Signs of progress to avert partial government shutdown after DHS funding spat
A U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sign stands at the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2014. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — There are signs of progress with negotiations over funding for the Department of Homeland Security ahead of a partial government shutdown that would begin at midnight Friday.
Talks are intensifying in the final hours between the White House and Senate Democrats to reach an agreement over how to advance a package of bills necessary to fund the government — including Democrats’ request to separate the bill that funds DHS.
Democrats want DHS removed from a package that includes five other government funding bills so that changes to the DHS bill aimed at reining in Immigration and Customs Enforcement can be made without affecting the other agencies that still need to be funded.
There were Democratic calls to separate the DHS funding following the deaths of Renee Good, a mother of three who was fatally shot by an immigration enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this month, and became more urgent after the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting by federal agents over the weekend.
As of now, there is no firm deal yet, and there is plenty of time for things to fall apart.
Negotiations are centered around that request from Democrats, sources told ABC News. This would allow the military and critical programs like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Head Start — a federal program run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that provides early childhood education, health, nutrition and family support services to low-income children and families — to be funded through September.
A deal would temporarily extend funding for DHS through a short-term bill, which would give Democrats and the White House more time to discuss any possible policy changes.
Coming into the negotiations, Senate Democrats laid out a list of demands including: ending roving patrols, ensuring federal agents are held to the same use of force policies that apply to state and local law enforcement, preventing agents from wearing masks and requiring body cameras.
Republicans need the support of at least seven Democrats in the Senate to avert a partial shutdown.
The White House has not yet commented on the ongoing negotiations.
While sources indicate Democratic leadership is optimistic that things are headed in their direction, that same level of optimism has not been shared from the White House, sources told ABC News.
It is likely that even if a deal is reached, there will still be a short partial shutdown. Any changes to the government funding bill passed in the Senate would have to go back to the House.
The Senate is still slated to take a test vote on the larger package to fund the government (without any of the Democratic demands) Thursday at 11:30 a.m. Democrats have said they intend to block this vote unless modifications are made to meet their demands.
ICE agents leave a residence after knocking on the door on January 28, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues its immigration enforcement operations after two high-profile killings by federal agents in recent weeks. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In the weeks after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota during a surge to apprehend undocumented immigrants for deportation, Americans oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics by wide margins and President Donald Trump’s approval on immigration has dipped to the lowest of his second term, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s immigration rating hits new low for second term
Trump, who has focused much of his second term on the immigration crackdown, is now 18 percentage points underwater in how Americans rate his handling of immigration — with 58% disapproving and 40% approving — the worst ratings he has had on immigration in his second term, ticking down from his October ratings and almost exactly where he was in July 2019 when 40% approved and 57% disapproved of how he was handling the issue.
Despite his increasingly negative ratings on handling immigration since taking office, Americans don’t trust Democrats to handle the issue more. When asked who they trust to do a better job handling immigration, 38% say they trust Trump more, 34% trust congressional Democrats more and 24% trust neither.
And even though he’s underwater on handling immigration overall, Trump’s ratings on handling the immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border are a bit better, albeit still slightly negative, with 47% of Americans approving of how he is handling the situation at the border and 50% disapproving.
Americans on deportations and ICE
Americans are roughly split over whether the federal government should deport all undocumented immigrants living in the United States, but a growing share oppose expanded ICE operations — and by a 2-to-1 margin, they oppose ICE’s tactics.
The results come following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, by federal agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 — just weeks after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.
Half (50%) of Americans support the federal government deporting the about 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and sending them back to their home countries while 48% oppose this.
Support was even higher for deporting all undocumented immigrants ahead of the 2024 presidential election, when 56% of Americans supported sending all undocumented immigrants to their home countries. By last February that dipped to 51%.
Most Hispanic (64%), Black (58%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (56%) oppose deporting all undocumented immigrants while 58% of white people support widespread deportation.
Even if many Americans want mass deportations, 58% say Trump is going “too far” in deporting undocumented immigrants, up from 50% who said the same in October. Just 12% say he is “not going far enough” and 28% say he is “handling it about right.”
Seven in 10 Americans do not think most immigrants deported since January 2025 were violent criminals, including 33% who say “hardly any” of those deported were. Only 7% of Americans say “nearly all” of the immigrants who were deported since the beginning of the Trump administration were violent criminals.
A slim majority of Americans oppose ICE’s expanded operations to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 53% now, up from 46% in October.
Opinion breaks down on partisan lines, with 88% of Democrats opposed to ICE’s expanded operations and 81% of Republicans in support. A 56% majority of independents oppose ICE’s expanded operations.
By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration laws, 62% to 31%. Half of Americans strongly oppose ICE’s tactics, including 89% of Democrats and 53% of independents. Only 4 in 10 Republicans strongly support the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration law, rising to over half among MAGA Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who call themselves MAGA.
By a 13-point margin, Americans oppose abolishing ICE, 50% to 37%. Opinions are polarized: 7 in 10 Democrats support abolishing ICE, while 8 in 10 Republicans oppose it. More independents oppose abolishing ICE (45%) than support abolishing ICE (35%), with 2 in 10 independents saying they have no opinion on the issue.
ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Justice Department administered immigration laws. The Abolish ICE political movement gained national attention in 2018 during the previous Trump administration’s family-separation policy.
An ICE memo issued in May gave federal agents the authority to enter the homes of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without warrants signed by judges. A wide majority of Americans — including majorities across party lines — say that when federal law enforcement wants to forcibly enter someone’s home, they need to get approval from a judge; just 20% say getting approval from a federal agency is enough.
How Americans feel about Minnesota and personal impacts
Most Americans (54%) say they are either upset (17%) or angry (37%) over how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, with 72% of Democrats saying they are angry. More than 4 in 10 Americans say they are “not concerned” or “concerned but not upset” over the situation in Minnesota.
Nearly half of Republicans, 47%, say they are not concerned over immigration enforcement in Minnesota, along with 32% who say they are concerned but not upset.
And while majorities of Asian and Pacific Islander (66%), Hispanic (59%) and Black Americans (61%) say they are upset or angry about how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, that dips to 49% among white people.
There is a personal connection for many Americans — 42% say they are at least somewhat concerned that federal immigration enforcement agents could arrest or detain someone they know, including 33% who say they are at least somewhat concerned this could happen to a close family member or friend.
Hispanic (60%), Black (55%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (53%) are all more concerned that federal immigration agents could arrest and detain a close friend, family member or someone else they know than white people (32%).
Replacing Kristi Noem, sanctuary cities and the border
By almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support replacing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem amid the administration’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics, 44% to 23%, with 33% voicing no opinion on the matter.
Democrats are more aligned on replacing Noem than Republicans are. Three-quarters of Democrats support removing Noem, 7% oppose it and 18% have no opinion. Among Republicans, 45% oppose replacing Noem, 15% support it and a large 40% say they have no opinion on the matter. Among independents, 45% support Noem’s removal, 17% oppose it and 38% have no opinion.
By an 8-point margin, Americans oppose denying federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with ICE, 46% to 38%. Eight in 10 Democrats oppose this, over 7 in 10 Republicans support it.
Methodology — This ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins are larger among partisan group subsamples.
Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Rep. James Comer (R-KY) speaks to reporters as he arrives for a House Republican Conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Chairman James Comer has set a noon deadline Tuesday for Bill and Hillary Clinton to agree to the GOP’s specific terms for depositions that the Clintons signaled Monday night they generally would comply with, warning that if they do not then Republicans will reconvene to move contempt resolutions toward a full House vote.
“The Oversight Committee is seeking clarification the Clintons accepted the standard deposition terms that they were subpoenaed for: transcribed, filmed depositions in February with no time limit pursuant to the committee’s investigation. The depositions are pursuant to the Committee’s investigative purpose as laid out across its letters and contempt reports,” a person familiar with the matter told ABC News.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, in a news conference Tuesday alongside House GOP leadership, said Comer was “in the middle of a negotiation with the Clintons.”
“They have until noon today to fully comply, otherwise we will move contempt tomorrow against the Clintons,” Scalise reiterated.
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed on Monday evening to sit for closed-door depositions in the committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña posted on X. “They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”
For months, the Clintons had insisted that the subpoenas were without legal merit. Comer, a Republican, has pushed back, saying the Clintons are not above the law and must comply with a subpoena.
Besides defying the subpoenas to testify before the House committee, neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
In a letter dated Jan. 31, the Clintons’ legal teams wrote the committee to lay out the parameters of a prospective interview — alongside a request for the committee to withdraw its subpoena and contempt resolution — proposing a four-hour transcribed interview in lieu of a deposition conducted under oath.
The letter states the interview should occur in New York City — open to all committee members — while the scope of questions would be “confined to matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein.” The president also asked to designate his own transcriber, alongside a court reporter employed by the House.
“This framework is consistent with your priorities as communicated by Committee staff and as identified during the business meeting on January 21st,” the letter, signed by Clinton attorneys Katherine Turner and Ashley Callen, stated. “Pursuant to your request for this comprehensive written proposal, we ask that you respond in kind should there remain any specific area of disagreement to continue this good-faith effort to avoid legal proceedings that will prevent our clients from providing testimony in addition to the sworn statements they already submitted.”
Comer wrote back Monday, citing “serious concerns with the offer,” beginning with the proposed scope restriction — predicting President Clinton “would refuse to answer questions” related to his personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Comer also balked at the proposed four-hour time limit for the interview, and the president’s bid to break blocks of questioning into 30-minute periods — rather than 60-minute periods — that alternate between Republicans and Democrats.
“A hard time-limit provides a witness with the incentive to attempt to run out the clock by giving unnecessarily long answers and meandering off-topic. This is a particular concern where a witness, such as President Clinton, has an established record of being a loquacious individual,” Comer said.
“Limiting President Clinton’s testimony to four hours is insufficient time for the Committee to gain a full understanding of President Clinton’s personal relationship with them, his knowledge of their sex-trafficking ring, and his experience with their efforts to curry favor and exercise influence to protect themselves,” he added of President Clinton’s relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.
Finally, Comer took umbrage with the proposition for a transcribed interview, not a sworn deposition.
“A transcribed interview is voluntary, meaning that the subject may refuse to answer questions absent any assertion of privilege or constitutional right,” Comer noted. “The conditions requested thus would enable President Clinton to refuse to answer whatever questions he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted and leave as the Committee’s only recourse to again subpoena President Clinton’s testimony, effectively restarting this entire process from the beginning.”
As for Hillary Clinton, the lawyers’ letter echoes her sworn declaration, stating she “never held an office with responsibility for, or involvement with, DOJ’s handling of these investigations or prosecutions,” adding “the same is true as a private citizen after leaving office in 2013.”
The lawyers also requested that Comer withdraw the subpoena and resolution of contempt “so that we may continue to work in good faith toward an agreement that meets the Committee’s needs while accounting for the limited information Secretary Clinton can provide.”
In response, Comer emphasized “the necessity” of Hillary Clinton’s in-person testimony juxtaposed against the “unacceptability of simple sworn declarations.”
Comer concluded that the Clintons’ “desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency.”
The US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, April 20, 2026. House Republicans will send their first funding bills for the next fiscal year to the floor this week, while the Senate GOP plots a blueprint for patching up missing money for the current one. (Photographer: Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The bipartisan House Ethics Committee on Monday released a rare statement encouraging anyone who may have experienced sexual misconduct by a House member or staffer to contact them, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights or the Office of Employee Advocacy.
“There should be zero tolerance for sexual misconduct, harassment, or discrimination in the halls of Congress, or in any employment setting,” the committee said in a lengthy statement.
“The greatest hurdle the Committee faces in evaluating allegations of sexual misconduct is in convincing the most vulnerable witnesses to share their stories,” the statement read. “Accordingly, the Committee’s practice has been to release only the information that is necessary to hold Members accountable for misconduct and address public reporting that impacts the integrity of the House.”
The statement comes after allegations of sexual misconduct led to the resignations of California Democrat Eric Swalwell and Texas Republican Tony Gonzales last week.
Gonzales and Swalwell were about to face efforts by their colleagues to have them expelled from the House. The House Ethics Committee had announced investigations into both men, which ended when they resigned.
Gonzales dropped his reelection bid earlier this year after admitting to a relationship with a staffer who later died by suicide. Gonzales said he “made a mistake” and “had a lapse in judgement.”
Swalwell suspended his campaign for governor of California amid the accusations against him, including allegations of sexual assault, which he’s denied. Swalwell’s attorney, Sara Azari, last week said the allegations are “false.”
The committee said that since 2017, it has initiated investigations in 20 matters involving sexual misconduct by a lawmaker.
“The Committee has also investigated several Members for their handling of allegations of sexual misconduct by their senior staff,” the statement read.
In its history, the committee has conducted 28 sexual misconduct investigations. Several members who were being investigated resigned and even some were cleared.
The panel noted that it does not handle sexual harassment lawsuits or have “any involvement in settlements of such claims.”
“The Committee has taken the position that conduct that falls short of legal definitions of sexual harassment or assault under federal or state statutes can still be a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, which imposes a higher standard on Members of the House,” the statement read. “The Committee has also consistently publicly announced its investigations into publicly reported allegations of sexual misconduct and has announced any findings in those matters.”
