As the clock ticked toward another government shutdown, the U.S. Senate found itself deadlocked over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a standoff fueled by deep disagreements about the future of federal immigration enforcement. On February 12, 2026, the Senate failed to advance a crucial measure to keep DHS running, voting 52 to 47—well short of the 60 votes needed to move forward. All but one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, opposed the bill, leaving the fate of DHS funding uncertain and the specter of a partial government shutdown looming at midnight on February 14.
According to CBS News, the failed bill would have funded DHS through September 2026. The impasse was not merely about dollars and cents, but about the very practices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—the agencies at the heart of the nation’s contentious immigration debate. While ICE and CBP would continue operations in the event of a shutdown, thanks to billions received in separate funding last year, other critical agencies under DHS—like the Coast Guard, FEMA, and TSA—would not be so lucky.
This latest budget standoff comes on the heels of a series of high-profile federal immigration raids and the tragic January 2026 deaths of two U.S. citizens, Renée Good and Alex Pretti, during an ICE operation in Minneapolis. These events have galvanized Democrats to demand sweeping reforms to ICE and CBP, pushing for new standards on the use of force, identification, racial profiling, and the locations where immigration enforcement can occur.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, made clear why his caucus was holding the line. “The bill fails to make any progress on reining in ICE and stopping the violence,” Schumer said at a news conference, according to CBS News. Democrats have insisted on a series of measures: requiring immigration agents to wear identification and body cameras, standardizing uniforms and equipment, banning racial profiling, and restricting enforcement at sensitive locations like schools, medical facilities, and churches. They also want to mandate judicial warrants for searches, ban the use of face masks by agents, and introduce safeguards into the detention system.
As ABC News reported, Democrats delivered a 10-item legislative reform proposal to Republican leadership over the weekend before the Senate vote. In response, Republicans offered a counterproposal on February 9, but Democrats rejected it, citing a lack of substantive legislative text. Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries characterized the GOP’s offer as “both incomplete and insufficient in terms of addressing the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.” Schumer added on social media, “We’re asking ICE to do nothing more than follow the standards that the vast majority of law enforcement agencies already follow. Republicans, the ball is in your court. The clock is ticking.”
Republicans, for their part, have expressed support for some reforms—such as mandating body cameras for ICE agents and ending roving patrols—but have balked at bans on face masks and other Democratic priorities. They have also pushed for their own set of measures, including penalties for state and local officials who refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, suggested that the White House’s latest offer was “pretty close” to a deal, but insisted it was up to Democrats to react. “Right now, at least there ought to be an understanding that these discussions need to continue, and that a solution is at least in sight,” Thune told reporters. Still, with senators heading out of town for recess, Thune said there was little benefit in keeping lawmakers in Washington. “If and when there’s a breakthrough, we’ll make sure people are here to vote on it.”
The White House, meanwhile, has sought to broker a deal, sending its own legislative proposal for full-year funding late on February 11, just days after Democrats released their draft bill. President Trump addressed the standoff directly, telling reporters that some of the Democrats’ demands are “very, very hard to approve.”
As the debate rages in Washington, local governments are grappling with the fallout of federal immigration policy on their own turf. On February 10, the Santa Rosa City Council in California convened a three-hour study session to consider policy reforms that would prevent federal immigration officers from using city property for enforcement operations. The surge in ICE activity nationwide—and particularly the Minneapolis shootings—has prompted cities like Santa Rosa to explore new ways to protect their immigrant communities.
Mayor Mark Stapp expressed concerns about the enforceability of an “ICE-free zone” policy and the legal risks it could pose to city police officers. “We are feeling our way through this legally and ethically,” Stapp said, warning against giving residents false hope. Council member Victoria Fleming, however, urged immediate action, advocating for policies that would prohibit ICE from using city facilities and require judicial warrants for access to city records. “Cities have both the right and the responsibility to decide how their property, personnel and communications are used and as leaders we have the responsibility to do everything in our power to protect civil rights, preserve public trust and ensure that the people of the city of Santa Rosa feel safe here at home,” Fleming said in a prepared statement.
Santa Rosa is not alone in its efforts. Similar ICE-free zone policies have been adopted in other Bay Area jurisdictions, including Alameda County and San Jose. However, as City Attorney Teresa Stricker advised, local governments face significant limitations in enforcing such bans—especially in public spaces. Police Chief John Cregan cautioned that directing local officers to confront federal agents could expose the city to legal liability and even physical danger. “We clearly are on uncharted territory, something I’ve never seen in my 27 years as a police officer,” Cregan said.
The debate in Santa Rosa mirrored broader national tensions. While some council members called for stronger noncooperation with federal authorities, others warned against policies that could not be enforced or that might cut off essential communication with ICE. Community members, meanwhile, packed the council chambers to urge bold action, with many holding signs that read “ICE Out.” Renee Saucedo, a lead organizer with the Sanctuary Coalition of Sonoma County, encouraged the council to pass measures prohibiting ICE from operating on city properties and ending information-sharing with the agency. “At this point, all jurisdictions are a target. This ordinance would not make us more of a target than we already are,” Saucedo said.
Back in Washington, the path forward remains uncertain. Democrats and Republicans must reach a deal by the end of February 13 to avoid a DHS shutdown. While ICE and CBP could continue operating, the impact on agencies like TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA could be severe. As negotiations continue, both sides face mounting pressure to find common ground on the future of immigration enforcement in America.
The coming days will test not just the resolve of lawmakers in the Capitol, but the ability of communities across the country to navigate an era of heightened immigration enforcement and political division.