House Speaker Mike Johnson faces an incredibly tight margin as he can only afford to lose one Republican vote if all members are present and voting on the funding package.
First, Johnson has to clear a procedural vote before debate can begin on the floor and a vote on final passage can be held.
Johnson told reporters on Tuesday that he is confident the package, passed in the Senate after an 11th-hour deal between Senate Democrats and the White House, will pass.
“This may be hard for some of y’all to believe, but I never doubted this,” Johnson said at his weekly news conference Tuesday morning.
The agreement separates a Department of Homeland Security funding bill from five others funding other agencies for the rest of the fiscal year, and grants two weeks of extended DHS funding to negotiate Democratic demands for restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement amid its immigration enforcement operation, including requiring agents to wear body cameras turned on and to not wear masks.
The funding fight over DHS erupted in the aftermath of the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting involving federal law enforcement in Minneapolis on Jan. 24.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told Johnson over the weekend that Democrats would not help Republicans expedite the funding package.
Meanwhile, hard-line Republicans also threatened to hold the package up in hopes of attaching an unrelated bill that would require a proof of citizenship in federal elections known as the SAVE Act. Though some hard-liners, including Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Tim Burchett, appear to be backing down on their demands.
President Donald Trump said Monday that he has spoken to congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle and expressed confidence in a resolution coming soon.
Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, US Customs and Border Protection, Commissioner Rodney Scott, and Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons testify before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, February 12, 2026 in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Rand Paul had strong words on Thursday for the heads of the federal agencies spearheading the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in Minneapolis and across the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Todd Lyons, Customs and Border Protection commissioner Rodney Scott, and Citizenship and Immigration Services director Joseph Edlow were testifying in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
“Witness the thousands of people in the streets in Minneapolis and in Minnesota, and the millions of viewers who witnessed the recent deaths,” Paul, the committee’s chairman, said. “It’s clearly evident that the public trust has been lost. To restore trust in ICE and Border Patrol, they must admit their mistakes, be honest and forthright with their rules of engagement, and pledge to reform. I hope the leadership of ICE and Border Patrol here today will participate in a meaningful way.”
Paul and ranking member Sen. Gary Peters went frame by frame on videos of the shooting of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old Minneapolis nurse killed in an encounter with federal agents last month. Federal officials initially said that Pretti “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and “attacked” officers carrying out immigration duties.
State and local officials said Pretti was lawfully carrying a gun, with a concealed carry permit, and video reviewed and verified by ABC News does not appear to show that Pretti drew his gun on the agents and instead was holding up a cell phone, not a gun, to record agents during the incident.
Another Minneapolis resident – Renee Good — was also shot and killed by federal agents in early January. Federal officials say that the agents acted in self defense after Good allegedly tried to ram them with her car, which local city officials and her family have disputed.
Paul said that it isn’t so much about the specifics of the investigation, but rather the training that CBP and ICE agents receive.
“No one in America believes shoving that woman’s head and face in the snow was de-escalation,” Paul said of video showing agents scuffling with Pretti and a woman moments before the shooting. “But your officer, you need to know they…had a verbal encounter with them. She did not place her hands on the officers. She wasn’t trying to get their weapon. It’s not great. I mean … I don’t like to see these encounters either, but is it appropriate for the officers to respond to a verbal, barrage of words or whatever? Is it proper, to physically throw a woman down or throw anyone down if the only action is verbal?”
Both Scott and Lyons agreed that it wasn’t de-escalation if the only action against the agents had been verbal.
“I understand you not wanting to make conclusions yet, but nobody believes you’re gonna because you made conclusions immediately,” Paul told the law enforcement leaders. “Not you. But people within the government made conclusions immediately that [Pretti] was a terrorist and an assassin … people aren’t believing there’s going to be an honest investigation.”
In the hours after the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti committed an “act of domestic terrorism” and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called him a “would-be assassin” and a “terrorist.”
Paul added at the hearing, “I think it’s terrible police work, but there has to ultimately be repercussions.”
Scott said that he would not jump to conclusions and asked the nation to do the same. He said he was committed to releasing the officers’ body-worn-cameras once the investigation is complete.
“There’s body-cam video, that’s all being looked at,” Scott said. “And until all that evidence is evaluated, I can’t jump to a conclusion on either direction. I would ask America to do the same thing, but I am committed to transparency, to making sure all the information we have is made public when it’s appropriate.”
Paul said that he saw “nothing, not even a hint of something that was aggressive on [Pretti’s] part.”
“I don’t think this should take months and months and years and years. There needs to be a conclusion,” Paul said. “We need to have answers here and there needs to be an announcement. These are the new policies. This is how we’re going to interact with the public, because the public needs to know to, you know, if I go to a protest and I shout something at people, could I be killed?”
Scott also did not say whether the gun was accidentally discharged by officers in the Pretti case, citing an ongoing investigation.
The FBI logo at the entrance to the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C., on May 28, 2025. (Photo by STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The FBI is attempting to schedule interviews with the six Democratic members of Congress who made a video saying troops should not obey any illegal orders, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.
The FBI would conduct these interviews on behalf of the Justice Department, and it is unclear when the interviews would be held amid the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, the sources said.
Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin, one of the six Democratic lawmakers in the video, said the “FBI’s Counterterrorism Division appeared to open an inquiry” into her.
“The President directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place. He believes in weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies and does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet. He uses legal harassment as an intimidation tactic to scare people out of speaking up,” Slotkin said in a post on X on Tuesday.
“This isn’t just about a video. This is not the America I know, and I’m not going to let this next step from the FBI stop me from speaking up for my country and our Constitution,” Slotkin added.
The offices of the House Democrats in the video also released a statement to ABC News confirming the FBI’s attempt to schedule interviews, saying the president is “using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress.
“No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution. We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship,” the House Democrats said in a statement.
In an interview that aired on X on Monday, FBI Director Kash Patel said career analysts and agents will make any determination on the Democratic lawmakers who urged members of the military to disobey illegal orders, when asked what his reaction to it was.
“Is there a lawful predicate to open up an inquiry and investigation or is there not? And that decision will be made by the career agents and analysts here at the FBI,” Patel said in the interview.
When asked if the FBI was involved, Patel said, “based on the fact that it’s an ongoing matter, there’s not much I can say.”
The U.S. Capitol Police referred questions to the FBI, who declined to comment.
The development was first reported by Fox News.
President Donald Trump has previously accused these members of Congress of “seditious behavior.”
“I’m not threatening death, but I think they’re in serious trouble. In the old days, it was death. … That was seditious behavior, that was a big deal. You know, nothing’s a big deal, today’s a different world,” Trump said last week.
The news of the FBI attempting to schedule these interviews comes after the Pentagon announced it would launch a “thorough review” into Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who is one of the six members of Congress in the video.
“The military already has clear procedures for handling unlawful orders. It does not need political actors injecting doubt into an already clear chain of command,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Tuesday.
On Monday, Hegseth called the six Democrats in the video the “Seditious Six” but explained why the probe is focused solely on Kelly.
“Five of the six individuals in that video do not fall under [Defense Department] jurisdiction (one is CIA and four are former military but not ‘retired’, so they are no longer subject to UCMJ). However, Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ — and he knows that,” Hegseth posted on X.
In response to the FBI scheduling interviews with those in the video, Kelly’s office said the Arizona senator “won’t be silenced.”
“Senator Kelly won’t be silenced by President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s attempt to intimidate him and keep him from doing his job as a U.S. Senator,” according to a statement from Kelly’s office.
An excavator works to clear rubble after the East Wing of the White House was demolished, Oct. 23, 2025. (Eric Lee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The federal judge presiding over a challenge to the White House ballroom project signaled deep skepticism of the Trump administration’s argument that the president has the legal authority to undertake the East Wing renovations and to fund them with private donations.
In a hearing on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon pressed an administration lawyer on both of those issues — as he questioned whether the president has the power to tear down part of what he called “an icon that’s a national institution,” and described the intent to fund it with private gifts as a “Rube Goldberg contraption” that would evade congressional oversight.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit last month seeking to stop the ballroom construction until the project completes the federal review process standard for federal building projects and the administration seeks public comment on the proposed changes.
The National Trust, the privately funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites, was seeking a preliminary injunction.
At the end of the hour-long hearing Thursday, Judge Leon said he will likely not issue a decision this month, but “hopefully” in February. He said he expects the losing side to appeal.
In a statement provided to ABC News, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said: “President Trump is working 24/7 to Make America Great Again, including his historic beautification of the White House, at no taxpayer expense. These long-needed upgrades will benefit generations of future presidents and American visitors to the People’s House.”
The size and cost of the project have increased since first being unveiled. In November, Trump said the project would cost $400 million, after an initial estimate of $200 million. The White House has said the project will be funded by private donations.
Judge Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said the Trump administration appears to be making an “end run” around congressional oversight with the president’s plan to privately raise $400 million for the ballroom project, and he admonished the Justice Department’s lawyer to “be serious” in justifying a legal rationale for it.
While the case presents a series of complicated and overlapping legal issues, the judge spent much of the hearing focused on just two federal statutes — one, which says that no “building or structure” can be built on any federal public grounds in the District of Columbia “without express authority of Congress,” and another that calls for yearly appropriations for the “maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing [and] improvement” of the White House.
Leon noted that Republicans control both houses of Congress, and that the president could have gone to lawmakers to seek approval for the demolition and rebuild. He also suggested the $2.5 million Congress recently appropriated for White House maintenance was for “very small-size projects,” not a ballroom.
Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth responded that Trump didn’t want $400 million in taxpayer money to be used for the project, when he could solicit gifts to the National Park Service to fund it instead. Roth also noted that Congress was never asked in Gerald Ford’s era to approve the building of a swimming pool, or a tennis pavilion during Trump’s first term.
“[Your argument for using NPS’s gift authority] on an icon that’s a national treasure is, what? The ’77 Gerald Ford swimming pool?” Leon asked. “You compare that to ripping down the East Wing? C’mon! Be serious.”
Leon said he saw “no basis” in the legislative history of the park service’s gift authority that would allow Trump to use it to raise $400 million to build a new White House ballroom. “None,” Leon said. “Zero.”
Arguing for the National Trust, attorney Tad Heuer described the president as a “temporary tenant of the White House, not the landlord.” Leon suggested “steward” might be a more fitting term.
“He is not the owner,” Heuer said.
As Roth took the podium to begin his argument on behalf of the administration, he attempted to convince the judge that the National Trust has no standing to sue. Leon abruptly cut him off.
“I’m very comfortable with standing in this case,” Leon said. “Sorry to disappoint you. You’ll get your chance at the Court of Appeals.”
Roth warned the judge that an order halting construction at this stage could expose the existing White House structure to damage and potentially lead to security concerns, since it’s widely believed that a replacement for a previously-existing underground bunker is part of the project. The National Trust has said it would not object to continued construction on the security portion of the work.
“It can’t be divided out that way,” Roth said of the security-related construction, “unless we want the court to be the project manager on site.”
Leon declined to issue an order from the bench. He said the coming winter storm made it unlikely he would issue a ruling on the National Trust’s motion for a preliminary injunction before the end of this month.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddard contributed to this report.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story misidentified an attorney for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The story has been corrected and updated.
