About two months after the last federal government shutdown ended, another funding lapse looms — this one caused by a battle between Republicans and Democrats over funding for immigration enforcement.
Lawmakers in both parties worked collaboratively in recent weeks to extend government funding, trying to avoid any snags that could cause a new impasse after the record 43-day shutdown in fall 2025.
Six of 12 funding bills passed both chambers and were signed by President Donald Trump in November and January. Agencies covered by these bills now have up-to-date funding streams and are not at risk of shutting down.
Agencies funded by the other six bills, however, are now at risk of a shutdown. The fight centers around the Department of Homeland Security, but other affected funding in the bill involves defense; financial services; labor, health and human services and education; state and foreign operations; and transportation and housing and urban development.
The House on Jan. 22 approved measures to extend funding for these remaining six bills, sending them to the Senate. (Bills like this that consolidate several spending measures are nicknamed a “minibus” — a play on “omnibus,” which typically consolidates all or nearly all 12 regular spending bills.)
Most observers expected the Senate to quickly send the legislation to the president for his signature. That changed Jan. 24, when federal immigration enforcement agents fatally shot Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
An altered political environment after Pretti’s shooting death
Pretti’s shooting happened on a weekend just before the Senate was to consider the spending bill. It inflamed existing political tensions, drawing widespread criticism of DHS’s tactics and imperiling the department’s funding, which totals $64.4 billion.
Senate Democrats, responding to voters’ concerns about immigration enforcement tactics in Minneapolis, said they would not approve DHS funding without an agreement to curb certain immigration enforcement policies.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., laid out several elements he said were needed to secure Democratic support: Ending “roving patrols”; improving coordination with state and local law enforcement; implementing a standard code of conduct and independent investigations to enforce adherence to it; requiring agents to wear body cameras; and requiring agents not to wear masks.
Negotiators from both parties in the Senate met this week to try to reach an agreement that would free up the spending bill for a vote. Late on Jan. 29, news reports said lawmakers struck a deal that would give negotiators time to reach a more permanent agreement, following a relatively short shutdown.
A shutdown is likely, but its duration remains in question
A government shutdown seems likely, but it could be brief — and therefore have a more limited impact on the public.
The reason a shutdown is all but inevitable is the Senate cannot simply strip out the Homeland Security portions of the bill, approve the rest in a vote, and send the portions approved by both chambers to the president for his signature. Instead, the entire bill needs to be passed in both chambers before moving to the president.
The deal announced Jan. 29 would tee up a vote to approve new spending for agencies other than homeland security, along with a measure that would extend homeland security funding for two weeks. Lawmakers would continue to negotiate immigration enforcement policies.
Any measure that passes the Senate would have to be passed in the House next. The House is not in session until the week of Feb. 2.
The best-case scenario is that the portion of the government covered by the pending bill would shut down over the weekend and into early the following week. Weekend shutdowns are generally less problematic because most government employees aren’t working; areas unaffected by a spending lapse would include agriculture, commerce, justice, science, energy and water development, the interior, the legislative branch, military construction and veterans affairs.
Still, challenges could remain: House members from either party could be unhappy with what the Senate passed and could vote against a new Senate bill, preventing it from passing and effectively extending the shutdown.
