How a $75 Billion Windfall Insulated ICE from Congressional Oversight

Two months ago, Democrats in Congress stated they would not provide additional funding to immigration enforcement agencies without reforms to limit officer tactics.

However, 59 days into a record-long Department of Homeland Security shutdown, this strategy has failed to achieve any of the demanded policy changes, while President Trump's immigration crackdown continues at full capacity.

This is attributed to congressional Republicans, who last year provided Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with a $75 billion windfall with minimal conditions. This funding has shielded ICE from congressional pressure and oversight.

As Congress reconvenes after a two-week recess, top Republicans are reportedly planning to bypass Democrats again to secure funding for ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through the end of Trump's term.

"A massive shoveling of cash"

Last summer, the White House's Fourth of July celebration served as a signing ceremony for the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," adorned with patriotic decorations.

Republicans passed this act by circumventing Democrats using a procedure known as budget reconciliation. Trump described the law, which included tax cuts, Medicaid reductions, and the elimination of clean energy tax credits, as the "biggest bill of its type in history."

This significant bill also allocated an additional $75 billion to ICE, on top of its usual annual funding of approximately $10 billion. This infusion made ICE the highest-funded federal law enforcement agency. Other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including CBP, also received tens of billions of dollars in supplementary funding.

Democrats have also utilized the party-line reconciliation maneuver, notably in 2021 to approve billions in COVID-19 relief.

However, Sam Bagenstos, former general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget under President Joe Biden, characterizes this ICE funding not as targeted appropriations but as a "blank check."

"Here what we have is just a massive shoveling of cash to an agency with few if any strings," he stated. "I can't think of an example that's anywhere close to that."

The substantial funding received renewed scrutiny approximately six months after Trump signed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," following an incident where immigration officers fatally shot two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

Democrats had pledged to fund ICE and Border Patrol only if the White House agreed to reforms, such as requiring judicial warrants for home entries and prohibiting officers from wearing masks.

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, a critical check on the executive branch.

"But if it turns out Congress had already taken away its ability to do that by passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which gave ICE enough money that they can say to Congress, 'Yeah, sorry, we don't need to come back to you for money, and there's nothing you can do to us,'" Bagenstos explained.

"A tempering influence on the agency"

The dispute over ICE tactics has been deadlocked for two months, leaving DHS without the regular annual funding that Congress must approve for all federal agencies.

Typically, a lack of funding impacts an entire agency. However, this shutdown has differed. Unlike airport security employees who worked without pay for weeks, most ICE and Border Patrol operations continued largely unimpeded due to the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." Trump also issued an executive order to pay other workers, bypassing Congress once more.

This influx of funding has enabled ICE to hire thousands of agents, expand detention center capacity, and even acquire warehouses for detainee housing.

The increased funding has benefited private prison companies like CoreCivic and Geo Group, which collectively spent millions on lobbying in 2025, including in support of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act."

John Sandweg, who served as acting ICE director and acting DHS general counsel during the Obama administration, noted that the annual requirement to seek funding from Congress makes agencies more accountable to lawmakers' concerns and information requests.

"Having that appropriations mechanism where you have to get up there and defend what you did and how you did it every year — that is a tempering influence on the agency," he said. "You might get a call from a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. Those calls resulted in a lot more changes."

When Congress appropriates funds, lawmakers typically attach specific guidelines for their expenditure. Sandweg indicated that the $75 billion has very few specific restrictions.

Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem reportedly used some of these funds to purchase two luxury jets and faced criticism for awarding a multimillion-dollar advertising contract to a firm linked to her and top aides. ICE has also drawn lawmaker scrutiny for its increased reliance on limited or no-bid contracts as it rapidly scales up capacity.

"When you have tens and tens of billions of dollars that can be easily spent with very limited oversight and no fear that you're going to have problems in the next fiscal year with Congress, you have created a real vulnerability to fraud or misconduct," Sandweg warned.

The new DHS Secretary, Markwayne Mullin, has initiated steps to reverse some of Noem's spending policies. Democrats contend that the shutdown dispute prompted these changes, despite the absence of an agreement between Congress and the White House on the legislative demands Democrats are pursuing.

"DHS is still subject to congressional oversight," a DHS spokesperson stated in a release. "The 'misconduct' that needs to be corrected is the Democrats' longest government shutdown in U.S. history."

Republicans argue Democrats are "stretching it"

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., asserted that by withholding funding, Democrats are exceeding their oversight role and obstructing a fundamental congressional responsibility, as regular appropriations bills require 60 votes to overcome the Senate filibuster.

"Obviously the Democrats are stretching it by messing with the appropriations process in a way that was never intended," Thune told reporters.

Thune explained that this is why Republicans "prefunded" ICE with the $75 billion.

Senate Democrats and Republicans reached a funding agreement for DHS, excluding ICE and Border Patrol, but the House has yet to vote on the Senate-passed deal due to pushback from House Republicans.

Currently, top Republicans indicate they will employ the same party-line strategy again to fund ICE and Border Patrol for the remainder of Trump's term, without yielding to Democratic demands for reforms.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, stated that Democrats are impeding Trump's mandate from voters to implement his immigration agenda. He has proposed using reconciliation to fund ICE for a decade.

"I think we may very well be in a world where these Senate Democrats will never again vote to fund ICE," Cruz told Fox News.

Power of the purse in crisis?

Bagenstos, now a law and public policy professor at the University of Michigan, perceives a different threat as the White House bypasses Congress on funding through various means.

The administration has refused to disburse funds appropriated by Congress, such as for foreign aid, and has utilized funds not appropriated by Congress, like payments to DHS employees during a shutdown.

While lawmakers did approve the $75 billion for ICE, Bagenstos argues that circumventing the regular funding process represents another instance of Congress ceding power.

"We really are at a moment when the power of the purse is in a crisis," he remarked.

Bagenstos noted that the Constitution's framers vested appropriations power in Congress, viewing the legislative branch as closest to the populace.

"They disagreed about almost everything in the construction of our government, but one thing that people across the board agreed on was that the legislature should have the power of the purse," he stated.

If Congress disengages, Bagenstos warned, the risk of executive tyranny increases.

"If Congress doesn't stand up, I don't see why every executive in the future isn't going to follow some playbook like this," he concluded.