Senate passes bill to fund all parts of DHS except for ICE and parts of CBP
U.S. Capitol Buildiong. (Tim Graham/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Senators at last agreed via voice vote early Friday morning to approve a funding package that funds the Department of Homeland Security besides Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and part of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — a critical step toward ending most of the 42-day long DHS shutdown.
Agencies that would be funded by the Senate’s approved package include TSA, FEMA, The Coast Guard and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
The vote was called by Sen. Bernie Moreno, who was presiding over the chamber just after 2 a.m. ET on Friday morning. The bill will now head to the House where it will need to be approved. If passed, it will then head to the desk of President Donald Trump who would need to sign it for it to become law.
In remarks on the Senate floor early Friday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was proud of Democrats who “held the line” on their objection to funding ICE and CBP without reforms.
“Democrats held firm in our position that Donald Trump’s rogue and deadly militia should not get more funding without serious reforms and we will continue to fight for those reforms,” Schumer said. The package the Senate approved does not include funding for ICE and parts of CBP, though those agencies will continue to receive funds due to the influx of cash in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill.
Also absent from the package are any of the reforms to ICE’s operating procedures that Democrats have been repeatedly demanding since the debate over DHS funding began.
Majority Leader John Thune lambasted Democrats on the floor for what he framed as their refusal to negotiate in good faith. He said Democrats could have secured some of their desired reforms if they hadn’t complicated negotiations.
“We could be standing here right now passing a funding bill with a list of reforms if the Democrats had made the smallest effort to actually reach an agreement. But they didn’t, because it’s now clear to everyone, Democrats didn’t actually want a solution, they wanted an issue, politics over policy, self-interest over reform, pandering to their base over actually solving a problem,” Thune said. “It’s an appalling commentary on the state of the Democratic Party.”
Schumer was asked by reporters about how Democrats would get reforms from this point going forward.
“We’re going to continue to fight hard for reforms, there’ll be opportunities,” Schumer said, though he provided no detail.
Though there was an effort by Republicans tonight to unanimously pass annual funding for ICE, it was blocked by Democrats.
Republicans are vowing to work on a package later this year to approve even more funding for ICE and CBP, saying they aim to do it using reconciliation — a budget tool that, if successful, would allow them to sidestep Democratic objection and pass the bill without any Democratic support.
Republicans are already warning that that bill will be a much harsher and Sen. Eric Schmitt vowed it would “supercharge deportations.”
U.S. President Donald Trump tours the Ford River Rouge Complex on January 13, 2026, in Dearborn, Michigan. Trump is visiting Michigan where he will participate in a tour of the Ford River Rouge complex and later give remarks to the Detroit Economic Club. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon was expected to send additional military assets to the Middle East in coming days, according to several people familiar with the discussions, including possibly the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group.
Such a move is considered a typical precaution at times of heightened tensions because of the 30,000 troops stationed throughout the region in countries like Qatar, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
The added firepower would serve as a deterrent to attacks by adversaries against U.S. bases. But it also would give President Donald Trump additional options to strike Iran later if he chooses.
Examples of assets that could be surged include an aircraft carrier strike group accompanied by cruisers and missile destroyers, as well as Air Force fighter squadrons and land-based air missile defense systems.
Discussions of the additional military assets come as Trump threatened to attack Iran’s government because of violent clashes with protesters. Officials in Tehran responded by threatening to strike back at U.S. bases if he followed through.
According to one person familiar with the discussions this week, Trump was told that a military strike against Iran could be extraordinarily dangerous and potentially risk the lives of U.S. service members in the region, particularly if the government in Tehran felt it was on the brink of collapse. NBC News was first to report this detail.
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters he opted against strikes for now because the U.S. had been told “on good authority” that the killing of protestors in Iran had stopped. Trump also said Friday that 800 planned executions in Iran had been halted, a claim that could not be immediately verified.
In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied Tehran had any plans to execute protesters.
Several sources said there had been long-running concerns among U.S. officials that the military didn’t have the right mix of assets in place to protect against a potential massive retaliatory strike from Iran, given that Trump had surged much of the military’s force to the Caribbean to support the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
There is currently no aircraft carrier in the Middle East, although officials say there are six Navy ships, including three missile destroyers. The Pentagon declined to comment.
If the Lincoln is deployed to the Middle East from the South China Sea, it’s expected to take longer than a week to arrive. The USS Lincoln was spotted earlier this week on satellite sailing away from the Philippines.
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.”
A security contractor hired by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), checks the mouth of a Honduran immigration detainee from Honduras before a deportation flight to San Pedro Sula, Honduras on February 28, 2013 in Mesa, Arizona. (John Moore/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The Trump administration’s deportations to third countries last year are estimated to have cost taxpayers “upward of $40 million,” with some third-country migrants costing more than $1 million each, according to a Democratic congressional report released Friday.
The 30-page report is the result of a ten-month review by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who examined third-country deportations undertaken by the administration.
In particular, the report found that over $32 million was sent directly to Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau — with some funds sent before any third-country national arrived.
“The total costs of the Trump Administration’s third country deportations through January 2026 are unknown but are likely upward of $40 million,” the report said.
Tommy Pigott, a spokesman for the State Department, did not comment directly on the figures used in the report.
“Contrary to what they might have hoped, this report only underlines much of the unprecedented work that the Trump administration has done to enforce our immigration laws. Astonishingly, some in Congress still want to go back to a time just 14 months ago when cartels had free rein to poison Americans and our border was open,” he said in a statement.
The report analyzed the sums in comparison to the number of third country nationals actually received, and concluded that the administration “paid at least one country more than $1 million per third country national received.”
For example, the report found that the administration paid the Rwandan government $7.5 million “in exchange for agreeing to accept third-country nationals.” As of Jan. 2026, Rwanda received seven third-country nationals, with each migrant costing approximately $1.1 million, the report said.
El Salvador was found to have received the most migrants, with approximately 250 third country nationals costing $20,755 per migrant. The majority of those people deported to El Salvador were Venezuelan nationals who were then sent onward to Venezuela several months later, according to administration officials.
The findings also show that Palau had not received any third-country nationals as of January, yet they have already received $7.5 million from the U.S.
According to a U.S. official quoted in the report, deportation deals with some countries were intended to communicate a “threat” to migrants.
“With countries like Palau or Eswatini, the point is that the Administration can threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere,” the U.S. official allegedly said.
“The point is to scare people,” he allegedly added.
The Democrats’ report also homes in on the high sums of money dedicated to transporting migrants from the U.S. to third countries, with the administration “frequently using military aircraft that can cost more than $32,000 per hour.”
At times, the administration paid “twice” for migrants’ travel — “once to remove them to a third country and then again to fly them to their home country,” the report said.
This occurred due to a lack of sufficient notice provided to migrants’ home countries, the report said, arguing that this is “needlessly wasting taxpayer funds.”
Despite these significant costs, the report found that a “relatively small number of migrants” were ultimately removed to third countries, therefore leaving “little measurable impact on [the administration’s] deportation agenda.”
The report also highlights an apparent lack of oversight in terms of monitoring foreign governments’ compliance, especially with countries that have historically high records of human rights violations and corrupt governments.
“Without oversight, it is unknown whether U.S. funds are facilitating corruption or other abuses,” the report said.
It is also “challenging” for the State Department to track such funds, the report said, alleging that the administration sends such money directly to foreign governments rather than utilizing “trusted third-party implementing partners.”
“In at least one country, U.S. officials told [Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] that Trump Administration officials instructed them not to follow up on how deportees were being treated,” the report alleged, adding that many of the agreements rely on “blanket language” for assurances.
The report criticizes the administration for making “secret deals” with foreign countries in order to establish agreements about accepting third-country nationals.
“Dozens” of other countries are currently being pursued to agree to deals, the report said.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, slammed the administration for engaging in policy that she calls the “epitome” of “fraud, waste and abuse.”
“This report outlines the troubling practice by the Trump Administration of deporting individuals to third countries — places where these people have no connection — at great expense to the American taxpayer and raises serious questions,” she said in a statement.
