SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us congress
Fresh Fury as Schumer, Jeffries Bend on Demand to Unmask ICE Agents in Funding Talks
"Schumer needs to get the hell out," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "He continues to demonstrate to us that he can't meet the moment."
Feb 05, 2026
Democratic leaders in Congress are already backing down on one of their key demands in the fight to reform the federal immigration agencies terrorizing Minnesota and other parts of the country.
On Wednesday, Democrats laid out a list of 10 "guardrails" they said they wanted to see put in place to protect the public from abuses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, before agreeing to a new round of funding for their parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The list called to "prohibit ICE and immigration agents from wearing face coverings" to conceal their identities, which Democratic leaders have stressed as a key reform for weeks.
But during a press conference on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) raised many eyebrows when they introduced a heap of caveats to their demand.
“I think there’s agreement that no masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people,” Jeffries said.
Schumer added that agents “need identification and no masks, except in extraordinary and unusual circumstances.”
When a HuffPost reporter attempted to ask Schumer if the party had changed its position on masks, Schumer sidestepped the question. But other top Democrats clarified that they were looking at certain exceptions.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said that while masks should generally be "prohibited by law" as a part of everyday enforcement, there are "sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who went against the majority of the party earlier this week to vote for two weeks of DHS funding to keep the government open, said they were discussing when to implement "narrow exceptions" with members of law enforcement and suggested that "dealing with a cartel" could be one of them.
Of course, the Trump administration has often asserted that all the immigrants they target are dangerous criminals—"the worst of the worst"—including cartel members, even when this is not the case, raising questions about who might be in charge of determining when masks are necessary.
Critics have been underwhelmed by many of the other demands on the list as well.
Journalist and commentator Adam Johnson said it was a collection of “mostly cosmetic, pointless, unenforceable, or actively harmful ‘reforms,’” with some—including the requirement for judicial warrants and a ban on racial profiling—already being mandated by the Constitution but flouted by agents regardless.
He described it as outrageous that Democrats were demanding "zero reduction in DHS’ obscene budget which... tripled, just 12 months ago."
Civil rights lawyer Alec Karakatsanis, the founder of the group Civil Rights Corps, called the list "one of the great political failures of our time" and said "it must be immediately denounced by all people of goodwill."
Meanwhile, Axios reported on Thursday that many rank-and-file members of the Democratic caucus are fuming over party leadership's refusal earlier this week to use the threat of a government shutdown to force reforms.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the CPC's chair emerita, pondered "'What are we going to get in 10 days that we didn't get?'"
"Every time that we are winning, we seem to somehow sabotage [it]," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).
She noted that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has already ruled out several Democratic demands, including the requirement of judicial warrants.
ICE agents do not need a warrant to make arrests, but the Fourth Amendment prohibits them from entering private residences without a judicial warrant. An internal memo last month advised agents to ignore that law. Johnson said this week that requiring federal agents to obtain judicial warrants is "a road we cannot and should not go down.”
Other Democrats anonymously expressed their distrust in Schumer, who has caved in other hugely consequential fights in the second Trump era, most recently regarding the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies during last fall’s record-breaking government shutdown, which left tens of millions of Americans facing doubled health insurance premiums.
"The main feeling among members is a lack of trust in his strength and ability to strike a hard bargain," one anonymous Democrat said.
Another said, “All those spending bills, that is the most leverage,” adding that “many folks in the [House] Democratic caucus wish that we had more confidence in Schumer’s ability to navigate a good, tough deal.”
Sixty votes will be required for a deal to pass the Senate, meaning at least seven Democrats will need to join Republicans for DHS to receive full funding and avoid shutting down on February 14.
While this still gives Democrats some leverage to push demands, Ramirez said previous fights give her zero confidence in Schumer's willingness to hold the line.
"I'm gonna continue to tell you that Schumer needs to get the hell out over and over and over until he does," Ramirez said. "He continues to demonstrate to us that he can't meet the moment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘This Rogue Agency Should Not Receive a Single Penny,’ Progressives Say of ICE as Trump Signs Funding Bill
As some Democrats suggest compromising in order to reform the agency, Rep. Rashida Tlaib said that “ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change.”
Feb 03, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a bill to end a brief government shutdown after the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the $1.2 trillion funding package.
While the bill keeps most of the federal government funded until the end of September, lawmakers sidestepped the question of funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Democrats have vowed to block absent reforms to rein in its lawless behavior after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and a rash of other attacks on civil rights.
The bill, which passed on Tuesday by a vote of 217-214, extends funding for ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for just two weeks, setting up a battle in the coming weeks on which the party remains split.
While most Democrats voted against Tuesday's measure, 21 joined the bulk of Republicans to drag it just over the line, despite calls from progressive activists and groups, such as MoveOn, which Axios said peppered lawmakers with letters urging them to use every bit of "leverage" they can to force drastic changes at the agency.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who voted for the bill, acknowledged that it was "a leverage tool that people are giving up," but said funding for the rest of the government took precedence.
The real fight is expected to take place over the next 10 days, with DHS funding set to run out on February 14.
ICE will be funded regardless of whether a new round of DHS funding passes, since Republicans already passed $170 billion in DHS funding in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Democrats in both the House and Senate have laid out lists of reforms they say Republicans must acquiesce to if they want any additional funding for ICE, including requirements that agents nationwide wear body cameras, get judicial warrants for arrests, and adhere to a code of conduct similar to those for state and local law enforcement.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against Tuesday's bill reiterated that in order to pass longterm DHS funding, "there must be due process, a requirement for judicial warrants and bond hearings; every agent must not only have a bodycam but also be required to use it, take off their masks, and, in cases of misconduct, undergo immediate, independent investigations."
Some critics have pointed out that ICE agents already routinely violate court orders and constitutional requirements, raising questions about whether new laws would even be enforceable.
A memo issued last week, telling agents they do not need to obtain judicial warrants to enter homes, has been described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Tuesday that Republicans will not even consider negotiating the warrant requirement, calling it "unworkable."
"We cannot trust this DHS, which has already received an unprecedented funding spike for ICE, to operate within the bounds of our Constitution or our laws," Jayapal said. "And for that reason, we cannot continue to fund them without significant and enforceable guardrails."
According to recent polls, the vast majority of Democratic voters want to go beyond reforms and push to abolish ICE outright. In the wake of ICE's reign of terror in Minneapolis, it's a position that nearly half the country now holds, with more people saying they want the agency to be done away with than saying they want it preserved.
"The American people are begging us to stop sending their tax dollars to execute people in the streets, abduct 5-year-olds, and separate families," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who gathered with other progressive lawmakers in the cold outside DHS headquarters on Tuesday. "ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change... No one should vote to send another cent to DHS."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who comes from the Minnesota Somali community targeted by Trump's operation there, agreed: "This rogue agency should not receive a single penny. It should be abolished and prosecuted."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Press Freedom Coalition Urges Congress to Probe FBI Raid of WaPo Journalist's Home
"We look to you to defend our First Amendment freedoms against executive overreach and abuse."
Jan 23, 2026
Over a dozen press freedom groups on Friday urged congressional leaders to examine the Federal Bureau of Investigation's recent raid of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Virginia home and the seizure of her electronic devices as part of a probe into a government contractor accused of illegally possessing classified documents.
Their letter came after US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter—who authorized the FBI's search of Natanson's home in Alexandria—ruled Wednesday that prosecutors "must preserve but must not review" data on the journalist's phone, computers, and smart watch.
Noting that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) may have obtained the search warrant "under false pretenses and potentially in violation of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980," 17 groups argued that "congressional intervention is necessary because the FBI's January 14, 2026 raid of Natanson's home represents a perilous escalation in the executive branch's use of law enforcement powers against the free press and a citizenry that depends on fearless newsgathering."
"The available facts suggest... the weaponization of legal process to engage in a fishing expedition into more than 1,000 confidential sources cultivated by Natanson inside the federal workforce," the coalition wrote to top Republicans and Democrats on four relevant committees.
"By raiding Hannah Natanson's home and seizing her devices, the government threatened bedrock principles of our Constitution and a free society."
Specifically, the letter explains, given that the criminal complaint doesn't accuse contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones of disseminating classified information, and he and his devices were already in custody when Natanson's house was searched, there is a "grim possibility" that the raid "was a pretextual attempt to threaten the press, to uncover whistleblowers, and to chill newsgathering unflattering to the government."
The Privacy Protection Act "allows law enforcement to conduct searches and seizures of journalists' work product materials only under narrow exceptions, such as where the journalist is alleged to be involved in a crime," notes the letter. "But again, the government has not accused Natanson of any wrongdoing."
"Congress has an independent and co-equal duty to oversee the Department of Justice," the missive stresses. "If the Department of Justice has nothing about its own conduct to hide from Congress and the public, this administration should welcome the opportunity to prove the necessity of its actions."
"If, however, federal officials have misled a judge in order to expose the identities of whistleblowers and to intimidate the press, Congress must know immediately," the coalition concluded. "We look to you to defend our First Amendment freedoms against executive overreach and abuse."
Since returning to office a year ago, President Donald Trump has waged a "war on free speech," as the group Free Press detailed in a report last month. Highlighted actions include taking control of the presidential press pool, Trump's alarming speech to the DOJ, blocking the Associated Press from the Oval Office for using the term Gulf of Mexico, an executive order to defund National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service, suing over Wall Street Journal reporting on the president's ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, threatening to sue over the BBC's documentary about January 6, 2021, the Pentagon's new press policy, and getting late-night host Jimmy Kimmel suspended.
Those actions are part of a broader crackdown on dissent targeting Trump critics, government employees who worked on accountability for January 6, and protesters—including people in the streets over the administration's anti-immigrant operations.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at Demand Progress, one of the organizations behind the new letter, said in a statement that "by raiding Hannah Natanson's home and seizing her devices, the government threatened bedrock principles of our Constitution and a free society... Congress has a responsibility to investigate whether the government is undermining the First Amendment and a free press by targeting and threatening a reporter like this."
The other signatories are the American Society of Journalists and Authors, Amnesty International USA, Association of Foreign Press Correspondents in the USA, Defending Rights and Dissent, Democratic Messaging Project, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Journalism and Women Symposium, Media and Democracy Project, National Press Photographers Association, PEN America, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Without Borders, and Society of Professional Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular