Lead: Congress pledged a bipartisan response after the deaths of two people in Minneapolis linked to enforcement actions, but talks to limit Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics are faltering ahead of a Friday deadline to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Lawmakers who recently tried — and failed — to restore lapsed Affordable Care Act subsidies are watching closely, describing familiar patterns of early optimism that give way to partisan breakups. Key senators from both parties have floated measures such as mandatory body cameras for agents, but disagreements over scope and timing have stalled progress. With the White House now negotiating directly with Democrats, the coming days will test whether a different dynamic can produce enforceable reforms.
Key Takeaways
- Congress is negotiating DHS funding with a Friday deadline while seeking reforms to ICE and CBP after two people were killed in Minneapolis during enforcement operations.
- Recent bipartisan talks to renew enhanced ACA subsidies expired at the end of last year; those negotiations collapsed despite majority public support in KFF polling.
- Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) said subsidy talks fizzled and blamed Senate Democratic leadership; Democrats counter that GOP additions to the bill and lost leverage made an agreement impossible.
- Proposals for ICE reform have included mandatory body cameras and limits on certain tactics; Democrats say initial White House responses were insufficient.
- Senate leaders including John Thune and Susan Collins cite procedural disputes and divergent demands — such as bans on masks or warrant requirements — as obstacles to agreement.
- Public trust is low: a September Gallup poll found 66% of Americans have little or no trust in Congress; a Feb. 10 focus group of 14 Arizona swing voters found only two confident Congress would act.
- Veteran negotiators warn that partisan incentives and a less compromise-oriented electorate make bipartisan deals harder to sustain than in past decades.
Background
The current talks follow public outrage after aggressive enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents in Minnesota and other locations, including incidents that resulted in two deaths. That pressure prompted lawmakers from both parties to pledge fixes to enforcement tactics and to seek guardrails such as clearer use-of-force rules and camera requirements for agents. Earlier this year, a separate bipartisan effort to renew enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies collapsed after negotiations soured, offering a recent example of how cross-party momentum can fade.
Historically, bipartisan Senate coalitions have sometimes produced major reforms — for example, the so-called Gang of Eight’s 2013 immigration push — yet many such efforts in recent years have failed. Lawmakers and former negotiators note a shifting political environment: party bases on both sides signal less tolerance for compromise, leadership has greater leverage over rank-and-file votes, and tactical choices in negotiations (timelines, public messaging, and insertion of additional policy riders) frequently sink consensus. Those institutional shifts shape how negotiators approach sensitive issues like immigration and health care.
Main Event
This week’s negotiations have involved senior senators from both parties and direct engagement with the White House. Democrats have proposed specific reforms — including uniform body-camera requirements, clearer limits on the use of force, and transparency measures around operations in residential settings — and have indicated they may withhold funding votes unless meaningful reforms are included. Republicans and some agency officials argue that Democrats advanced an unrealistic list and that aspects of the proposals would hinder enforcement or operational safety.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who had been optimistic about a separate subsidy deal a month earlier, described those talks as collapsing and publicly blamed Senate Democratic leadership for pulling back. Democrats counter that Republicans inserted unrelated provisions into the subsidy package, for example changes tied to health savings accounts and abortion-related language, which made the bill politically unpalatable. That dispute illustrated how ancillary policy additions can derail otherwise targeted agreements.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) accused Democrats of moving slowly and then presenting nonstarters such as bans on masks during operations or the need for judicial warrants for some enforcement actions. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called the White House response insufficient and defended the reasonableness of their reforms. Negotiators such as Sens. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) remain engaged, but lines between what each side will accept have not yet converged.
Analysis & Implications
First, the collapse of recent bipartisan efforts shows how procedural leverage and electoral incentives shape outcomes. When a small group of Democrats voted to end last year’s shutdown, some negotiators lost bargaining power in later talks, as lawmakers cite reduced leverage to extract concessions. That dynamic makes large, seniority-driven deals harder to achieve when narrow majorities and strong partisan messaging matter more.
Second, substance matters: proposals seen as operationally disruptive for enforcement agents meet resistance from Republicans and agency leaders, while proposals perceived as too modest fail to satisfy Democrats and civil-rights activists. The intersection of operational safety, civil liberties, and political messaging creates a narrow seam for compromise. Measures like body-camera mandates are easier to bridge; warrant requirements or blanket masking bans are more contentious.
Third, the role of the White House is pivotal. Unlike the health-subsidy talks, the administration is negotiating directly with Democrats on immigration reforms, which could either facilitate a deal by centralizing bargaining or complicate it if the White House is unwilling to accept detailed legislative constraints on federal agencies. If a compromise is reached, Congress would still need to package it into DHS appropriations without losing bipartisan support on floor votes.
Finally, the broader political and public-trust implications are substantial. Continued failure to convert outrage into policy risks deepening voter cynicism: two recent measures — the KFF polling on subsidies and the Gallup trust numbers — suggest Americans want action but may be increasingly skeptical that lawmakers can deliver. That gap between expectation and delivery can alter electoral incentives and future negotiation calculus.
Comparison & Data
| Issue | Recent Outcome |
|---|---|
| Enhanced ACA subsidies | Expired end of last year; bipartisan talks collapsed |
| ICE enforcement reforms | Negotiations ongoing; stalled ahead of DHS funding deadline |
The table contrasts two high-profile bipartisan efforts in recent months. The subsidy talks ended without enactment after competing policy riders and internal leverage shifts. The ICE talks began with similar cross-party gestures but quickly encountered substantive disputes over feasible enforcement constraints. These comparisons underscore how timing, leverage, and the insertion of unrelated policy language can change outcomes.
Reactions & Quotes
“We’re in the red zone. But that does not mean a touchdown. It could mean a 95-yard fumble.”
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio)
Moreno used a football metaphor after the subsidy talks failed, framing bipartisan progress as fragile and subject to sudden collapse when political choices or added provisions change the balance.
“I was pretty confident the minute we gave up that we weren’t going to get it.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
Murphy suggested that strategic votes and the loss of leverage left Democrats unable to secure lasting wins on the subsidy question, and that dynamic now informs how negotiators approach immigration reforms.
“Treating people with dignity and respect allows you to have tough conversations. I think we owe it to the people we serve to actually find that pathway forward.”
Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.)
Britt framed negotiations as a responsibility to constituents and emphasized the need for pragmatic solutions even amid partisan pressures.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer intentionally shut down subsidy talks to score political points for his party remains contested and not independently verified.
- Precise final language that the White House will accept for ICE reforms is not public and may change as negotiators continue talks.
- Attribution of who inserted abortion-related language into the subsidy talks is disputed between party officials and lacks a publicly available legislative trail that assigns sole responsibility.
Bottom Line
Congress has repeatedly shown it can produce bipartisan outcomes on major appropriations, but recent failures to finalize targeted agreements on health subsidies and now ICE reform highlight structural obstacles. Political incentives, loss of bargaining leverage, and the insertion of unrelated policy provisions frequently break fragile coalitions before a final text is agreed and passed.
The coming 48–72 hours before the DHS funding deadline will reveal whether direct White House engagement and focused, narrowly drafted reforms can overcome those obstacles. If negotiators limit the scope to measures with clear operational protocols — for example, camera rules and reporting requirements — a durable compromise is more likely than if talks expand into broader legal or procedural constraints that trigger partisan brinkmanship.