House Dems Rally Against DHS Funding Bill, But the Senate Is Where the Real Fight Happens

Posted on January 21, 2026January 21, 2026 by Nicole LaFond

Dems ‘Overwhelmingly’ Opposed

House Democrats are expected to vote against an upcoming appropriations bill funding the Department of Homeland Security because it doesn’t go far enough in restraining Immigration and Customs Enforcement after an agent killed a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis this month.

Congressional appropriators released a big bipartisan package on Tuesday that would fund the departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services and Homeland Security ahead of Congress’ deadline to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, at the end of January. The House is expected to vote on the funding package Thursday, and Republican leadership has reportedly agreed to allow a separate vote on the DHS section of the bill so Democrats can express their dismay. But absent GOP opposition, the legislation is still expected to pass the House if the Republican conference doesn’t have absentee issues.

While House Democratic leadership has come out saying it’ll vote against the DHS portion of the package — and a sweeping chunk of the House Democratic caucus is expected to do the same, including many Democratic appropriators in the House — those who plan to support the measure claim that the stuff the bill does to curtail ICE is better than nothing. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat on the House Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, has suggested voting for the bill is better than giving DHS a “blank check” in the form of a continuing resolution that Republicans would likely try to push through.

The details of the bill, per NBC News:

The package would keep ICE funding essentially flat at $10 billion for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, even as the agency received $75 billion of additional money for detention and enforcement from Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democratic appropriator, acknowledged that the package did not include broad reforms to rein in ICE in a statement from her office announcing the bill. But she endorsed the package, saying it would prevent a partial shutdown and arguing that it did include some Democratic priorities.

Those supposed priorities include funding to force ICE agents to wear body cams and language that “encourages” DHS to create a new uniform policy that would “ensure that law enforcement officers are clearly identifiable as Federal law enforcement.” It also includes some cuts to Trump’s sweeping deportation budget: it “would also cut funding for ICE enforcement and removal operations by $115 million and reduce the number of ICE detention beds by 5,500.”

What really matters is how Senate Democrats respond once the legislation is brought up for a vote in the upper chamber, as Republicans will need support from at least seven Democrats to pass the bill. The Senate does not return until next week, so how exactly individual senators and Democratic leadership in the upper chamber plans to approach the appropriations bill will be clearer then.

But a few Senate Democrats have spoken out against the DHS portion of the bill. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has been calling for Democrats to oppose funding for DHS since at least last week. After the bill text was released Tuesday, he issued a statement saying it “puts no meaningful constraints on the growing lawlessness of ICE, and increases funding for detention over the last Appropriations bill passed in 2024.”

Over the weekend some other Senate Democrats followed his lead, with Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) telling CNN Sunday that Democrats should withhold their votes on DHS funding even if it means shutting down that portion of the government.

“We cannot vote for anything that actually adds more money and doesn’t constrain ICE,” he said. “I can’t speak for everybody else, but if I have to shut down the portion of ICE — just to be clear, we’re not shutting down the rest of the government — the portion of ICE that is causing this kind of harm, racially profiling people, terrorizing our cities, I know the implications of that. I know the political implications potentially of that.

“But we cannot keep funding this type of goon squads that are just spreading throughout the whole country just to enforce some weird policy position that Stephen Miller has, where he thinks that we have to punish blue cities,” he continued.

Those who support the legislation in the Senate, like top Democratic appropriator Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), are selling it as a way to claw back some of the funding cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency last year. Murray also suggested protesting the DHS portion of the bill is useless.

“ICE must be reined in, and unfortunately, neither a (continuing resolution) nor a shutdown would do anything to restrain it, because, thanks to Republicans, ICE is now sitting on a massive slush fund it can tap whether or not we pass a funding bill,” Murray told NBC. “The suggestion that a shutdown in this moment might curb the lawlessness of this administration is not rooted in reality.”

ICE Descends on Maine

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed reports that ICE agents are conducting a large scale immigration enforcement operation in Maine this week. They confirmed reports in a press release announcing its new “Operation Catch of the Day” in Maine. Several mayors have criticized the uptick in arrests and, according to local reports, some school districts have locked down their schools in order to protect students from ICE’s presence.

Bessent Unconcerned!

“Denmark’s investment in U.S. Treasury bonds, like Denmark itself, is irrelevant.”

“That is less than $100 million. They’ve been selling Treasurys for years, I’m not concerned at all,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday when asked about European investors pulling money out of U.S. Treasurys, a move many have made in response to Trump’s plans to impose 10 percent tariffs on a handful of European countries as he tries to take over Greenland.

In Case You Missed It

Check out our coverage of SCOTUS oral arguments on Fed independence today. We’ve got live coverage: SCOTUS Forced To Decide Whether It Will Keep Fed Independent of Trump

Plus key takeaways from Layla A. Jones: SCOTUS Skeptical Trump’s Truth Social Posts Count As Due Process

And Kate Riga: Kavanaugh: Trump’s Position Would ‘Weaken If Not Shatter The Independence Of The Federal Reserve’

Morning Memo: The Judicial Branch Didn’t Cover Itself In Glory In the Lindsey Halligan Saga

VIDEO: Josh Marshall and David Kurtz on What the Heck the DOJ Is Up to in Minneapolis

Yesterday’s Most Read Story

Trump Marks First Year Iin Office With Unhinged Racist Rant Targeting ‘Very Low IQ’ Somalis

What We Are Reading

America vs. the World

Inside Bari Weiss’s Hostile Takeover of CBS News

24 Hours Alongside an ICE Protester in Minneapolis

SCOTUS Skeptical Trump’s Truth Social Posts Count As Due Process

Posted on January 21, 2026January 22, 2026 by Layla A. Jones

Justice Sonia Sotomayor summed up Wednesday morning’s two-hour oral arguments on whether or not Trump could fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in one line.

“This whole case isn’t regular.”

While Cook’s case isn’t explicitly about the Federal Reserve’s right to freedom from political manipulation, the court’s ruling will have resounding implications for U.S. central bank independence, which has been preserved since the body was created 112 years ago.

Cook’s lawyers’ arguments revolved around two contentions: that Cook wasn’t provided due process between the time members of the Trump administration accused her of criminal mortgage fraud and Trump’s attempt to remove her, and that the standard for “for cause” removal as outlined in the law had not been met. The Trump administration argued the president gave Cook adequate notice in an unconventional way: A Truth Social post.

The justices were skeptical. The elephant in the room, throughout, was how to assess actions by a president who relies on social media to make and announce policy decisions that may, for example, upend international trade, or send the military into cities and states. How much weight can and should courts put on a president’s social media posts as official action?

Cook has denied wrongdoing in this case, and the Trump administration has regularly cooked up unfounded mortgage fraud allegations against the president’s perceived enemies as part of a systematic retribution machine. A lower court and an appeals court stayed the removal until Cook’s case was fully litigated.

Cook’s lawyers hold she wasn’t afforded adequate notice and a hearing, as required by law, before Trump tried to remove her. And on Wednesday, at least some justices seemed to agree.

The case’s irregularity began “starting with the Truth Social notice, or thinking of it as notice at all,” Sotomayor said in the final moments of oral arguments, laughing. The Truth Social post, she said, “certainly didn’t invite an opportunity to be heard.”

A crux of the government’s case, as presented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is that Cook did actually receive notice and time to respond via Trump’s prolific Truth Social presence. His post about firing Cook for mortgage fraud and screenshots of alleged evidence posted online launched the five-day period Cook had to respond, Sauer contended. Many of the justices didn’t appear convinced.

When Sauer said the administration had followed the legal process and given Cook sufficient opportunity to state her case in public, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked facetiously if Cook’s own public presentation was to be a social media post. Sauer answered simply: “Yes.”

Moments later, Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed on the government’s argument that the president had to afford Cook only minimal process. How minimal? Sauer reiterated that Trump’s Truth Social post, specifically “the five day window between the Truth Social post and the removal letter,” was enough to inform Cook of the allegations against her.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett emphasized at separate times during the proceeding Cook’s right to due process, leading Sauer again and again to restate that Trump’s online behavior was key to the Fed governor’s firing, and add a wrinkle that it’s ultimately up to the president to determine what process is.

It’s a bizarre and almost unserious case with dead serious consequences. Justices on Wednesday contended with the idea that a president who virtually lives online and issues some of his most important pronouncements via the social media platform he owns need only post to that platform to kick off the due process required under law for removing a Federal Reserve governor “for cause.” And even those most amenable to Trump’s executive branch expansion didn’t seem to buy into the philosophy.

Asking whether the mortgage documents that would purportedly reveal any alleged fraud were in the record in this case, conservative Justice Samuel Alito forced Sauer to admit they might not be, instead pointing back to social media.

“I know that the text of the social media post that screenshots the mortgage applications is in the record, but I don’t recall if the paperwork itself is in the District Court’s record,” Sauer said.

The admission led Alito, normally a reliable vote for Trump’s agenda, to concede the administration’s handling of Cook’s case was done so in a “cursory manner.”

The whole case tees up the Supreme Court justices to come face-to-face with the contradiction they created, holding Trump had the right to fire officers from independent agencies including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Trade Commission, but maybe not from another, extremely important independent agency: the Federal Reserve. The Fed, some justices have opined in other independent agency cases, is a unique entity shielded from presidential overreach because of its historical background and monetary policy role.

Experts told TPM it’s a tough needle to thread, given the Court’s 2025 agency rulings.

Kavanaugh: Trump’s Position Would ‘Weaken If Not Shatter The Independence Of The Federal Reserve’

Posted on January 21, 2026January 22, 2026 by Kate Riga

As the Supreme Court cosigned President Trump and Elon Musk’s massacre of independent executive branch agencies last year, experts prayed that the justices would concoct some way to protect the Federal Reserve. Wednesday’s arguments bolstered those hopes.

Continue reading →

The Supreme Court’s ‘History and Tradition’ Test Has Now Run Into America’s History and Tradition of Anti-Black Racism

Posted on January 21, 2026January 21, 2026 by Allegra Kirkland

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday in Wolford v. Lopez, a case about whether states can ban people from carrying concealed firearms on private property without getting the owner’s consent. Under the Hawaii law at issue, any armed person who wants to enter a shopping center, restaurant, or other privately owned property that is open to the public needs “express authorization” first—for example, a sign at a store’s entrance or a verbal “okay” from an employee. Gun laws like Hawaii’s are often called “vampire rules” because, like the rules that applied to vampires in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, they keep out a deadly threat unless the deadly threat receives an explicit invitation to enter.

Hawaii enacted its law in 2023 in response to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 Supreme Court case that created a new test for determining the constitutionality of gun control laws. Under Bruen, laws that regulate “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” violate the Second Amendment unless there is a “well-established and representative historical analogue.” This rigid standard calls on courts to invalidate all gun laws unless, in a judge’s estimation, people in the Founding era imposed similar restrictions for similar reasons.

Bruen immediately caused chaos in the lower courts, as it called the legality of previously uncontroversial gun laws into question. And in July 2024, after a federal appeals court ruled that laws disarming domestic violence offenders are unconstitutional because the country did not historically disarm domestic abusers, the Court began to backpedal. Writing for the eight-justice majority in United States v. Rahimi, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that lower courts had “misunderstood” Bruen, and that modern gun safety laws need only a historical “analogue,” not a historical “twin.” (For what it’s worth, the author of Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented in Rahimi to say that the lower court had understood his opinion just fine.)

Continue reading →

SCOTUS Forced To Decide Whether It Will Keep Fed Independent of Trump

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this morning on whether President Donald Trump can lawfully remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook while a criminal investigation against Cook, brought by Trump’s retribution-seeking Department of Justice, is pending in court.

The case is about whether the administration provided Cook with adequate due process before attempting to fire her, and whether a claim of personal mortgage fraud, which Cook has denied, is even grounds for a Fed governor’s dismissal. Observers can also expect to hear arguments about the global financial importance of an independent central bank.

The Supreme Court has allowed Trump to run roughshod over other independent executive branch agencies, but appears to want to protect the Fed as a uniquely independent body.

Follow along below.

The Judicial Branch Didn’t Actually Cover Itself In Glory in the Lindsey Halligan Saga

Posted on January 21, 2026January 21, 2026 by David Kurtz

Judges Sidestep Halligan Confrontation

On the surface it looks like the federal judges in the Eastern District of Virginia tackled the Lindsey Halligan problem head on. But if you look a little closer, the judges went out of their way to avoid a direct confrontation with the White House.

Continue reading →

VIDEO: Josh Marshall and David Kurtz on What the Heck the DOJ Is Up to in Minneapolis

Posted on January 21, 2026January 21, 2026 by Allegra Kirkland

We’re just days out from our first Morning Memo Live event on the weaponization and politicization of the Justice Department under Trump II. To preview the kinds of topics we’ll be digging into, Josh Marshall joined David Kurtz on Substack Live to talk about the aftermath of the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis.

“There’s no longer any independence between the White House and the Justice Department,” David told Josh. “And it’s been made abundantly clear that what the White House says is what goes.”

Join us on Jan. 29 at the National Union Building in Washington, D.C. to talk about what’s going on at Main Justice, Pam Bondi, Trump’s retribution campaign against his political enemies, and where things go from here.

All TPM members should have a special discount code in their inboxes. And 2 for 1 tickets available now at checkout (even for those who already purchased a ticket!).

We’ll see you there.

Continue reading →

Trump Tries to Primary Senator Who Provided Key Vote to Confirm RFK

Posted on January 20, 2026January 20, 2026 by Kate Riga

Bill Cassidy Chose Not to Fight, and It Did Not Save Him

Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) announced Tuesday that she will challenge Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) in 2026, pulled into the race on the strength of President Trump’s preemptive weekend endorsement.

“Louisiana deserves a conservative Senator who will not waver,” she wrote in a tweet accompanying her launch video. “I am honored to have President Trump’s endorsement and trust.”

The waverer in question is Cassidy, a normie Republican and thus an endangered species in the GOP caucus. Of the original seven Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump after January 6, only he, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) have survived. Cassidy is the quietest of the three.

The senator made clear who he was, who he would be under the second Trump term, back in February, when he cast the tie-breaking vote to advance Robert Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as HHS Secretary out of committee. Cassidy, a medical doctor, used his momentary but immense power to entrust an infamous anti-vaxxer with America’s health, the deadly effects of which are already ripping through the country. Multiple children have died of measles in the past year, a disease that vaccination had all but eliminated in the United States.

In return for this ultimate betrayal of his hippocratic oath, Cassidy got a list of gleefully broken promises. And, now, a Trump-endorsed primary challenger.

Cassidy’s ambivalence about the MAGA project, embodied in his impeachment vote and brief equivocation over RFK Jr.’s elevation, is unforgivable in the MAGA universe. Far from staunch resistance, even momentary hesitancy is enough to doom a political career.

Letlow — who won her seat after her husband died of COVID-19 before he took office — is promising not to “waver” in her fealty to Trump and his chosen helpmates. Her campaign pitch is to present no friction to the regime.

Cassidy will end his career with blood on his hands. A doctor — someone trusted, someone educated, someone who knows better — crumpled under political pressure. This is his reward.

— Kate Riga

Trump Continues to Threaten Indiana Republican State Senator for Rejected Redistricting Proposal

President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance are still targeting Indiana Republicans who have not caved to the administration’s threats to approve new maps.

In a series of social media posts, both Trump and Vance went after Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray over his failure to save Trump’s pressure campaign. This is not the first time Trump has targeted and threatened Bray for not caving to the administration’s demands on redistricting.

The posts come in response to the Democratic-led Virginia state Senate approving a proposal late last week that would put before voters a constitutional amendment that would allow for pre-midterm redistricting. The advancement of Virginia’s proposal, which would help Democrats in the state, comes against the backdrop of Republican lawmakers rejecting the redistricting push in Indiana. The approval of Virginia’s redistricting proposal and the failure of Indiana’s suggests the administration may not maintain the upper hand in its months-long attempt to redraw red-state maps to maintain control of the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections.

“I was with David McIntosh of the Club for Growth, and we agreed that we will both work tirelessly together to take out Indiana Senate Majority Leader Rod Bray, a total RINO, who betrayed the Republican Party, the President of the United States, and everyone else who wants to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “We’re after you Bray, like no one has ever come after you before!”

Vance, similarly went after Bray in a post on X, blaming Bray for Virginia’s advancement of a redistricting proposal.

“I’d like to thank @bray_rodric for not even trying to fight back against this extraordinary Democrat abuse of power,” Vance wrote. “Now the votes of Indiana Republicans will matter far less than the votes of Virginia Democrats. We told you it would happen, and you did nothing.”

— Khaya Himmelman

Musk Invests Heavily in Safe Red Seat

After dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump’s 2024 bid, Elon Musk is back on the market, pumping $10 million into a seeming underdog’s bid for outgoing Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) seat. Nate Morris, the self-described “outsider” and businessman, announced his candidacy for the seat last summer on Donald Trump Jr.’s podcast. The money will give the mostly self-funded Morris a boost, as the competitive primary has also attracted heavy-hitters in Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R).

— Kate Riga

In Case You Missed It

WTF: DOGE Worker at SSA Signed Agreement With Group Seeking to ‘Overturn Election Results,’ DOJ Says

The Backchannel: What Trump Can Do in Greenland by Barely Lifting a Finger

Morning Memo: Trump’s Greenland Rantings Put World on Edge

TPM Cafe: You Say The Supreme Court Isn’t Partisan? Look in the Shadow

Yesterday’s Most Read Story

DOJ Abandons Probe of Fatal ICE Shooting of Renee Good

What We Are Reading

Inside Bari Weiss’s Hostile Takeover of CBS News — Clare Malone, The New Yorker

America vs. the World — Robert Kagan, The Atlantic

The Old World Order is Dead — Paul Musgrave, Systematic Hatreds

Trump Marks First Year In Office With Unhinged Racist Rant Targeting ‘Very Low IQ’ Somalis

Posted on January 20, 2026January 20, 2026 by Hunter Walker

President Donald Trump spent the first anniversary of his second term on Tuesday pitching himself to the American people from behind the White House briefing room podium. In nearly two hours of remarks, Trump seemingly sought to address his cratering approval by running through a list of his supposed accomplishments. His remarks also included a series of vicious, racist remarks about Somali people and other immigrants.

Continue reading →

DOGE Worker at SSA Signed Agreement With Group Seeking to ‘Overturn Election Results,’ DOJ Says

Posted on January 20, 2026January 20, 2026 by Khaya Himmelman

In a bizarre court filing last week, the Justice Department conceded that in March 2025, two members of Elon Musk’s DOGE team who were working at the Social Security Administration were in touch with an advocacy group that hoped to “find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.”

Continue reading →