomplish in the present minority, outside of the myriad amendments they have offered already, is organize Democrats to vote against what the republicans schedule, as they have, repeatedly without a scrap of credit from any of their critics.

You're talking about them as if they hold the majority, in which no one should expect that they would do anything less if voters manage to make that happen.

Maybe it would be more clear if you told us what republican bill or initiative on ICE funding ANY Democrat is planning to vote for? They haven't voted for any so far, so this is a fantastical canard.

Maybe you can tell which party controls the rescission process right now, and what evidence you have that any Democratic majority budget under their leadershipo wouldn't try to rescind that funding?

[Fiendish Thingy]

82. My comments were in the context of positions the leadership could take

Without sabotaging the momentum generated by the murder of Renee Good.

So, if Schumer and Jeffries don’t have courage to vocally support defunding ICE, they could at a bare minimum support regulating ICE’s conduct.

Yes, I know it’s unlikely any such regulations would pass on their own, but that, along with restoring ACA subsidies could be used as leverage in the budget showdown coming at the end of the month.

I’m a bit mystified at the intensity of your response to my post- I guess you see Schumer and Jefferies as strong, competent leaders who don’t get the credit they deserve?

I guess we disagree.

[bigtree]

93. the members of their respective bodies chose them

..voted for them repeatedly.

People act as if they have a say in that, or even go so far as to pretend that unseating them and having the caucuses vote in other leaders would change the circumstances where it's the elected Dems who control the agenda, not the fiat of one man at the top.

Schumer and Jeffries were voted into the leadership to represent the people who voted them in, doing much more than just performing for the press.

Someone got peeved that the two refused to step out in fromt of the people they're supposed to be representing on this; the people who would be expected to put their votes where their mouths are.

Someone thought it was a cute idea to push them before they met with their caucus this week and before they held a 'whip' meeting to discuss the messaging they're going to present in the form of legislative action right now.

None of that is served by the two leaders getting out in front of their caucus with their personal opinions, but I do understand how people without that responsibility come to believe posturing for them is more important.

[Ping Tung]

9. "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." ― Albert Camus

[biocube]

10. Wanting to neuter ICE is a political loser...

What I would do is establish minimum training/education/fitness requirements for ICE agents. Trump has basically the requirements to being ambulatory. That will work almost exactly like a cut.

[gab13by13]

12. The only test they have to pass is a loyalty test.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. Yes they definitely need MORE money

After all, throwing money at police departments definitely has a great track record

[leftstreet]

19. Oh! So the ICE murderer just wasn't trained properly

[biocube]

22. Yes, I think if we had the same requirements for police officers

he wouldn't be on ICE. The only reason the requirements were lowered is because they couldn't find enough who could pass them.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

24. yeah we know cops never murder anybody

[leftstreet]

30. Nonsense

There are plenty of men and women who'd qualify to be law enforcement officers of all types. And who wouldn't want the paycheck, insurance, retirement !!

ICE deliberately recruited room temperature IQ knuckle dragging racists, awash in toxic masculinity and entitlement syndrome for the sole purpose of the political spectacle we're watching today.

Hey, wait. Are there any female ICE agents?

[Torchlight]

21. I don't see a lot of evidence pointing towards your assertion

[SamuelTheThird]

31. More training for Proud Boys Brownshirts is not going to make a bit of difference

[choie]

37. Yeah that's what happened

Ross wasn’t physically fit. For Christ sakes anything so that we don’t have to be courageous and do the right thing.

[Quiet Em]

11. I have a question that I hope those with more knowledge on this can help explain

I had read that the Republicans have pulled Homeland Security funding from the current spending bill because of the uproar from the public after the Nicole Good murder and the Republicans belief that including Homeland Security funding in this bill could stop it from passing the Senate.

So, at the moment I'm of the belief that Homeland Security funding is not currently on the table? Or is the funding for Homeland Security already included from a previous bill?

[JBTaurus83]

13. Victims refuse

To defund the Nazis. It’s pretty pathetic.

[C_U_L8R]

15. At the very minimum, DISARM ICE

They don’t need heavy weapons to enforce immigration laws.

[aocommunalpunch]

16. I recommend they never say ANYTHING

Then, no one can hold them accountable and BLUE WAVE baby! People can’t get enough of this shit, I’m telling ya!

[Duncan Grant]

25. Because complicity has been an effective response so far!

An effective opposition cannot be lead with collaboration. We need a course correction. Fight back, god damn it.

[Emile]

26. They should have a background check. No arrest

record, no presidential pardons for being an insurrectionist, no one on the Epstein list, etc.

[CousinIT]

28. No wonder so many Dems are registering as independent now.

I haven't and won't, but damn...we need fighters with spines of steel, and these guys are hiding under the table.

I HOPE they have something else in mind but to fight this, but...

[flvegan]

29. Something about beatings continuing until morale improves. n/t

[gulliver]

32. Schumer and Jeffries are legitimate, elected leaders.

The "calling voices" need to justify their call to defund ICE by pointing to some one-person-one-vote, democratic election that entitled them to make that call. Otherwise, they're just noisemakers trying to lose us the midterms, imo.

[Scrivener7]

103. Wut? We can't call for the reining-in of ICE because we weren't elected? And we're trying to lose us the midterms

by calling for the reining-in of ICE? Is that what you're saying?

[Demsrule86]

36. Both need to face a primary. This is being complicit in the torture and murder of US citizens as well as immigrants.

They should be ashamed.

[SocialDemocrat61]

49. Schumer is not up until 28

I believe Jeffries is being primaried

[bigtree]

55. no Dem leader could undo the funding right now

NO Democrat voted for ANY of the finding.

So what is this canard supposed to do in changing that equation voters saddled the Democratic party leaders with.

No new Dem leader is going to do anything differently in this case. They just aren't.

Isn't it obvious that's why no Democrat that voted to advance either Dem leader is calling for anyone to replace them, or claiming they could do better?

I mean, who do people think elect the Dem leadership of the party??

Clue: it's not the voters in the districts who want and need these two legislators to represent them in their respective states and districts.

Seriously, what the fuck is voting them out of power about? Neither has ever supported the funding or this administration's use of it. Neither is out of step with the people they lead in their respective caucuses.

Voting them out of a slim majority with the expectation that would change the equation in a Democratic minority in both Houses is the height of delusion and falsity.

[betsuni]

72. No matter how many times it's explained who votes for leadership, fact refuses to sink in.

Making it about personalities as if just the right incorruptible savior-leader would fix everything.

[bigtree]

78. seriously. I have a hard time believing that they don't know the leaders represent the membership

...and are likely a bit more progressive than the whole of the party.

But here we are, again, with folks calling for the two to be primaried, as if voters made them the leaders of the respective body's memberships in Congress.

No regard for their seats or the voters who put them there. Just this false representation of the two as dictators of what their collective membership ultimately decides to act on.

I suspect they're not at odds with the majority of their membership on 'defunding' ICE, but I do think they'll be discussing and deciding on several ways they can advance their opposition.

Btw, did you see 'refuse' anywhere in the actual article, that they refused something? I must have missed that.

[betsuni]

83. I know. Now I have the urge to use "refuse" in every sentence.

It's like when something happens on Friday night and Democrats come out with an official statement on Sunday morning and the headline is "Dems finally break their silence."

[bigtree]

38. THEY DON'T CONTROL THE BUDGET

...this is specious.

Republicans are in control of that.

I get that Truthout thinks it's more important right now to confront Democrats who they know well don't have the ability to advance a funding bill to the floor of the House, much less in committee, as the minority party.

That goes for the Senate, as well. This gotcha game is something I'd more expect from republicans looking to deflect from their own responsibilities, rather than anyone seriously looking to address the actual source of the money that's being used.

Democratic leaders don't make decisions like defunding an agency on their own, or by fiat. Those important decisions are made by consensus of the legislators in the party that are expected to organize the votes for important bills and initiatives. Moreover, it's the committees which advance those legislative ambitions, with Dems in the minority right now.

It's specious, for instance, to think Democrats wouldn't address ICE funding in a budget they advanced themselves with a Democratic majority. NO Democrat voted for the funding ICE is advantaging right now.

But that doesn't get you anywhere near addressing the money that's being used right now, and Truthout knows this, so let's break this down.

They want the Dem leaders to call for another federal budget resolution? In what universe is that going to happen? They maybe want a defunding appropriations bill... let's say we call it a 'rescission' of funds? Rescission power is completely in the hands of the majority.

So what is Truthout demanding? They want Democrats to make a feckless and toothless call for something Democrats not only have no power to do, but have no votes to effect.

Whatever you think of defunding, you have to realize that hanging the party out in the public with a toothless proposal that is little more than a target for the opposition is pathetic politics which is good for little more than the clicks and reposts this article received.


Jeffries yesterday:

House Democrats are going to have a
family conversation throughout the week
in the caucus meeting and in the whip
meeting about the path forward related
to these most recent developments.

We are unified behind the fact that under
the leadership of Primila Gyipol,
there's going to be a hearing that House
Democrats will hold this Friday in Minneapolis
as part of the effort to hold the Department of Homeland
Security accountable for its outofc
control behavior.

Now, it's important to understand
that a lot of the funding for ICE that
is currently being unleashed on the
American people, American citizens
in such extreme ways right now was
provided not through the traditional
appropriations process, but a connection
with the one big ugly bill that every single
Democrat and every single House Senate
Democrat opposed, every single one of us,
and that Donald Trump and Republicans
jammed down the throats of the American
people.

And so the funding dynamic that we have
to navigate as it relates to ICE's out of control
behavior is different in nature
than what may have otherwise been the
case because a lot of the funding that
ICE is currently utilizing comes from
their one big ugly bill.

And that's something that we'll collectively, you
know, be working on as our discussions
continue.

watch:

...if I didn't consider the source, I'd think this nonsense was bait from the republican opposition.

[betsuni]

64. Again big thank you.

[bigtree]

66. you're welcome, going back to my plough, now

...back to the howling old owl in the woods, hunting the horny-back toad.

[QueerDuck]

121. Oh, look! Facts. Logic. Truth. (Thank you!)

[Grins]

39. Long worried about Schumer. Now worried about Jeffries. Nm

[maliaSmith]

40. Defunding ICE

Democrats aren't in the majority. I'm sure they have plans to undo lots of damage the GOP have done to us and our country but are wisely keeping their plans quiet. All I can say is vote Blue in all city, county, state and federal elections in November and then Democrats will start the investigations.

[Samael13]

43. While i agree something needs to be done

I'm not sure what leverage the democrats have at the moment. The party has no control in either chamber and we know who is in the white house.

[bigtree]

63. correct, I see less than half a dozen legislators in the article

...where are the numbers needed to pull that off?

If there are enough Dems in the caucus who will go outfront and vote for that, then it will happen. If not, it won't.

Changing the leadership won't change the numbers in our own party needed to carry out these ideals. Where's the evidence Schumer and Jeffries are ar odds with the majority on this?

I'd guess they'll find out this week when they nmeet, but I'm not ignorant enough of the makeup of the Dem membership to imagine that there will be a significant number pushing for controversial 'defund' messaging from the people THEY voted to represent them. We'll see.

What I would expect will be efforts in the hearings in the three committees with jurisdiction to bring NOEM and others before them to answer for their statements and actions.

People want a majority that can act decisively instead of perform for critics then vote them in, But they won't get there easily by trolling Dems i seats who have already fought against republicans and won.

I'm going to guess they have more experience at fighting and winning against the opposition than their critics, none of of the opposition to their leadership coming from inside their own ranks from legislators who know well that they oporate by the consensus of a majority within the Dem caucus, not on their own personal initiative as their critics suppose or pretend.

[BidenRocks]

45. How large is too large

for chumps private army.
ICE is chumps SS. It came in many flavors.
We have the armed ones using race and societal status to attempt to crush dissent.

But you go ahead and keep funding them until they are too big to stop and they rival the regular military. Only with no rules of engagement.

Bye Chuck. Yesterdays politics doesn't work in a lawless country.
Hakeem? SMH

A failure to listen to your constituents is bad policy and I'm not believing in 'secret' deals or other crap!

[MineralMan]

50. Many Desirable Things Would be Possible if We Had a Democratic Majority in the House and Senate.

We do not have either at this time. Leadership strategy is based on what is possible, not necessarily on everything that is desirable at the moment.

I recommend focusing on electing majorities in Congress. Anything else will simply miss the target altogether.

[SocialDemocrat61]

51. I would assume that both the

House and Senate democratic caucuses are split on this issue. Schumer and Jeffries don't make or dictate policies. They reflect the policy positions of their caucuses.

[Thunderbeast]

52. Our nation survived for 202 years without Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

The creation of ICE was a knee jerk reaction to the events of September 11, 2001. It started as Kabuki Theater (along with TSA) to make us all feel better. It morphed into a private army to bring militia policing under the direction and ownership and control of Donald Trump... A dictator who studied and modeled Hitler to gain immense personal wealth, and to execute his racist fantasies.

[Nanjeanne]

53. ICE was only formed in late 2003 as a response to 9/11 and the Homeland Security Act. It's budget then was

$3.3 billion.

With Trump - the Big Piece of Shit Bill has outlined:
$170 billion for anti-immigrant enforcement, detention, and deportation. This money makes the U.S. immigration enforcement agencies richer than many nations’ entire military force. It allows the federal government to step up attacks on the rights of immigrants, especially children and families.

Where does the $170 billion go?
$30 billion to detain and deport more immigrants, more quickly
$45 billion to build new immigrant detention facilities
$47 billion to build more border walls and other barriers
$16 billion for increased border security, including surveillance and technology
$14 billion for state and local agencies that participate in immigration enforcement
$12 billion for more Border Patrol checkpoints, vehicles, and agents
An additional $11 billion goes to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Prisons for uses including immigration enforcement and detention.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement gets $330 million for extreme vetting of unaccompanied children and their sponsors.

Abolishing ICE isn't a radical far left stance. It's been in existence for less than 25 years. We need immigration reform and abolishing ICE should be a part of that.

[mcar]

54. Clickbait headline

says "refuse." Article says "appears to have little interest." Those are 2 different things.

[Duncan Grant]

60. "Little interest" - oh, that's so much better! I'm relieved. Thank God. (nt)

[mcar]

62. Better than refuse and the headline is misleading

But it's Truthout so that explains it.

[Duncan Grant]

67. Regardless, they are doing nothing more than make speeches.

Theirs is a failed leadership — impotent, cowardly acquiescence. If they do not fight, they will not govern. God only knows what happens next to the unprivileged and the rest of us.

[QueerDuck]

122. It's designed to feed the anger of those who promote that Democrats "do-nothing" and "know-nothing" or...

... that the Democrats "care about nothing" or that they're "cowardly". It's absolute BS.

[CanonRay]

56. I won't comment because I'd just get a post removed message

[OrlandoDem2]

58. Close the border! Leave law abiding people alone!

It’s really that simple. Turn it into a slogan and we win the elections in a landslide.

Americans want the border closed and the data shows it was shutting tight in 2024 under Biden and before Trump!

Americans also do not want their friends and neighbors who are good hard-working people deported!

[betsuni]

61. Childish belief there are simple easy solutions for everything but mean old Democrats refuse to do them.

[orangecrush]

80. Yeah

Ok

Today at 34 & Park in Minneapolis, a woman tried to drive down the street where a protest had broken out in front of a home ICE was raiding, saying she had a doctor apt to get to. ICE agents busted out her windows, cut off her seatbelt, and pulled her out before arresting her.

— amanda moore 🐢 (@noturtlesoup17.bsky.social) 2026-01-13T18:56:54.224Z

[Mysterian]

100. Childish belief the designated leaders do no wrong

It's a feature of trumpism.

[betsuni]

104. Said nobody ever.

Conversation for the last ten years:

A: Repeats lie, conspiracy theory, disinformation, baseless insult about Democrats.
B: Debunks lie, conspiracy theory, disinformation, baseless insult about Democrats.
A: "WHY DO YOU THINK DEMOCRATS ARE PERFECT?" and personal insult.

[Mysterian]

111. Do you actually believe you "debunked" anything with this post:

"Childish belief there are simple easy solutions for everything but mean old Democrats refuse to do them."

That is a juvenile personal attack and an illogical strawman argument. If you have any actual debunking to do, please proceed.

[mr715]

114. You shall soon be implied to be a bad Democrat

and one that is dividing the party, having "purity tests" whatever they might be...

You are, however, a person that clearly believes the Democratic party should be better tomorrow than it is today.

[mr715]

113. "Childish"

My daddy/mommy is the best daddy/mommy. They are better than yours and they can do no wrong. My mommy doesn't even fart!

vs.

My dad/mom really fucked me up and now I'm in therapy.

[hamsterjill]

69. I'd like to see new leadership.

n/t

[bigtree]

96. the members of the party elect their own leadership

...who no doubt represent the majority of them to a tee.

[hamsterjill]

98. Well, it's time for a change in my opinion.

n/t

[MorbidButterflyTat]

75. Didn't we all just have this same argument last week?

[bigtree]

97. this time it's conveniently while Dems are meeting this week to make these decisions

...with clickbait journos trying to make it appear they're actually the ones steeering the party.

The largest load of hubris is this attitude that supposes the critics care more about succeeding against the republican opposition than the pols who have already put themselves on the actual line and fought and WON against republicans.

Apparently there's some perfect dude-bros waiting in the wings that can achieve the votes of the majority of the membership to unseat these two who are willing to put their personal interests ahead of the caucus.

I'm sure Democrats who would be tasked with choosing between the ones they already picked to represent their positions, and an unknown dudebro pushing their own way or the highway and a 'tude would be thrilled at the prospect.

Cute how no one is bothering to ask any of the members about their views on changing the leadership they just chose to represent them. I suspect it's because it's not a serious question, but who knows if one of them wants to step out in front of their fellow Dems and make noise about 'defunding' a law enforcement agency.

I mean, that's the way this is being framed, right? Jeffries and Schumer 'refuse' to support defundng the funds they already voted against several times, leading their membership to do the same?

I'm guess there's no need to being factual about what the party will collectively support, when they can instead lie about the leadership and project all sorts of nonsense claims off of them.

[betsuni]

106. It refuses to go away. We will see it again next week and the week after that and the week after that.

In this fairy tale, a wicked centrist neoliberal fairy put a spell on Democrats that unless harshly bashed every single day online, they turn into Republicans. The nice bashers refuse to let that happen! Working hard until the last Democrat is primaried and replaced and the party purified!

[orangecrush]

79. Makes me sick

It's gonna be up to us.

Today at 34 & Park in Minneapolis, a woman tried to drive down the street where a protest had broken out in front of a home ICE was raiding, saying she had a doctor apt to get to. ICE agents busted out her windows, cut off her seatbelt, and pulled her out before arresting her.

— amanda moore 🐢 (@noturtlesoup17.bsky.social) 2026-01-13T18:56:54.224Z

[usonian]

85. When maga has run its course, there will be time enough at last to regroup.

NOT

[flashman13]

86. This is war. They want to destroy us. I'm tired of nambie pambie pretending any of the is normal.

The Democrats still control the 60 vote threshold in the Senate. Shut the Senate down without major concessions. That means in particular de-funding ICE et al. Full stop. No Compromise.

Weak kneed leadership is the primary cause of the mess we are currently in. Make no mistake about it. I'm talking about the previous administration - Merrick Garland and several other.

[bigtree]

95. you don't even know their position on this, yay or nay

...neither does the op that lied about them 'refusing' something or the other, gaslighting by using disparate quotes that say nothing about the leadership.

[flashman13]

99. Possibly you missed a reporter asking Jefferies straight up whether he supported de-funding ICE.

He replied with a Krisiy Noem style meaningless non answer.

https://steveschmidt.substack.com/p/elliptical-nonsense-talk?isFreemail=true&post_id=184427733&publication_id=836444&r=2ikj9f&triedRedirect=true

[bigtree]

108. that's specious

...why should he have discussed that with a reporter before he caucused with his party members?

Or before the Whip meeting this week?

You appear to literally have no clue what he's doing because all you've done here is focus on this bullshit article and the lie in the heading of the post.

You don't know whether he's yea or nay. All you appear to know about Jeffries position is what this clickbait journo told you, which is literally nothing other than their own projections.

[flashman13]

110. No it's not. It's more weak kneed non leadership.

[mr715]

112. Leaders lead.

They aren't just vote counters or consensus builders. They are people that have been elected because they have the trust of their caucus.

This is especially true of minority leaders, as they are not integral to agenda setting and have only minor procedural hard power.

There was a time when Nancy Pelosi told her caucus how it was going to be (even if some people here on DU did not agree with her) on there being no impeachment vote [yet] for Trump. This was a call she made. This was leadership. It made some in her caucus angry.

Jeffries is adrift. Schumer is asleep.

Yesterday or the day before I read that Elizabeth Warren was on the phone with Trump talking about credit card rates being capped. This is an issue that isn't coming from leadership, though I will quickly concede that Senators are known to buck leadership more frequently than their House counterparts.

But, again, Renee Nicole Good was shot dead on camera, from multiple angles in front of us, and the administration contemptuously lied about it to try to 'get ahead of the narrative'.

Our leaders, in my opinion, should be making clear the absurdity of the admin's position. Instead of statements and compromise, they should stare into the cameras and say her name and ask Americans if this is what they want.

[bigtree]

116. they are leading.

...but they don't do any legislative effort any service getting out in front of their membership before they;ve had a chance to weigh in, so, again, specuious.

Jeffries advised that they are meeting this week and he'll 'lead' among the people who voted for him to represent THEM in the HOUSE.

He's not a dictator, but I do understand the desire for someone to act precipitiuously; even though it's just talk without the votes to carry those ideals out in some legislative fashion.

[mr715]

118. The minority leader's function isn't really legislating

It is messaging. It is opposition messaging.

There is no need to have a meeting about this. Let the dogs out.

I am of the opinion that perceiving this as leading is a Democratic problem. We are inclined to convene task forces, have blue ribbon panels, form ad hoc advisory committees, and produce extensive and verifiable reports that tell us exactly what we already know.

This is not leadership. This is hiding behind the banality of technocracy.

I would agree with you that Jeffries will almost certain "lead" the meeting in the sense that everyone will recognize he is the boss, he will obey Robert's rules of order, and have a podium. He will have all the vestiges and accoutrements of leadership. But that isn't leadership. That is something powerpoint can automate.

[bigtree]

119. 'opposition messaging' is a canard in this case

...when republicans couldn't care less and Democratic voters shouldn't need talking out of support for the party that's not made up of fascist corporatists.

I really don't understand thinking Jeffries or Schumer need to to run PR in the press to mollify Democrats, and I think it's silly expecting republicans to care about what they're saying.

Look at Jeffries efforts on ACA tax credits where he got nothing but flak from all sides and produced not only a majority Dem vote, but 17 republicans to vote for their extension.

That is, btw, what his 'messaging' is solidly focused on today as Thune in the Senate hems and haws on whether to allow a vote on health insurance subsidies, a vote which would certainly pass the chamber.

But here's this self-interested internet rag supposing their own agenda is more important, with zero responsibility for any outcome, in the catbird seat.

You'll get messaging on this out of the leaders when they're done focusing on the issue before them; the one that's a vote away from their initial responsibility to help ensure millions of Americans don't go without health coverage.

You'll get messaging on DHS out of Congress and the Senate Dem leadership when THEY have forged a consensus among the Dem membership by using their LEADERSHIP skills among the people who voted for them to lead THEM.

[mr715]

120. As you know, the Senate leadership

works with the House leadership. There is a lot of chess being played. The ACA subsidies aren't going to happen without the explicit endorsement of Donald Trump. And who knows, he might even give it. I've been seeing his AI face all over the place talking about how bad Obamacare is.

There is a case to be made that yes, these people (Democratic leadership) planned that outcome and are at a whole different level of strategic insight. I hope they are. However, I do not see it. I more troublingly do not feel it.

Where we disagree is on the issue of consensus.

Consensus is rare and cliche. "I support the troops" "Children should have a good education"

Sometimes, however, consensus opinions arise that are a little emotionally evocative: "American women shouldn't be shot in the face by Federal agents for doing nothing"

If we have to have a conference meeting to formalize this, we've lost the thread.


Trump says something, and his party falls in line. He is the leader of his party.

We have nominally 2 but in reality 300 leaders, which I think speaks to some of what you bring up. We can honestly disagree on the very real philosophical differences on what it takes to be a leader.

But on the politics of it -- AOC going on the news and saying 'Your health insurance premiums went up to pay for murder' has a resonance that 'Let's have a Zoom and figure out where the wind is blowing' doesn't

I respect and appreciate your thoughts on this. I believe you and I have a different vision of what it takes to lead versus what it takes to "present" as leading. I think your assessment is incorrect and overly gracious to our party which has to reckon with its high disapproval nationwide.

[bigtree]

123. 'defund' is a word that you likely won't see anywhere in any messaging from the leadership

...let's see what approach they come up with and discuss that.

There's absolutely no support for ICE from the people who already voted against the funding. Let's see what impact the Murphy, AOC and others in their respective caucuses have on the majority of members.

I'm thinking it will make little sense to have messaging divided between one faction or the other, so let's see how they reconcile any differences (if there are any) and see what kind of unified approach they come up with after meeting, if at all.

Absent any such consensus on messaging, I would expect the leaders to emerge with their own views on how to proceed and tell us who or what the obstacles are.

Remember, these two didn't elect themselves leader. They're also likely to be more progressively inclined than the membership as a whole, so you have to think they already hold the view of the majority of the membership.

If we're going to have an internal debate about this, I;d rather it occur in caucus than in the press, and I suspect that's most of the reason neither leader is taking the same definitive stand of the handful that the press claims is emerging with something contrary.

I'd wait and see before claiming there's a speck of daylight between them. And I'd wait a bit before expecting these two to go all maverick. We don't even know where the party stands on this, just this sophistry about some supposed resistance in the party and the prevarication about what the leaders 'refuse' to do.

[mr715]

124. Again, I appreciate this position

One specific thing you mention is that you'd rather this conversation happen in the caucus rather than in the public.

I don't know if I agree. I see some benefit in the market deciding that messaging decision. The underlying product (i.e. state sanctioned murder) is pretty hefty. I understand you likely do not agree, but you do understand my perspective here, yes?

[Scrivener7]

107. ""Statements and letters are not enough, and the appropriations process

and the [continuing resolution] expiring January 31 is our opportunity,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios."

She's absolutely right. And there is blood in the street and we may not get another chance.

[Jack Valentino]

109. They seem to be "re-fighting last year's election"----

when the situation now is completely different!


We don't need to say "defund ICE" which implies cutting all their funds to ZERO---

but we can certainly say that their funding should be reduced
from the over-funding of the GQP's big ugly bill!---

and I think the majority of Americans would support that position!


I hope that Schumers and Jeffries will come around
to agree with the base of their party on this issue---

and I guess we should be emailing and calling their offices about it!!!!!

"Buck up, boys!"

[kentuck]

115. Why?

Because they do not see the danger that you see.

They see a political issue and they do not want to be on the wrong side.

[bigtree]

117. that's nonsense

...based on the lie in the op that claimed they 'refused' something.

There's no evidence they refused anything. The caucus is meeting this week and they will carry forward with the consensus of the people they represent; the people who voted for the leaders to represent them in their respective bodies.

This entire premise is a lie.

Do people understand that these leaders don't dictate anything to the Dems who elected them leader? They're not autocrats. The party operates by the consensus of the members, not the fiat of it's leadership. It's been that way for generations.

What the fuck do people think they have to threaten members with? Why would anyone want that in the first place?

This entire premise is sophistry and specious reasoning that ignores the realities of the system in which they are tasked to operate.

To me is sounds like scapegoating for voter failure to give them the majority they need to do more than this performative nonsense people demand from a party out of power.

How does anyone actually know how many votes there are to delay the budget again when they're positing like that's superfluous to their own projections?