House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana signaled openness to certain federal immigration enforcement reforms that have also drawn Democratic support, even as negotiations over government funding and border policy remain fraught. Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, Johnson acknowledged that some Democratic proposals were reasonable and worth pursuing, while others would require more extensive discussion and compromise. He emphasized that productive negotiations would depend on both parties approaching discussions constructively, cautioning against framing proposals as ultimatums. Johnson’s remarks came amid mounting congressional pressure to restore funding for key federal agencies and resolve ongoing disagreements over how immigration laws should be enforced. A House vote aimed at ending the partial government shutdown was scheduled to begin Monday afternoon with a series of procedural steps.
Democratic leaders in Congress have put forward multiple proposals seeking to reshape the operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). These developments follow the Senate’s passage of a sweeping $1.2 trillion funding package, which combined five regular appropriations bills with a two-week continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees both agencies. While the Senate advanced the measure, the House was in recess on Friday, resulting in the expiration of funding for roughly 78 percent of the federal government at midnight on Saturday. The partial shutdown affected multiple agencies and is expected to continue at least into Tuesday. House Democrats have not fast-tracked consideration of the Senate package, citing unresolved policy disputes and procedural concerns.
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer outlined a series of immigration-related reforms intended to enhance accountability and transparency within federal enforcement agencies. His proposals included banning roving patrols, expanding requirements for judicial warrants, instituting a universal code of conduct for federal officers, and prohibiting agents from wearing masks during operations. Schumer framed these reforms as practical steps necessary to restore public trust, warning that rejecting them could lead to disorder rather than stability. However, he did not address criticism of some Democratic lawmakers and activists who have used highly charged language against ICE and Border Patrol agents, at times likening them to authoritarian or secret police forces, which critics argue has influenced public opposition to enforcement.
Johnson indicated support for some of Schumer’s reforms, particularly the ban on roving patrols and a requirement for federal immigration officers to wear body cameras. At the same time, he pushed back on other measures. He defended the use of masks, stating that concealing identities protects agents and their families from potential harassment or retaliation. Johnson also expressed concern that broadening warrant requirements could overburden operations with bureaucracy, making it more difficult for officers to carry out their duties effectively. While acknowledging the need for oversight and reform, he stressed that proposals must balance accountability with operational efficiency. Johnson called for good-faith negotiations between both parties, emphasizing that compromise would be essential to resolving the DHS funding and immigration enforcement impasse.
The debate over federal immigration enforcement intensified after a federal judge denied Minnesota’s request to temporarily halt a major enforcement initiative, Operation Metro Surge. Launched by the Trump administration, the operation deployed thousands of immigration agents to Minneapolis–St. Paul, prompting strong opposition from state and local officials. Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul filed a lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the operation, citing two controversial deaths during enforcement actions and arguing that the federal surge infringed on state authority. The plaintiffs contended that the scale and tactics of the operation exceeded established legal precedent and constituted federal overreach.
U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez, a Biden appointee, ruled on Saturday that Minnesota and the cities had not met the demanding legal standard required for an immediate injunction. Menendez noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likely success on the merits of their constitutional claims and that their case sought to extend precedent into an unprecedented operational context. While acknowledging the significant impact of the surge on local communities, the judge emphasized that her decision did not constitute a final ruling on the operation’s legality. Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith Ellison and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, expressed disappointment and indicated plans to continue pursuing the case. Meanwhile, the federal enforcement initiative continues, highlighting the ongoing tensions between state authority, federal enforcement priorities, and public debate over immigration policy.
