The Daily - The Government Shutdown Fight Over Immigration

Episode Date: February 13, 2026

The U.S. government this weekend is expected to find itself in yet another shutdown. This time, it is only one agency shutting down: the Department of Homeland Security.Michael Gold, a congressional reporter for The New York Times, explains why Democrats are once again picking a fight over funding with President Trump.Guest: Michael Gold, a congressional correspondent for The New York Times, based in Washington.Background reading: Senate Democrats refused to move ahead with a spending bill needed to keep the Department of Homeland Security running.Video: How Democrats are trying to rein in ICE.Photo: Elizabeth Frantz for The New York TimesFor more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From New York Times, I'm Michael Babaro. This is The Daily. Later tonight, the U.S. government will find itself in yet another shutdown. This time of only one agency, the Department of Homeland Security. Today, congressional reporter Michael Gold on why Democrats are once again picking a fight over funding with the president. It's Friday. February 13th. Michael, thank you for making time for us on a busy day, where I know we just grabbed you inside the U.S. Capitol.

Yeah, a lot happening here on the Hill today, I would say. Well, appreciate you making time for us. As of this moment, at around 3.45 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, it sure looks like we are headed for another government shutdown, but this one has a very unique twist to it. That's right, Michael. At this point, it looks like at 1201 a.m. on Saturday morning, the Department of Homeland Security

is going to shut down. And it's the only government department that we expect will shut down this time. A single agency shutdown. A one agency shutdown. And that department is about 4% of U.S. government spending. So if you think about the shutdown we had last year

as a full government shutdown, and the brief one we had earlier this month as a partial government shutdown, this is a very fractional government shutdown. A fractional government shutdown. Right. And as you're hinting at, government shutdowns have become the norm.

But even within that weird new norm, this one is quite unique. So tell us the story of how we get to a single agency fractional shutdown. So for the last few months, Congress has really been working hard to pass all of its funding bills. And this is something that Republicans, when they took control of both the House and Senate, set as a major priority. They wanted to pass funding bills. They wanted to pass individual funding bills, not one big package, and really hash out policy details. for every government department. Right, and the argument was that that creates more transparency,

if you have multiple bills funding the government versus one vast impenetrable bill. That's right, and a lot of members of Congress had complained that they had constantly been stuck voting for these big packages, but they never really got to haggle on the specifics of what went into those bills. And so they've been working for months

to find agreements, Republicans and Democrats, occasionally the White House, coming together to try to find a way that they could fund the government one department at a time. I mean, they were putting together bills that cleared the House and Senate. They were really working together

to try to find compromises on things. And it seemed like everything was on track until last month when Renee Goode was shot and killed by an immigration agent in Minneapolis. And that's when Democrats realize that they're on the verge of passing a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security,

which oversees ICE and the Border Patrol. Right. And so Democrats start to talk about how they can get serious changes to that bill that would impose some restrictions on the federal immigration operations and the deportation crackdown. And they go back to the negotiating table with the White House and with Republicans, and they come with a kind of compromise bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security that includes

things like $20 million for body cameras and requirements that officers get enhanced training about use of force and de-escalation techniques. Got it. So Democrats extract some changes to the way that immigration officials are going to be operated in places like Minneapolis. They seem modest, but they're there. Right. They know they didn't get everything they wanted,

but they feel like this is a pretty good compromise. They're very committed to going through the regular funding process, and they say, this is as good as we can get, and it's better to have some restrictions than no restrictions. Gotcha. And that bill is making its way through Congress and hasn't yet cleared the Senate when federal immigration agents kill Alex Pretti in Minnesota.

And at that moment, the politics of this issue really changed for Democrats. Right, because suddenly these immigration officials have killed two American citizens in what clearly has emerged as a problematic pattern that everyone in the country can see for themselves. That's right, Michael. And the video of Alex Preti shooting spreads very quickly and outrages Democrats. And the party comes out almost unanimously to say that they will not back any new funding for ICE or other immigration agencies unless they can get serious new restrictions that prevent anything like this from happening.

to an American citizen ever again. So after Alex Freddie's death, what was a good enough compromise before is no longer good enough. That's right. ICE and CBP have gotten out of control. We have seen with our own eyes how citizens and peaceful protests...

And you start to see striking statements from people like Senator Patty Murray, who is the top Democrat on the committee that negotiates funding bills and who had said that she was going to support this bill that she had helped negotiate. But as soon as the Freddie shooting happens, she says,

We need to go further and we need to do more. The killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti really shocked the conscience. They demand action. They demand accountability and justice. Democrats are insisting that happens. Enough is enough. What ICE is doing outside the law is state-sanctioned thuggery and it must stop. And you see Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, come out.

and say that he believes that this bill doesn't go far enough. I don't like shutdowns, but obviously this is important. And you see a lot of Democrats who usually oppose shutdowns start to demand new conditions. It's not like we can't pass 96% of those budgets right now and then just work on the Homeland Security one, which we need to address. Who say that they can't support a bill,

even at the risk of a shutdown, if it doesn't impose serious new restrictions on ice. And what are the new restrictions that these Democrats start to demand in order to ever agree to fund the Department of Homeland Security. So Democrats have a number of demands that they're making, but chief among them is a requirement that federal immigration officers visibly show their identification and that they can't be allowed to use masks to hide their identities from the public. And both of those efforts would seem to very much be pointed at accountability, transparency.

An agent's face is visible, an agent's name is visible, visible. So that's what they're really pushing for. That's right. They're arguing that if you make officers be more public about their identities, it might have an impact on their conduct and make them think about how they're interacting with members of the public. And this is something that Democrats have wanted

throughout Trump's second term. They have been complaining about this. They've argued that it makes ICE equivalent to a secret police force. And now they see this as an opportunity to really demand some changes here. And how does the administration respond to that demand? Republicans and the White House

have pretty roundly rejected that as a non-starter. Why? So they say that ICE agents need to be able to protect their identities from the public because they're at risk of being docks or otherwise harassed. And they say that ICE agents are facing an unprecedented rise in threats and that this is how they're protecting themselves by hiding their identities, by shielding their faces from people who mean them harm. So both sides are entrenched in their positions,

and these negotiations are at an impasse. And that brings us to this week, where the clock is ticking to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Lyons, do you consider yourself a religious man? Yes, ma'am. Oh, yes. Okay, well, how do you think Judgment Day will work for you with so much blood on your hands? I'm not going to entertain that question. And Democrats are using every available opportunity to highlight just how flawed they think the immigration system is and the changes they want to see to ICE and the Border Patrol.

And this comes at hearings where they grill the heads of ice and border protection. Mr. Lyons, will you apologize to the family of Renee Good for being called a domestic terrorist by the president and his leadership? No, sir. Why not? There's a hearing with Pam Bondi. When they killed Mr. Pretty and Ms. Good, that was an execution, and you did not investigate it. Where Democrats used that as an opportunity to grill her about Christy Noem and voice objections to their policies. They were executed, like Christy Noem executed her dog.

and that was wrong, and you should investigate those people, and all the while this debate is playing out on the House floor and on the Senate floor, and there's a real question of whether a deal can even be made, given how hardened everyone has become on these issues. Which I think brings us to Thursday afternoon and this all but assured shutdown, and the reality that congressional Democrats at this point are no longer just picking a fight over the budget and how DHS gets funded, they're making this much broader party-wide point.

about what they see as the excesses of immigration enforcement, its unaccountability, and their belief that they are the last line of defense in terms of doing something about it. Yes, that's true. But that position really comes with a challenge for Democrats, because as much as they're making this fight about immigration enforcement and raining in ICE and raining in the border protection agents, there's a bigger challenge here.

Even now that we're headed toward a shutdown, and the funding is going to stop flow, to the Department of Homeland Security, that may not actually do much to stop ICE and Customs and Border Patrol from operating the way they've been operating. There are a host of other agencies that this money goes to,

and there's a real risk that they might actually hurt services that many people have come to depend on that might have a broader impact. And it's entirely possible that this strategy could backfire for Democrats. We'll be right back. So, Michael, just explain how and why taking away the Department of Homeland Security's funding isn't actually going to defund the agencies

that the Democrats are most focused on, like ICE and Border Patrol. Sure. So you might remember last year, Republicans passed what they're calling their one big, beautiful bill. And a lot of the attention on that bill was on tax policy and health care, but a major part of that bill was giving a huge amount of money to the Homeland Security Department for immigration enforcement. And Republican, gave $75 billion to ICE and $45 billion to customs and border protection, money that they were allowed to use for immigration enforcement efforts. Yeah, that's a lot of money.

It's a huge amount of money, and that money basically comes with no strings attached. And so the idea is that even with the shutdown, ICE and border protection can use that money to keep doing what they're doing, keep doing immigration raids, keep deportations up, and keep conducting this campaign. So the Trump administration expects that the funding from the one big, beautiful bill, as they call it, will somehow or other keep immigration enforcement officers paid, keep operations going. So if defunding DHS isn't going to end up hurting agencies like ICE, what would defunding it actually end up defunding? Well, like many government departments, there are a lot of

agencies under this one. And so in this case, you're talking about agencies like FEMA, which is federal emergency management operations. You're talking about the TSA, who's screening passengers at the airport, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and SISA, which handles cybersecurity. Pretty important agencies end in the case of something like TSA and FEMA when there's a crisis, highly visible ones. That's right. And during previous shutdowns, we've seen that these agencies will continue operating, but their employees have to work without pay. They cut a lot of services. And so that tends to be a pain point in any shutdown. If people have to wait in longer lines at

airports, if the public's mad about that, the politics of these issues really start to change. So then just explain how Democrats are talking about the logic of taking away the Department of Homeland Security's funding if that action doesn't take away the funding for the things that they want to defund, ICE, et cetera, and would take away funding from things that they probably want to keep funding. I think it's important to point out that this is not a fight that Democrats necessarily wanted. But coming out of the shutdown last year, they felt like they really had a playbook for shutdowns like this. that they can use on this particular moment. Just to explain that. Yeah, so you have to remember, Democrats made the last shutdown entirely about health care,

and they feel like that went really well for them. It's an issue where they traditionally poll very well with voters and where voters tend to trust them. And they came out of the shutdown, feeling really confident that they had staked out a position on health care. Right, the health care shutdown, as you're saying, is seen within the Democratic Party as a political victory and perhaps, therefore, a model for how to handle

DHS funding, but it seems worth noting that that shutdown over health care didn't really get Democrats the policy changes that they wanted. They didn't get Republicans and the president to sign off on enhanced health care incentives. That didn't happen, but it demonstrated the party's willingness to stand up to the president on a signature issue. That's right. I think it really linked the idea of health care with Democrats, which is something that they want American voters to think, the Democrats are the party that cares about health care costs and that is working to do something to address them. And I think you're going to see them try to make a similar message here that one party really wants to make sure that the Trump administration's crackdown doesn't go too far

and that it follows the same standards that we hold other police to. And right now, polls are showing that voters are backing them. Voters have serious issues with what ISIS doing. They have serious issues with what happened in Minnesota. And so Democrats feel like even though there are some risks, the public right now really is on their side. Mm-hmm. In that last shutdown over health care, it was the Democrats who started it and ended it when a few Democratic senators cave. They went around Chuck Schumer and they worked with the president and Republicans to end the shutdown because they felt that the pain from it was becoming too big. They worried the public was going to be turning on them.

Is that a risk here again for Democratic leaders that Democratic lawmakers kind of lose their will? I think it is, but things feel different, at least right now, this time. I think a lot of Democrats who yielded to strike that deal with Republicans know that a lot of attention is on them right now. And I think that they're very aware that this is an issue that the Democratic base cares very deeply about. And so right now it doesn't seem like they're as likely to fold as they were last time around. So let's turn to congressional Republicans and to the president who no doubt have expected this partial DHS shutdown to happen, once it officially gets underway, given the political realities

and the resolve that you just described, what is their plan? So, Senate Republicans in the White House do think there is room for a deal here. And it might not be on masks, and it might not be an identification. But they do think there are areas where they could come together and find a compromise with Democrats. Like what? Well, one thing that Senate Republicans have been pointing to is this announcement by Tom Homan, whose the White House's borders are,

that the Trump administration was going to wind down its surge of enforcement in Minneapolis. Right, came just a few hours ago. Just a few hours ago. And Republicans on the Hill are saying that that shows that the White House is being responsive to Democrats' concerns and that it's making it very clear

that the White House does see some room to maneuver here. And that makes Senate Republicans optimistic, but where exactly that lands us is pretty unclear. Michael, there's a risk that we haven't talked about that I'd like to end our conversation on here. for the Democrats, which is that President Trump finds a way to make the case to the public that Democrats are weak on illegal immigration. And Democrats don't need to look very far in the past to see how effective that argument can be

from the president. The entire 2024 presidential election seemed like an exercise in Democrats failing to meet the moment on immigration for lots of American voters. and the act of trying to defund ICE, even if it doesn't end up defunding ICE, might make the case for the president and for the public that Democrats are out of sync with the country on illegal immigration and that they're against law enforcement. So is that something that we may end up seeing play out here

and that would backfire on the Democrats in a way that perhaps will really make them regret this plan? Well, I think Republicans are already trying to start that conversation. Throughout the discussions on this, they've argued that Democrats are not doing enough to rein in illegal immigration. But one thing I would point out is that Democrats are being very careful to make it clear that this is a conversation about the tactics being used by ICE, the tactics being used by Border Patrol agents, and the way they're interacting with American citizens. And that's an area where they think they can win an advantage, even if immigration has traditionally been a difficult issue for them.

But the question is whether voters will fully embrace the nuance that Democrats are trying to present. And it's an election year, so we will find out by November whether this worked in Democrats' favor. Oh, Michael, thank you very much. Thanks for having me. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to another day. This is a big one if you're into environment. This is about as big as it gets, they tell me.

On Thursday, President Trump rescinded the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment. In doing so, he gave up the government's authority to regulate greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Under the process just completed by the EPA, We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely... The historic move, the subject of yesterday's show,

represents a remarkable victory for a small group of conservative activists who have spent years trying to stop America's government-led transition away from fossil fuels toward cleaner forms of energy like solar and wind. And, a Fed. judge has blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from punishing and demoting Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy captain, for participating in a video that called on troops to disobey illegal orders. The judge ruled that the actions likely violated Kelly's First Amendment rights. It's the latest setback for a White House determined to punish lawmakers

who challenged the president. This week, a grand jury in Washington also rejected the administration's unusual attempt to indict Kelly and the five other Democratic lawmakers who made the video. Finally, a programming note. Tomorrow on the interview, my colleague Lula Garcia-Navarro

sits down with Giselle Pelico. In 2024, Pelico's ex-husband was convicted of both drugging, her and arranging for her rape by dozens of men during a trial in France that shocked the world. The first time I walked into that courtroom, when I discovered their faces, ages 22 to 70, it was really unbelievable to think those people came into my bedroom. They came in there to rape me. Today's episode was produced by Claire Trey. Tennis Getter and Ricky Nevetsky. It was edited by Rob Zipko and Rachel Quester.

Contains music by Marion Lazzano and Diane Wong, and was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for the daily. I'm Michael Barrow. See you on Sunday.