2 GOP senators side with Democrats to block ICE, CBP funding



The Senate worked overnight to advance the GOP's budget resolution to fund immigration enforcement to the tune of $70 billion in an effort to end the Democrat-induced shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

From Wednesday afternoon to the early hours of Thursday morning, senators voted on a slew of amendments to advance Republicans' legislation to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection.

'Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders.'

This legislative marathon comes amid the ongoing DHS shutdown that began in mid-February. In March, the Senate approved a funding package to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP in a 2:00 a.m. voice vote, but it was rejected by the House. The House passed its own 60-day continuing resolution to fund the department in its entirety, but it was not advanced in the Senate.

The Senate budget ultimately advanced mostly along party lines in a 50-48 vote just before 3:30 a.m., with Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky voting with Democrats against the immigration funding.

RELATED: Senate approves DHS funding — but there's a catch

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) lashed out at Republicans for funding "rogue agencies," claiming they are out of touch with everyday Americans.

“What kind of bubble are they living in?" Schumer asked. "How apart are they with people’s real needs?”

Despite the Democrats' predictable disapproval of the funding bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) remains optimistic that the House will cooperate with the Senate to fund these key agencies. Earlier this month, both Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) agreed on a "two-track approach" that would partially reopen DHS while funding immigration enforcement separately.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," a joint statement between Thune and Johnson reads. "In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Does the DHS meme strategy actually work?



Growing up, Republicans treated deportations like a topic that required careful handling. Under presidents such as George W. Bush, the language was softened, the messaging was restrained, and the emphasis was placed on policy rather than persuasion. The assumption was that if the argument was sound, the public would eventually come around to it.

That assumption turned out to be wrong.

The goal is not to explain policy in a traditional sense, but to normalize it through repetition, familiarity, and shareability.

Consider the sympathetic yet stern immigration pivots Republicans such as former Texas Governor Rick Perry had during the 2012 GOP primary. Back then, the media and liberal pundits painted Perry as hardcore and extremely right-wing. Compared to Republicans in office now, however, he would be considered passive and extremely soft on the issue.

The assumption that the independent and flip-voter public would buy in to the GOP stance was not because the policy case for enforcement lacked merit, but because the conversation was happening somewhere else entirely.

Opinions were not being decided based on press briefings or white papers. They were being shaped on TV screens, social media feeds, comment sections, and viral content ecosystems where tone and format mattered as much as the substance.

Jeremy Knauff, founder of the PR firm Spartan Media, puts it this way:

Public relations plays a far larger role in policy than most people realize. It’s not enough just to educate the public any more — today, lawmakers need to engage in a more direct effort to influence public perception. The government has always done this to some degree, but the left has been significantly more active and effective in this regard. But now we’re starting to see a measurable shift from the right.

What we are seeing now from the Department of Homeland Security’s social media team represents a break from that old model. Simply put, they’re playing to win.

The kids want memes

The DHS, along with the White House and ICE, has been using memes, viral audio, and internet-native content to promote deportation policy and immigration enforcement. This includes Christmas-themed deportation memes, TikTok-style videos set to trending music, and stylized content designed to travel well beyond traditional government channels.

Keep in mind that Millennials (roughly ages 27-42) spend an average of nearly three hours per day, or approximately 17 to 20+ hours per week, on social media.

These aren’t your father’s government employees figuring these things out on the fly, looking sloppy and rushed. The content they’re putting out isn’t just quality; it is the type of content you would see on the feeds of the most viral social media content creators. They’re in the major leagues of viral political content.

One viral video posted by the DHS, captioned 'Gotta Catch ‘Em All,' showed ICE agents blowing in doors and handcuffing and leading away undocumented immigrants to the theme song from the "Pokemon" cartoon. It certainly tugged on Millennial heartstrings, because that clip alone has been viewed 75.5 million times.

The backlash has been as immediate and intense as you would expect. Critics say this approach is dehumanizing, that it trivializes serious issues, and that it reflects a level of insensitivity that should not be associated with government communications.

CNN has gone so far as to claim that "underlining" DHS recruitment posters "are undertones that historians and experts in political communication say are alarmingly nationalist — and fraught with appeals to a specifically White [sic] and Christian national identity.”

Supporters see it as effective and long overdue after years of what they view as overly cautious messaging from the right.

RELATED: The case against ‘principled conservatism’

Erhui1979/Getty Images

Focusing only on whether the memes are appropriate misses the larger point. What is happening here is not primarily about humor or tone; it is about control over how the issue is framed and where the framing takes place.

Knauff says, “The people who are criticizing this approach are only doing so because they can see that it’s effective. And their complaints are disingenuous because it’s the exact same thing they’ve been doing for decades.”

The cool kids in control

For the better part of the last decade, conservatives did not lose the immigration argument on substance. They lost it on distribution. They had policies and data on their side, but they failed to communicate those ideas in the environments where younger voters and low-information audiences were actually forming opinions.

Put plainly, they were boring and unwilling to defend their position with the same passion as liberals.

The polling makes the gap impossible to ignore. Multiple 2026 surveys show that younger Americans are far less supportive of Trump’s immigration policies than older voters, especially Boomers who largely consume cable news.

A February PBS/NPR/Marist poll found that just 18% of voters under 30 approved of the administration's approach to deportations, while 69% disapproved. A CBS/YouGov survey in mid-January similarly found that 60% of respondents under 30 believed Trump was doing “too much” to deport illegal aliens.

This issue isn’t cut and dry. Trump was delivered a mandate in 2024, but now that optics are changing, the question is whether to keep the foot on the pedal or not.

The picture is clear though: Younger voters are not instinctively aligned with the administration’s immigration agenda, even if they support individual enforcement measures in isolation. So what to do? Keep the memes coming.

The current strategy appears to be an attempt to close that gap by meeting the audience where it already is. Instead of trying to pull younger users into formal policy discussions, the DHS is embedding its messaging inside the formats the youth consume on a daily basis.

The goal is not to explain policy in a traditional sense, but to normalize it through repetition, familiarity, and shareability.

Propaganda? Only call it that if it's boring.

RELATED: Why I support ICE as the son of an immigrant

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

It’s all about virality

What we’re seeing represents a significant shift in how the government communicates. In the past, agencies relied on press releases, official statements, and media intermediaries to convey their message carefully and cautiously. Now, the message is being delivered directly to the public in the same formats used by influencers, creators, and online communities.

The distinction between political communication and internet culture is becoming increasingly blurred.

There are clear risks to this approach. When complex policies are reduced to highly shareable clips, the conversation can quickly become polarized.

At the same time, the old model was not getting the job done. Staffers with communications degrees did not win over younger audiences, did not reshape cultural perception, and did not prevent immigration from becoming one of the most emotionally charged issues in our society today.

Backtracking to a more restrained style of messaging would not solve anything. It would only surrender the digital battlefield once again.

What makes this moment notable is not just the content itself, but what it signals about the future of political communication. The DHS is operating less like a government agency and more like a savvy political campaign, prioritizing reach, engagement, and narrative control over neutrality.

Weapons of meme destruction

The DHS’ use of memes is an indication that the rules of engagement have shifted. Political power is no longer exercised solely through policy decisions or legislative victories, but through the ability to shape perception at scale.

Republicans spent years trying to win arguments in spaces that fewer and fewer people were paying attention to. Now, they appear to be adapting to the environment as it actually exists. Whether that approach proves sustainable or backfires politically remains to be seen.

Knauff explains it like this:

I believe this strategy will not only continue to be effective, but also become more effective as time goes on. Right now, it’s novel and exciting, but as the new car smell wears off, the impact will remain — if we have the discipline to stick with the mission. Public relations requires time to create the desired outcome. It’s not something you can rush. The left had decades to slowly leverage this strategy, so the right needs to be just as patient in their execution.

If the GOP maintains its majority in Congress, Republicans might joke about how the memes saved them. If they lose, expect the old guard to say the memes were too mean.

What is clear is that the next phase of political communications will not be conveyed primarily through speeches, press conferences, or media panels. It will be fought through content and the side that understands that reality will have a decisive advantage.

May the side with the best memes win.

Border states need to take action before it’s too late



Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez (D) recently said the quiet part out loud: If Democrats regain power, they intend to “melt ICE” and “dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.”

Not reform. Not recalibrate. Dismantle.

At this point, no one should be surprised, but everyone should be paying attention.

The window for aligned federal action is limited, and states must be prepared to carry that work forward regardless of what happens in Washington.

Over the past several years, we have seen what a serious approach to border security can look like. Under President Donald Trump, the federal government has taken long overdue steps to restore enforcement at the border, disrupt cartel operations that extend into American communities, and reassert the basic principle that immigration law should be enforced.

But the job is nowhere near finished.

Cartel networks are still heavily embedded in trafficking routes, financial systems, and communities across the country. Interior enforcement remains inconsistent. Local and state cooperation is uneven at best. And despite real progress, the broader homeland defense framework is still fragile — dependent on political will, which can shift overnight.

That fragility is exactly what Ramirez’s comments expose. We are not debating hypotheticals; we are being explicitly told what will happen when the balance of power shifts.

The same agencies tasked with protecting the homeland would be targeted for dismantlement, the enforcement tools that have begun to regain ground would be stripped away, and the limited progress made in confronting transnational criminal networks would be reversed.

This threat is not just rhetoric from some far-left politician. Polling trends are already pointing toward a potential shift in power in the 2026 midterms. That means the window for aligned federal action is limited, and states must be prepared to carry that work forward regardless of what happens in Washington.

RELATED: My message to President Trump: Don’t mess with Texas politics

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Key legislation like the SAVE America Act remains stalled, and DHS is still not fully funded to meet the scale of the challenge, caught in the middle of ongoing congressional budget standoffs. Structural reforms that would lock in enforcement gains for the long-term have yet to materialize. In other words, even with unified control, the system is struggling to deliver the level of security the country requires.

So what happens when that control goes away? We don’t have to guess — we’ve been told.

Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D) has said that under Democratic control, officials carrying out deportations could face mass prosecutions, while taxpayers would be expected to fund reparations for the “trauma” inflicted on foreign nationals.

The largest deportation effort in American history would be halted. Federal enforcement would be curtailed. The focus of immigration policy would shift away from American communities and toward accommodating foreign nationals.

And once that signal is sent from Washington, it will cascade downward — into statehouses, city councils, and law enforcement agencies across America.

This fight cannot be viewed as strictly federal. As I’ve written before, it starts at home. It depends on governors willing to lead, legislatures willing to fund enforcement, and local law enforcement willing to uphold the law consistently and without apology.

Sheriffs, police chiefs, and county officials are not peripheral actors in this system; they are fundamental to whether it succeeds or fails.

That responsibility is especially urgent in red states. And right now, Texas has an opportunity to lead.

RELATED: Senate Republicans tried to cave on Trump's agenda

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The Texas Legislature has already laid the groundwork with its 2026 Interim Charges, taking on everything from hostile foreign networks operating inside our state to strengthening and equipping the new Texas Division of Homeland Security. But our interim work only matters if it turns into action.

As we head into the 90th Legislature, and while there is still alignment in the White House, Texas has an opportunity to go further — building a real, state-led homeland defense framework that doesn’t depend on shifting priorities in Washington. That means passing laws with teeth, funding enforcement, closing loopholes, and making it clear that in Texas, the rule of law is not optional.

Because when the political winds shift, and they always do, the difference between a secure nation and a vulnerable one will come down to what was built beforehand. The left’s intentions are no longer implied, they are explicit. The time for debate about what might happen is over. The only question now is whether we have the will to act before those promises become policy.

America’s founders risked the gallows. What are we risking?



America is only months away from celebrating its quarter-millennial birthday — officially billed as “America 250” and even, in some quarters, a “Super Centennial.” But will America make it another 50 years, all the way to its tricentennial? Even as President Trump wages an existential conflict abroad, another one rages at home.

Without question, the country has lived a long and remarkable life. But the world also knows it has not been free of grave danger. Go back 165 years to the Civil War, and you’ll find proof that the American experiment can wobble — and nearly break.

‘We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.’

Even at the nation’s birth, the outcome was not guaranteed. The men who signed their names to independence did so knowing that the newborn republic could be stillborn. In the eyes of King George III, they were committing treason.

That fragility hit me again recently on one of my many walks through Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in my neighborhood of Sleepy Hollow, New York. Sleepy Hollow is the final resting place of captains of industry — families such as the Rockefellers and Carnegies — as well as Washington Irving, America’s first internationally recognized literary giant.

Inside the cemetery’s borders stand monuments commemorating the dead of both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. They are stark reminders of how fragile a nation’s life can be.

The words carved on the Revolutionary monument still land with force.

Photo by Albin Sadar

1776 — 1783
In Memory
of the
OFFICERS and SOLDIERS
of the
REVOLUTION
who by their valor
sustained the cause of liberty
and independence
on these historic fields.

While we honor the dead, we should remember the courage of the living — including those too old to take up arms themselves. When Benjamin Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence, an act of treason in the eyes of the Crown, he is said to have offered a grim assessment: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

That line came rushing back when Susan Rice laid out what amounts to a warning shot about the next round of political retribution. On a recent podcast, Rice promised a reckoning for those who “take a knee to Trump,” and she made clear that Democrats, once back in power, will not "play by the old rules.”

Her message was simple: Align yourself with Trump — or with the tens of millions who support him — and your time “is not going to end well.”

For anyone who watched what happened to people swept up in the post-Jan. 6 dragnet, the implication is not subtle. The left’s appetite for lawfare is real. And it rarely stops with the obvious actors. It metastasizes. It broadens. It looks for new targets.

So what can derail the Democrats’ destructive engine?

The answer may be hiding in Franklin’s line: Hang together.

RELATED: America at 250

Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

President Trump has made two standards central to national survival: secure borders and honest elections. The border is more secure than it has been in years. But Congress still hasn’t delivered the SAVE America Act — and that failure matters.

Within months of July 4, 2026, Americans will again head to the polls. The choices will be stark, and Democrats will not be shy about what they want: revenge, institutional capture, and a reset of the country on their terms.

Two things now matter, and they are not complicated. First, patriots must keep pressure on elected officials to pass the SAVE America Act. Second, they must show up and vote in overwhelming numbers this November. Nobody gets to sit this one out.

That’s how Republicans keep their majorities. That’s how Trump’s agenda survives. And that’s how the country avoids another round of “fundamental transformation” — imposed by people who have already told you they plan to discard the old restraints.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.

Mullin inherits a mess at DHS. Here’s how he can still save Trump’s legacy.



A few weeks ago, I wrote: “Everyone in America has an opinion on what has gone right or wrong at the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.” I added — a little too coyly — that I had “a pretty good sense of what happened.”

That restraint served a purpose at the time. It also left too much unsaid.

The mass deportation agenda remains central to Trump’s legacy. Markwayne Mullin has a chance to deliver what the last year only promised. We’re counting on him.

Now that President Trump has removed Kristi Noem as Homeland Security secretary and nominated Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to replace her, it’s worth putting real detail behind the diagnosis. Not to salt the wound, but to fix what needs fixing. Trump’s signature promise — “the largest deportation operation in American history” — matters too much for anyone to pretend the last year went smoothly.

Start with the numbers. They’re too low to fulfill the promise.

ICE stopped releasing deportation data. The congressionally mandated annual report still hasn’t arrived. In the vacuum, we’ve been left with third-party estimates — the New York Times put removals at about 230,000 in 2025 — and with shifting DHS press-shop claims that bounce between hundreds of thousands and “millions.” The Times figure sits closer to reality than the chest-thumping.

Instead of mass deportations, we got mass communications.

The department’s strategy leaned heavily on television ads, memes, charged language, and inflated-sounding claims meant to create the impression that deportations were happening at historic scale. The result landed in the worst possible place: It antagonized the left and the media without delivering results big enough to justify the noise. I don’t lose sleep over angry leftists. I do care when the administration absorbs political heat without gaining operational ground.

Trump World isn’t immune to polling, media narratives, and the feedback loop they create. A loud rollout without the matching numbers gave activists, consultants, and industry a pretext to flood weak-kneed Republican offices on Capitol Hill. Those calls turned into pressure on the administration. The incentive became delay, and delay followed.

Then came the optics problem.

Turning the DHS secretary role into a traveling cosplay routine didn’t land, and it didn’t project command. Instead, it projected awkwardness — and in a department built for seriousness, that matters.

The larger issue was always fit. Excitement around Trump’s cabinet picks made people charitable, and that’s understandable. The president earned that deference. But putting Noem in charge of DHS — the department most central to the core thesis of Trump’s campaign — never quite made sense. People in the enforcement world tried to build working relationships. Many got brushed off. Meanwhile, operational leaders inside DHS did what Noem didn’t: They cultivated the advocates who could help the mission move.

RELATED: ‘Phase one’ was quality control. ‘Phase two’ needs to be quantity control.

Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images

The divide became public. Post-Minneapolis, Tom Homan’s profile rose quickly as Trump tapped him to manage the response. Inside DHS, the camps had already formed. Anyone in Washington with a foot in the enforcement world knew who was on “Team Kristi and Corey [Lewandowski]” and who wasn’t. Leaks followed. Finger-pointing followed. Journalists got fed a steady diet of dysfunction. Morale dropped as firings and reassignments became the department’s background music.

What drove most of the internal warfare was money — specifically, contracts — and the scramble to control tens of billions authorized through the One Big Beautiful Bill.

DHS adopted a policy requiring Noem personally to review and sign off on contracts over $100,000. Combined with stripping authority from agency heads, that amounted to centralized control in the secretary’s office.

In practice, the authority filtered through a small circle and ran through Corey Lewandowski in a “special government employee” capacity. The backlog became delay, and the delays hit the mission: Border wall contracts sat for months while steel prices rose. Detention capacity grew slowly because leadership chased flashy, low-capacity facilities with catchy names — Cornhusker Clink, Speedway Slammer, Louisiana Lockup — announced with social media fanfare but built at higher cost, higher litigation risk, and lower throughput than traditional providers.

It looked like a communications strategy pretending to be a detention strategy.

Personnel choices compounded the problem. Noem brought in people with little operational or policy experience in immigration enforcement. Her decision to install a late-20s former Wildlife and Fisheries official as deputy ICE director raised eyebrows. Outside the formal chain of command, an equally inexperienced cast appeared in spaces normally reserved for officials who have spent years in homeland security. Over time, allegations of self-dealing spread — and the pattern made it harder to dismiss them as rumor.

The best example was the $220 million ad campaign that prominently featured Noem. Reports of unusual processes and favored vendors circulated. When lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats — pressed for answers, Noem did little to restore confidence. Given the broader self-promotion pattern, any benefit of the doubt evaporated.

Then came the hearings. They were brutal.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

Photo by Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images

Before both the House and the Senate, Noem failed to convince members that she could lead the department, and she struggled to answer accusations of scandal and self-dealing. But the fatal error came when she violated the one rule for any Cabinet witness: Don’t drag the president into your mess.

Under questioning from Sen. John Kennedy about the ad campaign, Noem told him the president personally approved the spending. Kennedy looked stunned. Trump later denied it — and the claim never made much sense in the first place. That answer ended whatever internal support remained. In the middle of a sudden war, it still managed to blow up the news cycle. With few defenders inside the building or outside it, the wagons never circled.

So what now?

Markwayne Mullin has a massive job ahead of him. He inherits some real wins — especially the restored control of the southern border — but he also inherits a department bruised by internal warfare, low output numbers, and credibility damage.

A few suggestions, offered plainly:

First, “commas, not drama.” Let the mission speak louder than the messaging. Raise the deportation numbers. If the numbers move, everything else gets easier.

Second, cauterize the past. If Mullin doesn’t create distance from what happened before, he’ll spend the next year answering for it — including under subpoena if Democrats take the House.

Third, build a firewall through oversight. Let Trump-appointed Inspector General Joseph Cuffari review the controversies. Put the facts on paper, separate the department from the personalities, and move forward. Mullin needs the ability to say, credibly, that he’s fixing the mission, not protecting a mess he didn’t create.

Fourth, trust the serious people already inside DHS. The department has highly capable operators. Back them. Empower them. Leadership requires followers, and followers don’t materialize through threats, leaks, and infighting.

The mass deportation agenda remains central to Trump’s legacy. Mullin has a chance to deliver what the last year only promised.

We’re counting on him.

Robust Homeland Security Must Be Funded, Not Shut Down

Americans deserve a DHS strengthened by recent resource increases, and as agile and effective as possible in carrying out its core mission.

Trump’s Pro-America Vision Will Only Succeed If He Pushes Republicans To Implement It

President Trump painted an uplifting, “America First” vision for the country during his State of the Union address on Tuesday. Filled with recognitions of American patriotism and savvy political moves, the president pledged that America’s future “will be bigger, better, brighter, bolder, and more glorious than ever before.” While Trump’s address was certainly as pro-America […]