Trump threatens to put ICE agents in airports starting Monday amid DHS funding impasse
Travelers wait in line at a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) in Atlanta, Georgia, US, on Friday, March 20, 2026. (Photographer: Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he is ready to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to U.S. airports starting Monday if Democrats don’t agree to a funding package to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown.
“I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, ‘GET READY.’ NO MORE WAITING, NO MORE GAMES!” the president wrote in a post to his social media platform.
In an earlier social media post on Saturday, Trump wrote that unless Democrats “immediately sign an agreement” he will move to deploy ICE agents into American airports and conduct security enforcement “like no one has ever seen before.”
Trump said that operations would include immigration enforcement. It’s currently unclear what security roles, exactly, ICE agents will take on in airports.
The White House referred ABC News back to the president’s post when asked what capacity Americans can expect to see ICE operating in at airports.
Trump’s statements come after Democrats on Friday blocked legislation to reopen DHS for the fifth time since the partial shutdown began in mid-February.
Democrats have demanded changes to policy surrounding ICE and Customs and Border Protection in exchange for votes to fund all of the department. Republicans, meanwhile, have rejected Democratic efforts to fund other agencies in DHS like the Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Thousands of TSA employees have now missed their first full paychecks, and travelers are facing long lines at airports around the country.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, during an appearance on Fox News earlier Saturday, called on Democrats to negotiate with Republicans.
“I just wish they would stop using the American people as leverage. Make them go through pain so Democrats can get what they want legislatively,” Duffy said.
On Capitol Hill, in a rare Saturday morning press conference, Senate Majority Leader John Thune also urged Democrats to agree to a funding deal.
“At some point, the Democrats are going to have to take yes for an answer. I know they think this is politically good for them. It is not,” Thune, R-S.D., said.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers met behind closed doors with White House border czar Tom Homan throughout the week. The latest meeting concluded late Friday night.
“We need to get the government open and we’ll keep talking until it has,” Homan told ABC News after the meeting.
Thune said he believed that meeting was “productive” and confirmed that the Trump administration added to its offer on DHS funding and submitted legislative text, though lawmakers have not publicly discussed what the new offer from the White House entails.
Thune said he hopes additional meetings take place over the weekend.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in speech on the Senate floor on Saturday, urged Republicans to support a Democratic effort to fund TSA while other negotiations continue.
“It is unacceptable for workers and travelers and entire airports to get taken hostage in political games, but that’s what the Republicans are doing,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said.
“It is unacceptable to say we will only pay TSA workers if it is attached to a bill that funds ICE with no reforms, but that’s what the Republicans have been doing. Democrats want to pay TSA workers ASAP, with no strings attached,” Schumer added.
Schumer said Democrats are “having productive conversations on reforming ICE and CBP” but that the process is “ongoing.”
“But we must fund TSA now. Let us keep negotiating the outstanding issues with ICE, but let us start sending paychecks to TSA workers now. Let us end the long lines at the airport now,” Schumer said.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testifies before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, February 10, 2026. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Tuesday was grilled on Capitol Hill about his past association with Jeffrey Epstein, following revelations that the two men remained in contact years after Lutnick suggested he had distanced himself from the convicted sex offender.
Lutnick strongly denied any wrongdoing, but one Democrat said he had “totally misrepresented” the extent of their relationship “to the Congress, to the American people and to the survivors of his despicable criminal and predatory acts.”
Appearing before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Lutnick was asked repeatedly about his correspondence with Epstein detailed in files recently released by the Justice Department, and President Donald Trump’s commerce secretary revealed he visited Epstein’s Caribbean island in 2012 with his family and others.
“I did have lunch with him, as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies,” Lutnick testified under questioning by Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.
Lutnick told Van Hollen that another couple and their children were with them during the visit.
“We had lunch on the island, that is true, for an hour, and we left with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife all together,” he said.
When asked if he saw anything inappropriate during his visit, Lutnick responded, “The only thing I saw with my wife and my children and the other couple and their children was staff who worked for Mr. Epstein on that island.”
Lutnick, who lived next door to Epstein for over a decade, previously suggested he had distanced himself from Epstein back in the mid-2000s prior to Epstein’s conviction in 2008.
“So, I was never in the room with him socially, for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going because he’s gross,” Lutnick said on the “Pod Force One” podcast back in October.
“That’s my story. A one and absolutely done,” Lutnick said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Commerce told ABC News on Monday, “Mr. and Mrs. Lutnick met Jeffrey Epstein in 2005 and had very limited interactions with him over the next 14 years.”
However, the documents released over a week ago showed one email from Epstein’s schedule for May 1, 2011, showing plans for drinks with Lutnick.
Legal documents also showed both Lutnick and Epstein invested in the same business in 2012.
Lutnick testified that he did not have lunch with Epstein in 2011. He also testified that he had no idea about an email from the documents that said Epstein had expressed interest in meeting his nanny.
“I had no idea what that was about. Had nothing to do with me,” he testified.
Van Hollen questioned why Lutnick would make the visit even though Epstein had already been convicted.
“You made a very big point of saying that you sensed that this was a bad person in 2005 and then, of course, in 2008, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution of a minor and yet, you went and had this trip and other interactions,” the senator said.
Lutnick told the committee that he had “nothing to hide, absolutely nothing,” and would speak to the committee about sharing his own records as they relate to Jeffrey Epstein.
“I have done absolutely nothing wrong,” he testified.
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons also criticized Lutnick.
“It troubles me that you took your family to lunch on his island, that you had appointments with him. Please disclose everything. Put this to rest, because this is an issue of grave concern to my constituents,” Coons told Lutnick. “President Trump ran on releasing the Epstein files.”
Lutnick again maintained he had limited interactions with Epstein.
“I did not have anything you could call a relationship, anything you could call an acquaintance,” he told Coons
The White House has defended Lutnick, following the release of the new Epstein files.
“The entire Trump administration, including Secretary Lutnick and the Department of Commerce, remains focused on delivering for the American people,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement Monday.
Several Democratic lawmakers, however, have called on Lutnick to resign because of his appearance in the files.
“It’s now clear that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been lying about his relationship with Epstein. He said he had no interactions with Epstein after 2005, yet we now know they were in business together. Lutnick must resign or be fired,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an X post Sunday.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie also called for Lutnick to resign.
“So, he’s got a lot to answer for. But really, he should make life easier on the president, frankly, and just resign,” Massie told CNN Sunday.
Lutnick did not respond to questions from ABC News prior to the hearing about those calls for him to step down.
House Speaker Mike Johnson voiced confidence in Lutnick, telling reporters Tuesday that bipartisan calls for his resignation are “absurd.”
“Howard Lutnick is a great commerce secretary who’s done an extraordinary job for the country, and Thomas Massie should stop playing political games,” he said.
Reporters pressed the speaker on whether he harbors any concerns about Lutnick given his ties to Epstein.
“I don’t know anything about that. I know Howard as an individual, and I trust his word on it,” Johnson said.
Rep. Thomas Massie speaks alongside Rep. Ro Khanna during a news conference on the Epstein Files Transparency Act outside the U.S. Capitol, November 18, 2025 in Washington. Heather Diehl/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation on Monday that would direct the Senate to initiate legal action to hold the Justice Department accountable for failing to release the complete files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by Friday’s deadline, which was mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Schumer’s announcement came after Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie announced on Sunday that they are pursuing “inherent contempt” charges against Attorney General Pam Bondi for not complying with the law to release the complete Epstein files.
If the effort passes, it could lead to Bondi’s arrest — though the pair is expected to introduce the resolution as “privileged” once the House returns in January, which would force a vote within two legislative days on the House floor, and it’s unclear if this effort would even be successful when it comes up for a vote.
“The law Congress passed is crystal clear: release the Epstein files in full so Americans can see the truth,” Schumer said in a statement. “Instead, the Trump Department of Justice dumped redactions and withheld the evidence — that breaks the law. Today, I am introducing a resolution to force the Senate to take legal action and compel this administration to comply.”
The DOJ faced a Friday deadline imposed by Congress and signed into law by the president to release a massive cache of records gathered during government investigations into the sex offender, who died in jail in 2019.
The Justice Department released thousands of files — ranging from investigative documents to grand jury testimony to snapshots taken by Epstein and his friends — but said it would fail to fully release all the files by the deadline. The law contains exceptions to protect victims and other circumstances, but critics say the DOJ is not following the letter and spirit of the law.
Schumer called the DOJ’s partial release on Friday a “blatant cover-up.”
“Pam Bondi and [Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche are shielding Donald Trump from accountability, and the Senate has a duty to act,” Schumer said.
Schumer is expected to force consideration of this bill on the Senate floor in January when the Senate returns from its holiday break. The bill would likely require unanimous consent to pass.
It is unclear if it would have that support, but the Senate unanimously passed the Epstein Transparency Act, which compelled the release of the Epstein documents.
On Sunday, Khanna and Massie, the co-authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, announced their intent to pursue inherent contempt proceedings.
The inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a “contemnor” — someone held in contempt — until the individual complies with congressional demands like a subpoena or a monetary fine, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The power directs the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the individual who refuses to comply with a subpoena or fine, however, once the witness complies with the subpoena, they are released.
Notably, the resolution would not require passage in the Senate to be enforced.
“The quickest way, and I think most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” Massie said on “CBS News’ Face the Nation” on Sunday.
Khanna, who also appeared on the same program on Sunday, reiterated that inherent contempt is the right path at this point.
“We only need only need the House for inherent contempt, and we’re building a bipartisan coalition, and it would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she’s not releasing these documents. I’ll tell you why, I’ve talked to the survivors, why this is such a slap in the face,” Khanna said.
On NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Blanche said he wasn’t taking Massie and Khanna’s threats seriously because he said he believes they are in compliance with the law. Specifically regarding threats of legal action against the department, Blanche said, “Bring it on.”
A statement released Monday morning by attorneys representing a group of Epstein survivors said omissions in the files by either redactions or unreleased pages amounted to a failure.
“We are told that there are hundreds of thousands of pages of documents still unreleased,” the statement said.
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to members of the media as he leaves the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Top congressional leaders — comprising the “Gang of 8” — did not receive a briefing from the administration before the U.S. strike in Venezuela began, multiple sources told ABC News Saturday morning.
Per one source, the Department of Defense notified congressional staff after the operation started.
Weeks ago, President Donald Trump indicated he wouldn’t brief lawmakers in advance of any land operations in Venezuela because he was worried they would “leak.”
Early congressional reaction largely split along party lines.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked the phones Saturday morning to shore up support among Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Notably, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee initially seemed critical of the action being taken without authorization by Congress.
“I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee posted on X.
But later, Lee followed up his post saying he had spoken by phone with Rubio about and was now comfortable with the administration’s authority to take action.
“Just got off the phone with @SecRubio He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack Thank you, @SecRubio, for keeping me apprised,” Lee wrote.
He also said that Rubio told him he anticipates “no further action in Venezuela now that Maduro is in U.S. custody.”
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, echoed Lee’s comments after saying he, too, had spoken with Rubio.
“Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator; he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation. That’s why he was indicted in U.S. court nearly six years ago for drug trafficking and narco-terrorism,” Cotton posted on X. “I just spoke to @SecRubio, who confirmed that Maduro is in U.S. custody and will face justice for his crimes against our citizens. I commend President Trump and our brave troops and law-enforcement officers for this incredible operation.”
Later, speaking to Fox News, Cotton said, “Congress doesn’t need to be notified ever time the executive branch is making an arrest. And that’s exactly what happened this morning in Venezuela, and now Maduro is going to come to the United States, and he’s going to face justice.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement he has spoken to Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in “the last several hours” — calling the military action in Venezuela “decisive” and a “justified operation that will protect American lives.”
Johnson said the Trump administration is working to schedule briefings next week when Congress returns to Washington after the holiday break.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said in a statement that he had spoken with Rubio as well and argued Trump’s actions were undertaken as part of “the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant.”
“President Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Thune said.
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, countered that Rubio had denied regime change was the administration’s goal.
“Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, but I have seen no evidence that his presidency poses a threat that would justify military action without Congressional authorization, nor have I heard a strategy for the day after and how we will prevent Venezuela from descending into chaos,” he said in a statement. “Secretary Rubio repeatedly denied to Congress that the Administration intended to force regime change in Venezuela. The Administration must immediately brief Congress on its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”
In a statement Saturday morning, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, one of the Senate’s most vocal advocates for congressional war authorizations, issued a scathing statement on Trump’s actions in Venezuela and called for Congress to take up his resolution that would block the use of the U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
“Where will this go next? Will the President deploy our troops to protect Iranian protesters? To enforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza To battle terrorists in Nigeria To seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? To suppress Americans peacefully assembling to protest his policies?” Kaine said.
“Trump has threatened to do all this and more and sees no need to seek legal authorization from people’s elected legislature before putting servicemembers at risk,” he said.
Kaine, along with California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and co-sponsor GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, introduced a war powers resolution last month to block the use of the U.S. military to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
That legislation is ready to be called up for a vote. The Senate returns to Washington next week on Monday, while the House returns on Tuesday.
Last month, Republicans defeated two Democratic war powers resolutions that attempted to reign in the president’s military actions in the Caribbean and East Pacific.
The first measure, H. Con. Res. 61, would direct the president to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted.
That resolution was authored by the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks. A vote failed on Dec. 17 by a count of 210-216, with two Republicans voting in favor and two Democrats opposed to the measure.
“This action is also a violation of international law and further undermines America’s global standing,” Meeks, D-N.Y., stated Saturday following the operation. “Congress must reassert its constitutional role before this escalation leads to greater instability, chaos, and unnecessary risk to American lives.”
A separate war powers resolution, H. Con. Res. 64 — championed by Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern and written to address hostilities with Venezuela, narrowly failed by a vote of 211-213, with three Republicans voting in favor — at odds with the rest of the House Republican Conference. One moderate Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted to defeat the measure alongside Republicans.
On Saturday, McGovern argued the strikes are illegal.
“Without authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela,” he posted on X.
While congressional Republicans overwhelmingly expressed support for the Trump administration’s operation to capture Maduro, at least three House Republicans put out critical statements of the action.
GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky posted on X: “If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.”
Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska posted on X, in part, “My main concern is now Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan. Freedom and rule of law were defended last night, but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia posted, in part, “If U.S. military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives from deadly drugs then why hasn’t the Trump admin taken action against Mexican cartels?”
She added, “And if prosecuting narco terrorists is a high priority then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America Ironically cocaine is the same drug that Venezuela primarily traffics into the U.S.
Greene continued, “Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going. This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”
