Jeffries Signals Opposition to DHS Funding Bill
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has voiced his opposition to a Department of Homeland Security funding bill, potentially complicating its path to passage.
- Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told his caucus he opposes the DHS funding bill during a closed-door meeting on Wednesday.
- The opposition stems from concerns about a lack of constraints on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol.
- Some centrist Democrats remain undecided, leaving a possibility for bipartisan support.
Washington — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) dealt a blow to potential bipartisan cooperation on Wednesday, telling his Democratic caucus he opposes a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The revelation, shared by five sources familiar with the meeting, underscores growing Democratic resistance to the legislation.
What’s driving the opposition? Many Democrats believe the bill doesn’t include sufficient limitations on the actions of ICE and Border Patrol agents, fueling concerns about potential abuses of power and the treatment of migrants. This funding debate is particularly fraught, as disagreements over border security continue to dominate the political landscape.
Democratic Divisions Emerge
The opposition isn’t monolithic. Representative Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), a swing-district member, was blunt in his assessment, telling reporters after the Wednesday morning meeting, “hell no.” However, other Democrats representing centrist or battleground districts indicated they are still weighing their options, suggesting a path to passage through bipartisan support isn’t entirely closed off.
The bill’s fate hinges on securing enough moderate support to overcome opposition from the more progressive wing of the Democratic party.
The timing of Jeffries’ announcement is significant, as lawmakers face a looming deadline to fund the government and avoid a potential shutdown. The DHS funding bill is one of several appropriations measures currently under consideration, and its outcome could have far-reaching implications for border security and immigration policy.
