The NPR Politics Podcast - How fights over ICE funding are playing out on the Hill and in midterm races

Episode Date: February 6, 2026

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are running out of time to reach an agreement over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. We discuss the state of negotiations, plus how calls to “abolish ICE” are playing out in congressional races.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, congressional reporter Sam Gringlas, political correspondent Ashley Lopez, and political reporter Elena Moore.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast for Friday, February 6th, 2026. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Ashley Lopez. I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics. I'm Sam Greenglass. I cover Congress. And let's talk about the week that was in Washington, starting with the blink and you'll miss it, partial government shutdown. Sam, remind us why was there a shutdown in the first place? The short answer is the two deadly shootings by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis. Democrats said that they would not approve more funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes immigration and customs enforcement and customs and border protection without adding guardrails in the law to restrain these enforcement tactics. And they ran out of money. They ran out of time. But then they came together and passed a

temporary extension of that Homeland Security funding and funded the rest of the government for the rest of the year? So yeah, so we had this partial shutdown because the House had to come back and sign off on that deal. The House was not in Washington. Once they did come back and sign off, it actually set up another deadline clock, as you mentioned. And that is because under this deal, DHS is funded only through February 13th. So Congress is now back on the hook to try and figure out not only a funding package, but also potentially some solutions related to immigration enforcement tactics. So, Ashley, the shutdown ended, but there wasn't much of a celebration. I don't get the sense that anybody got what they really wanted here. Yeah, classic compromise. A lot of people aren't happy, right? On the Republican side, there were a lot of Republicans who wanted to see DHS funded in that bill. They didn't like that that was stripped from the package that passed. And on the Democratic side, there are a lot of Democrats who were frustrated that the party didn't capitalize on this moment of there being a lot of frustration about ICE and what's happening at DHS. And not.

using that as leverage to get something more aggressive, some more aggressive reform included in whatever gets passed. So everybody's just sort of upset right now. Standard in this town. Leverage is a thing that comes back and there's yet another deadline. So Sam, the DHS portion was only two weeks long. That means there is this cliff coming back. Are there talks? What is happening? Well, I think you nodded at this here. Congress has literally just a couple of days to try and coalesce around some reforms, and that's a pretty tall order. And they also have to keep funding flowing to the Department of Homeland Security, whether in the long term or even just temporarily, I guess. Early on, prominent Republicans and Democrats were signaling that they

thought they could find some common ground here, but already that really seems to be falling apart. And both sides are pointing fingers about why that is. Democrats unveiled a list of, I think it was, 10 demands, and Republicans dismissed a lot of them out of hand. Republican Senator Katie Britt of Alabama is leading negotiations on behalf of Senate Republicans, and she called it basically a Christmas list of demands. If you don't get a list of even demands from a group of people until one week after you say we've got two weeks, think about that clock. How long does it take to figure out where you agree and what's a pathway forward? And then to actually put that on paper and then to actually get that across the finish line. Sam, they do have that list now.

What's on it? So there are some things that do have glimmers of bipartisan agreement on, like requiring body cameras for agents to be mandatory. But there are also some that Republicans have said are basically a no-go, like requiring judicial warrants for enforcement operations, like requiring officers to remove face masks and identify themselves. And then there are also some demands that Republicans are making too, like targeting so-called sanctuary cities, and that's a non-starter for Democrats. So we're already hearing a lot of space between members of both parties

who have must-haves and no-goes, and that's really making it difficult to see room for a potential compromise here, especially in a short period of time. I talked about this with Katie Brits' Democratic counterpart on the Appropriation Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. I mean, the proposals we're making are not an effort to revolutionize the immigration code.

We understand we can't fix every single problem. That's why we've been really targeted. But the fact that they, you know, are refusing to put a process together tells you that they're right now not serious. not sounding very promising there. Like they are fighting about the process of negotiating. They aren't even fighting about the substance, it doesn't seem like.

It's both right now for sure. And this is like why when you hear a lot of voters talk about Democrats right now, the word weak comes up so much, especially when we're talking to like, independent and swing voters. This is the sort of thing that they get frustrated about. There have been few moments where Democrats have had so much political capital on an issue since Trump has taken office again. and the fact that the conversation is still in such a like sort of early stage is kind of insane because think about how much of a time window they even have this political capital for.

Well, Sam, there is this thing called the continuing resolution, aka kicking the can down the road, which seems like a real possibility or maybe not. What are you watching for as these negotiations such as they are play out? Yeah, so that is one thing I'll be watching for. if lawmakers give up on finding a policy solution here, which seems very possible, they still do have to deal with that funding deadline next Friday. You know, ICE has plenty of money, regardless of whether funding runs out for DHS because the one big, beautiful bill that Congress passed last year gave, you know, billions of dollars to ICE that is not going to run out. But DHS also includes FEMA, the Coast Guard, TSA. And so I'll be watching to see how this funding question

shakes out and what that calculus exposes about maybe fissures within the party that Ashley's been alluding to about how to approach this moment. And then I guess one other thing I'll be watching a bit more broadly is if Congress fails to act on this broader policy question about reigning in federal immigration enforcement, I'm curious what that means maybe for broader trust in Congress. I thought this tape was striking from testimony earlier this week from Luke Ganger. He's the brother of Renee Maclin Good, the 37-year-old killed by an ice agent in Minneapolis last month. In the last few weeks, our family took some consolation, thinking that perhaps Ney's death would bring about change in our country. And it is not.

You know, this is the second time in a matter of months, really, that members on both sides of the aisle have promised to address something that polls show a majority of the public sees as a problem, you know, like those expiring health subsidies only for talks to crumble in the end here. Well, Sam, we will give you the final word here. Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. And let's take a quick break when we come back, how ICE and DHS funding are already playing into the midterms. And we're back and we're joined by NPR political reporter Elena Moore. Hey, Elena. Hey, guys. So in the first part of the pod, we talked about the present, the ongoing debates over DHS and ICE funding. But I want to focus now on the future. How those debates. Yes. The future. Sorry. How those debates are shaping how candidates for Congress are talking about immigration and immigration enforcement. And Elena, you and you and.

And Jimina Vostillo, our immigration policy correspondent, have been looking at this specifically the calls among some Democrats to abolish ICE altogether. What is their reasoning? Yeah, we've kind of noticed that there's really been an influx of candidates, Democrats running in different House races and some Senate races that have gotten really vocal on this issue. And I've been talking to some of them. And many, you know, say that, you know, this is always been a core belief of theirs and it's been a core part of their campaign. But it's definitely been talked about more since what's happened in Minnesota. Many tell me that they just think that reforms to ICE just won't cut it, you know, that this idea of changes to an already flawed in their opinion system isn't good enough for this moment. And that's really something I'm hearing particularly from candidates who would call the,

themselves progressive or more left than the typical establishment candidate. You know, these candidates would support things like Medicare for all or more affordable housing, stuff like that. And one of the candidates that I talked to who has been kind of unapologetically speaking on this idea of abolish ICE is 32-year-old Darya Lisa Avila Chivalier, who is an organizer challenging 71-year-old Congressman Adriano Espayat in New York City, Upper Manhattan, and some of the wrongs. And she's really just one of these candidates that is kind of putting the pressure on Democratic incumbents. Here's what she told me when I asked about whether generational change was kind of part of what was bringing her to run for Congress. And she told me it's actually rooted in

issues. If I could trust that the leadership we have was reflecting our values, I wouldn't be running. If a candidate can't even bring themselves to say the words abolish ICE when so much of the Democratic base wants to see that happen, then I think it's time for new leadership. And we should say that her opponent, you know, Congressman Espayat, he has called for dismantling the agency. He's called for a total overhaul. But he is not using that same language. Abolish ICE is a slogan, has been a slogan for a while that is gaining a lot more resurgence as you report. Is this message resonating? I mean, it's complicated because, you know, some polls, will show that there is some sizable support for this idea of abolishing ICE. And, you know,

we know even in our recent NPR PBS News Maris poll that shows that a lot of Americans are just unhappy with the situation happening right now and how the Trump administration is addressing immigration enforcement. But also, like, I think that this is a big issue right now. And we've got a lot of time before all of these primaries. That said, we know that it is something top of mind for voters. And it's been top of mind, especially in very early primaries and special elections. And that was on display this week in New Jersey's 11th district where there was a special election primary. That's the district that was recently vacated by now governor of New Jersey, Mikey Cheryl. And the two top candidates that were running on the Democratic side in that race are Tom Malinowski, who used to be a congressman in the state and Annalia Mejia, who's endorsed by Bernie Sanders.

and she's been unapologetically in support of abolishing ICE. And it's a really close race. You know, at the time we're taping right now, the race has still not been called by the Associated Press. But, you know, we know immigration is a big issue there. So this is going to be an example where we can see how the issue might be affecting people's vote. But, you know, we can't put too much on that right now because there are so many reasons that bring people out to the polls. And this is just now one variable. Ashley, political candidates.

and office holders running on the idea of getting rid of parts of government are not new. It's kind of a bipartisan thing. In fact, President Obama floated getting rid of the Department of Commerce, President Trump and other Republicans before him have wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, Department of Energy, there's a list. Why is the idea of abolishing ICE different? Well, a couple things here. For one, ICE is a lot newer than, say, the Department of Commerce. I think it was created almost 100 years later. And also, you know, The DHS we have now and the version of ICE we have now was created during a very different time in this country. That was after 9-11.

There were more concerns about people within the interior of the country causing terroristic acts. We're in a different time now and using this sort of like muscle within the interior of the country. If we've seen from what voters have said in the polls is like not very popular, it's just not going well. Besides the fact that it has brought some really sad. stories to the front. Like, I don't see how this gets any better for for Republicans and the White House. Having a bunch of people in, in American cities with guns, you know, in communities where there are families that are being torn apart. That is a very serious political problem for the party. And then also, you know, there has been so much money spent on ICE. 10 years ago, the annual

budget for ICE was less than $6 billion. And it has ballooned in Trump's second term and now stands at about $85 billion. So the amount of money being spent when people are asking the government to solve their material problems with health care, child care, stuff like that, that is also a whole other issue. Well, and the one big beautiful bill act included a huge infusion of money into ice. And that's like one of the talking points I'm hearing from some of these candidates who are challenging Democratic incumbents who say, like, we know people want to talk about affordability. And we know that people are angry that they think their tax dollars are going to things they don't support. Elena, I want to talk about another aspect of your story. You know, the slogan abolish ICE

dates back to 2018. It was a response to the child separation policy in the first Trump administration. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a surprise primary win knocking off a powerful establishment Democrat with Abolish ICE as one of her main campaign issues. But there also has been caution from other Democrats on the more moderate side of things saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, this could potentially cause a political problem. Yeah, I think there is concern that this could backfire. And like you said, we've seen Democratic voters and candidates really rally around some of these calls to, you know, abolish ICE because it is so emotionally charged. I mean, it's rooted in some really upsetting images

or obviously people have lost their lives this time around. And for a lot of these places where people are running, it's, you know, very blue cities that have had their own encounters with ICE over the last year. So it really hits like a personal stake, I think, for a lot of candidates and voters. But you're exactly right. I mean, there are centrists who are sounding the alarm on this and worrying that this will backfire. One of them, very notably, is John Cowen at the centrist think tank third way. He talked to me about how he thinks Democrats, should focus really on Trump's mistakes here and call for reforms because he argues, you know, rallying around another very attention-grabbing slogan like Abolish Ice, which does have a history that was not completely accepted by voters, that can, he argues, you know, distract people from what he says should be the focus, which is the problems in this administration. And he actually compared what's happening right now to what happened in 2020 around the defund the police movement. He argued that that, you know, movement, which was rooted again in this really, really personal and painful time for a lot of Americans and activists and politicians,

he argues Trump used that moment to kind of paint Democrats nationwide as soft on crime. And he worries that that's going to happen again in this moment. The divide in the Democratic Party is not over rage, disgust, and anger. The divide is, what are you going to do about it? And for the folks who have passionately embraced the slogan Abolish Ice, they're walking down a road that's a dead end. I do also want to say 2018 and 2020 were not bad years for Democrats. And that's when that was the height of abolish ICE.

I just want to say that this is a very classic Democrats ringing their hands, looking back a little bit of a revisionist history here. This wasn't unpopular enough to affect elections, not in their feet. favor. So I do think that, you know, we'll see what comes out of these special elections, including the one in New Jersey, how things shake out. For one, you know, I say this a lot. Primaries and special election electorates are not going to give you a great picture of what's going to happen in November. But it is useful for parties to see, like, what does sort of hurt them, what kind of candidates and kind of messages do work. But I think it is too early to say that responding to. what happened in Minnesota with a lot of bold language is going to hurt the party. I think you can't say that right now either. I think we'll have a better picture come the summer. Yeah. And I think the other thing I'm watching for is if a lot of abolish ICE candidates come out of primaries in districts that are very blue, does that then become the message of all Democratic candidates? Or do Republicans

try to make it the message of all Democratic candidates, whether they're running in Ohio or California. I mean, upwards of 80, almost 90 percent of congressional seats are safe for either party. A lot of these races will be pretty much done during the primary season. Like, this will be settled then pretty much. And so a lot of Democrats will be able to run a little differently than someone who's running for a Senate seat and has to convince an entire statewide electorate. I mean, it's a reminder that there's like two objectives in the Democratic Party right now. There's the like, what do we do with our kind of. fractured base and how do we get, you know, solid Dems or people who identify as liberal or

progressive, you know, what have you excited about the party again. And that might mean new leaders in office. And so that's when these primary matchups are really crucial because these challengers, they see part of their mission as like making these races competitive, even though they are solid, you know, blue seats. I talk to people who were like, this is why I'm running because if this is a safe seat, we should, you know, be more. bold because we have the constituency that's open to that. That's the argument. But at the same time, we know that, you know, House Democrats, Senate Democrats are laser focused on flipping seats. But that's a completely different fight. And I think that like those two things often get mushed together.

And that might be a problem for Democrats because you can be clear about your two fights going on. But like, if it's confusing to voters, it's confusing to voters. And that's going to help Republicans potentially. All right. Well, we're going to take one more break. And then when we come back, it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back. And it's time for Can't Let It Go, the part of the pod where we talk about the things from the week that we just can't stop thinking about politics or otherwise. And I regret to inform you that I am going first. So last night, in a late night fusillade of videos and other posts from the president, as happens often late at night, the president's account put out a video featuring 2020 election conspiracy theories and

And then it flashed to a couple seconds of a very overtly racist animation of Barack and Michelle Obama's faces smiling on ape bodies. That definitely caused a lot of backlash, including from South Carolina, GOP Senator Tim Scott, who wrote on X, praying it was fake because it's the most racist thing I've seen out of this White House. the president should remove it. Oh, gosh. It, like, created a big storm. This is far from the first time that the president has posted far right and racist memes and that it has sparked outrage. And so the usual cycle began, which is White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, put out a statement. And she says, this is from an internet meme depicting President Trump as the king of the jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King.

Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public. But then something truly unexpected happened. The post was deleted. Oh, well, that is different. It is different because usually they just doubled down. But this time, they actually deleted the post. And then an unnamed White House official put out a new statement saying, a White House staffer erroneously made the post it has been taken down.

The classic blame a staffer movie. Yeah, I was going to say. Tale is old as time. Time to blame the intern. Yeah. But, you know, the fact that this keeps happening, if nothing else gives us a lot of insight into his information bubble, like where he's getting his information and also his validation. I mean, I feel like it's such a striking time that, like, the president continuously and really like a lot of the White House operation posts so many, like, AI generated memes and videos and content. And like we have to kind of like figure out how to cover that and like figure out both, you know, what this video is implying. And like you said, like this video is obviously making a lot of people upset. It's a racist depiction of the former president and former first lady. But it's also, you know, part of a bigger trend we're seeing from the White House of really relying on this as this style of AI generated content as part of their like calm strategy.

It's very much part of their comm strategy, though maybe not this particular one. Right, exactly. All right, Elena, what can't you let go of? All right, so I'm going to pivot. Yeah, sorry to bring us down. Please bring us up. Okay, so I'm going to talk about my love of Amtrak. Yes. I am unapologetically and obnoxiously on the Northeast corridor. I'm taping this right now in my home city of New York City. I was on an Amtrak this morning. I'm going to talk about the fact that earlier this month, the incredible news organization, The Washington Post, staffed by incredible reporters, and we were all thinking about them this week. The Washington Post reported a story, and the headline is such, Amtrak is selling a $279 track suit,

and then it says, literally, who wants this? And that's the headline. Wait, did you buy it? I'm into the idea. Okay, so I, that's what I'm just going to say. I have complicated feelings. I think that the track suit looks fire. I think it looks great.

Do I have $279 to spend on this track suit? Probably not, especially because I missed my train this morning. Oh, no. And had to get on a later train, which was about, I would say, half the price of that track suit. So my track suit budget has been depleted hardcore by the actual institution. And also, I'm doing some very. minimal investigative reporting. And I don't even see this track suit available on the website. So it was

either like a very limited quantity or there are a lot of people who got like some like nice little, you know, tax refunds or something that they put towards this track suit. But it looks pretty cool. Did you miss your train for Elena reasons or for Amtrak reasons? I do feel we need to clarify that. Yeah, that's valid. And you know, when this happened, this is like classic Pisces energy, but I was like, I'm not going to tell anyone. And then you just told us on the podcast. No, I'm told a lot of people just now. In like, probably the most public way I could have. No, I struggle with lateness.

It's something I'm working on. I was about a minute late. I was like, God, I wish I could like text the conductor and be like, please. But no, it was an Elena mess up. But, you know, we all have things that we have to work on in 26, which I think is what year it is. Yeah, I believe I've been working on that my entire life and I have not gotten better. Ashley, what can't you let go of? Well, I am also going to talk about a Washington Post story because, like, Elena, I'm like, I just want to give them some love right now, give them some shine and solidarity. Sorry to the folks over there thinking about you. So I want to talk about mostly I want to set their record straight for something that's in their headline. It is about iguanas falling from trees because it happens almost every year when there's a cold snap.

iguanas, for people who don't know, they're like when their body temperature goes down, they go into like, basically they fall from the trees, their nervous system shuts down. And they freeze a little. Yeah, they just literally. They just sort of like fall from trees and just kind of air immobile for a while. I know this sounds wacky to everyone who's not from Florida. I'm from Miami. This is like a very normal part of my childhood. There has been an iguana problem there since I think the 60s or 70s, it's, they've been around for a while. They are an invasive speech. I had no idea they were invasive until this week. I mean, how. I mean, how. of the fauna. To be fair. You mean like the pythons? In South Florida, it feels like it's invasive. Anyway, so the story in the Washington Post is about how like a lot of conservationists or, you know, the iguana population has got out of control. And actually this time when there's a cold snap and they're all just sort of falling from trees and you can easily spot them and grab them is like a time to start killing them and eradicating them. But the way like this headline is written, it makes it sound like, you know, when iguanas start falling through the sky, people just start killing iguanas. And I want to say what I was taught about cold snaps is like you're going to see some immobile iguanas. Don't throw them away. And I think it's like for two reasons we're told to do this.

For one, you know, you could suffocate them and die. And like that was my understanding. But I think the real reason is like they're going to wake up in your trash and claw everything to bits. And it's going to make a mess in your neighborhood. So yeah. So I've learned, you know, when I was a kid like, yeah, just let the iguanas just sort of lie there. Let the iguanas lie. I always wanted to like crochet little blankets for them because I thought,

Maybe it would help warm up. But that is silly. I wasn't able to do that. But maybe one day. Maybe one day you can start your iguana blanket business on the side. You know what? That sounds whimsical. I'm into it.

Okay. Well, that is all for today. Our executive producer is Mathani Maturi. Our producers are Casey Morel and Brea Suggs. Our editor is Rachel Bay. Special thanks to Krishna Dev Kalimer. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics. And I'm Elena Moore. I also cover politics. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.