[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, sitting in for Brian today. Now we turn to the latest from Washington where President Donald Trump and Democrats say they've reached a deal to avert a partial government shutdown. Earlier this week, Senate Democrats threatened not to vote for a spending package that would fund the government past midnight tonight unless Republicans agreed to limit funding and impose restrictions on the Department of Homeland Security. This, a direct result of the high profile killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Nicole Goode, the two American citizens killed by federal agents in Minneapolis this month.

Senate Democrats have struck a deal with Republicans to pass five spending bills as well as a stopgap measure to fund the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks while they continue negotiating restrictions on immigration agents. The five spending bills will fund a large portion of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. Joining us now to break down the latest is Siobhan Hughes, a reporter covering Congress in the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau. Siobhan, welcome to WNYC.

Siobhan Hughes: Great to be with you.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, we want to invite you to join this conversation right from the start. Democrats in the Senate were set to put their foot down on funding for DHS in the wake of the events in Minneapolis. Now they've agreed to fund the agency for another two weeks. Are you following the news? How do you want to weigh in? 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. Or any other questions you may have for Siobhan Hughes, reporter covering Congress in the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau.

Again, that number, 212-433-WNYC, that's 212-433-9692. You can also text that number. Siobhan, let's begin with this week's impasse. On Wednesday, Senate Democrats issued their demands for an overhaul of immigration enforcement as you wrote. Fr those who might have missed the story, what were they asking for?

Siobhan Hughes: What Democrats are asking for, and they have not gotten into specifics, is they want to address the immediate crisis that they saw in Minneapolis. They want a stop to these roving patrols where people can essentially be just arrested, stopped and questioned. They want tightened rules governing warrants. They want that ICE to coordinate with state and local law enforcement.

They want federal agents to be prohibited from wearing masks and be required to use body cameras. Also they want the agents to be subject to the same use of force policies that apply to other police forces, and also to be held accountable for their violations, including through independent investigations.

Brigid Bergin: It sounds like there's not an insignificant list of things that they want, but how much money are we talking about? How much is on the table for DHS and ICE, and how does that compare to funding for some other federal agencies?

Siobhan Hughes: The overall bill that's being fought over is $64.4 billion. Of that, about $10 billion goes to ICE. That's essentially the same amount of money as last year. Part of what is amping up this fight so much is that you have to remember, in Trump's big, beautiful bill, ICE got stuck $75 billion over four years, 45 billion of that for detention beds.

When you add all of those numbers together, you're looking at ICE alone, the agency responsible for interior enforcement, getting almost $30 billion this fiscal year. If you look at that, you're rivaling the military budgets of some nations. You're rivaling the military budget of Canada. That's part of why this is such a big deal.

Brigid Bergin: Siobhan, you wrote that Democrats want Republicans to agree to rework the DHS spending bill to enshrine some new restrictions into law and have said they wouldn't settle for administrative changes or pledges of executive action. For two weeks, DHS is going to get funding under this deal. During those two weeks, what would Republicans need to commit to?

Siobhan Hughes: Democrats, while they have laid out the framework or the parameters, they have not laid out the specifics. Some of it's fairly obvious and straight forward, like the wearing masks. You have got to carry your ID if you're a federal agent. The real sticky wicket is probably going to come on this issue of warrants and in two different ways.

Number one, warrantless arrests. The Border Patrol commander, who was just elbowed out of the way, had sent these roving patrols of agents to comb neighborhoods for people to stop and question. They did not need to use a warrant relying on a 1952 law. Some Democrats really want that changed. They want you to be able to at least have a specific person in mind you are trying to stop.

Then the other has to do with warrants used to essentially barge into people's houses. Typically, you're supposed to use a judicial warrant. Somebody outside the equation has to say, "You have the right to barge into a home." Instead, what the Trump administration had done was its lawyers had crafted a memo that essentially gave themselves sweeping powers to approve their own warrants. You just had to go to your supervisor. For many, many Democrats, that's really a bridge too far in a constitutional violation. They want those things reined in.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, we invite you to join this conversation. We're talking about this potential agreement between Democrats in the Senate and Republicans that would continue to fund DHS, at least for the next two weeks. Let's go to Greg in Randolph, New Jersey. Greg, you're on WNYC.

Greg: Good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I just appreciate, I think some of the things that the Democrats are asking for is body cameras and removal of masks from the agents. It just seems very odd to me that these are not standard practices. I've never seen masked officers before in my life, and I'm over 60. If you explain the background, I'd appreciate it.

Brigid Bergin: Greg, thanks so much for that call. Siobhan, how much can you tell us about why the requirements for these ICE officers and the standards that they have to meet are different from other law enforcement agencies?

Siobhan Hughes: The reporting I have done is that they don't have the body cameras, at least that's what Republicans have told me. Everybody points out that one thing Democrats won in the DHS existing package that they've rejected was $20 million to fund body cameras. The other piece of the equation in terms of the masked federal agents, what Republicans argue, and I will tell you John Fetterman of Pennsylvania agrees with them, is that if they are not masked, if their identities are exposed, then they risk being doxed, their families are put at risk, and so there are safety issues. That is the argument.

Brigid Bergin: Siobhan, I'm getting several listeners who are texting with some frustration about feeling a little like this is Groundhog Day, remembering last year's government shutdown where Democrats were demanding an extension of those federal healthcare subsidies, which of course expired at the end of December and have not been restored. One listener writes, is the issue that animated the last government shutdown, the ACA subsidies, completely off the radar. It's a non issue now.

Siobhan Hughes: This is a book of clearly a very close reader of politics. While it is not a non issue, it is greatly diminished. I do not expect that issue to get resolved. What Republicans had always felt, and I will tell you what some Democrats had told me privately too, is that this was in some ways a manufactured issue. It was obviously very real for the 20 million people who were going to lose that enhanced subsidy, but it highlighted an issue that is a very much a winning issue for Democrats.

Now the moment has passed, you're probably not going to see an extension of those ACA subsidies. The negotiations taking place in the Senate are really on tenterhooks. Neither side can agree, and the leadership is very dug in. You've got Chuck Schumer who's still insisting it's got to be a three year extension or nothing. My paper had some reporting that Mike Johnson had promised a wing of his flank he would not put an ACA subsidy extension a brokerage deal on the floor at all. It does not seem like there's going to be a solution here.

Brigid Bergin: Siobhan, bringing it back to the current issue, another listener texts, "I feel totally betrayed by Senate Democrats. I've been out protesting ICE in this frigid weather with thousands of my friends every week and we end up with this." How are Democrats responding? Do you think that they are hearing that frustration from their constituents that we're hearing just by putting the question out to our listeners?

Siobhan Hughes: I will tell you, Senate Democrats are not going into this fight with unified sentiment. For example, I talked to Senator Cory Booker yesterday and he said, "In no way can I support any bill that temporarily funds DHS." He's essentially going to be a no vote when this deal comes out because that is an entity that is in need of significant reforms.

You have somebody like Bernie Sanders saying, what I want is to defund ICE entirely. I heard Dick Blumenthal on the radio today also saying that he couldn't go along with anything that was narrow and insignificant. That caucus is very much fracturing over this issue.

Brigid Bergin: I want to bring in some of our listeners. Let's go to Harry in midtown. Harry, you're on WNYC.

Harry: Good morning. I was disappointed not to hear the word demand from the Democrats after listening to Chuck Schumer yesterday and hearing his emotional statement, and now we have a list of wants. At this time, after the past week, 10 days, two weeks, we are in a position to demand the warrants, demand no mask, demand cameras. As your listener just said, people have been freezing out in the streets. This is a time that Democrats hopefully won't lose once again, this opportunity to take advantage of huge national backing.

Brigid Bergin: Harry, thanks so much for that call. Siobhan, I think what's so interesting about what Harry raises there is that it goes to your point about how fractured the Democrats are. Certainly at a minimum in terms of messaging and demands, this morning I think Senator Blumenthal was on Morning Edition and using the word demand.

Can you speak to sort of what you are hearing from other Democrats? I know you spoke with Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who said that Republicans need a ladder off the ledge, basically, that they need a political off ramp from this DHS and ICE action in Minneapolis and that public opinion is turning against them. Do you get the sense that that's how Republicans are feeling about this?

Siobhan Hughes: Yes. Republicans also feel that public sentiment is turning against them. I'm not saying it's every Republican who feels that way, but when you have Republican Senator Ricketts from Nebraska sticking his neck out to say, "Hey, there needs to be an investigation of this," Republican Senator Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania saying there has to be an investigation, you know that underneath the surface a lot of Republicans are upset.

I've definitely had Republicans tell me they agree with Democrats on the issue of needing a warrant. The listener is right that Democrats have a lot more leverage than they have had in the past. There's just a but, but, but here which is, you still have to line up votes to get this across, not just the Senate, but in the Republican controlled House, and the politics, they're also very tricky. The risk is that if the two sides can't agree, you do end up with, at this point, at least a partial government shutdown. Then everybody has to gauge whether or not they are the ones who would take the blame for that.

Brigid Bergin: Can you talk for a minute, Siobhan, about how President Trump is framing this potential deal.

Siobhan Hughes: On Truth Social, he had a very positive thing to say. He has described this as a bipartisan deal that he hopes it will help everybody get to yes. My colleagues had a very nice story that was reported over the weekend that looked at the 48 hours leading up to Trump's decision to pivot on this issue. It was very, very clear that Trump, who of course cares enormously about the visual and imagery, saw that things were turning against him in Minneapolis and knew he was going to need to pivot.

Brigid Bergin: Let's go to Libby in Teaneck, New Jersey. Libby, you're on WNYC.

Libby: Hi. I've never called in before, so I hope this is working. Can you hear me?

Brigid Bergin: We can hear you loud and clear.

Libby: Great. I just want to say that given how much ICE has violated pretty much anything and everything out there in terms of laws and restrictions and directives, I don't trust that just because they put this into a bill that gets passed, that that's going to change anything about how ICE operates. I think the only real leverage we have to make a real stop to what's happening is to not fund them any further. My fervent wish is that the Democrats would just say, "No, we are not funding ICE any longer." Thank you.

Brigid Bergin: Libby, thanks for your call. Siobhan, part of your reporting, as you said, reflects the fact that even though there is this tentative deal, there is still some very severe time pressures and it's far from a done deal. Even if the GOP controlled Senate does vote to approve it, the House has to come back to pass it. Can you just explain that a little bit further and whether it looks likely that it will actually be done today?

Siobhan Hughes: It's pretty much certain that the country is going to enter at least a technical government shutdown. The House is not going to come back before midnight to pass a spending bill. The Senate has not even gotten back into session yet. In just three minutes from now at eleven o'clock, John Thune will open up that Senate. There will be a technical shutdown.

The question is, are they going to be able to get enough Republicans on board early next week to avoid a shutdown? The answer is probably yes. It's not hard for the Trump administration to lean on its right wing to get this done. The bigger question then is going to be what happens two weeks afterwards?

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, if you're just joining us, my guest is Siobhan Hughes, a reporter covering Congress in the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau. We're talking about a tentative deal that would keep the government funding ICE and would not lead to a full government shutdown the way we saw during December, but potentially still trigger a partial government shutdown. We're taking your calls about how you feel about this ongoing funding and anything you think that lawmakers should be considering. Let's go to Lauren in Brooklyn. Lauren, you're in WNYC.

Lauren: Hi. I am in total agreement with the last caller. I think that no one should be sending any more funding to ICE. Even though body cams in an ideal world would be a good thing and would be a curb on bad behavior, I don't think that-- We have seen that the killings have been pretty well covered in footage and that hasn't stopped Republicans from lying about what's happening. I don't think that funding ICE via body cam footage is going to-- By giving them more technology is going to be a solve to the problem. What we really need to do is cut their funding.

Brigid Bergin: Lauren, thanks for your call. We're getting several similar texts of that effect. Siobhan, I wonder if you could talk about the challenges in the House. Of course progressive Democrats in the House are not happy. What are you hearing from them about this deal?

Siobhan Hughes: Progressive Democrats are going to feel very much the way the past two callers have felt, which is this is an out of control entity and it needs to not have any money. You're going to have a hard time getting progressives on board. I would note though that when the DHS bell came through the House on its own on a standalone basis, Democrats did not vote for that. No Democrat really likes this.

Their arms had to be twisted to support it with the leverage being otherwise the government would shut down. The one thing I do want to add though, is that the hardline conservatives on the right also did not like the Homeland Security bill. They didn't like it because, for example, it gave the inspector general powers to essentially go in and see what was happening in the detention facilities and really review how all of the money appropriated through the big beautiful bill was being spent.

It included the $20 million for body cameras. They absolutely did not want to support it and got leaned on hard by the Trump administration to be a yes vote. As they are watching the potential for new restrictions emerge as part of the conversation, they are telegraphing to House speaker Mike Johnson that they don't know if they can support a revised deal. There is another element of the political ecosystem here that is going to be relevant.

Brigid Bergin: Let's bring in Michael in Manhattan. Michael, you're on WNYC.

Michael: Hi, good morning. I'm just wondering if in your interviews with congressional Republicans, you're hearing them express any concern over the damage of private property. We know the Republicans are always very concerned about that. There's been this back and forth between the courts around whether SWAT teams more generally prior to ICE's most recent surge raids have to compensate people for damage to private property.

It's pretty clear that there's no police powers exemptions of the Fifth Amendment takings clause. I'm just wondering if Republicans are expressing any fear on that, whether the damaging of private property is-- Some of these questions around the Second Amendment that have come out of the administration have really resonated with them at all. Thank you.

Brigid Bergin: Michael, thanks for that question. Siobhan, are you hearing any of that?

Siobhan Hughes: I have not heard any Republicans bring it down to the level of particulars in terms of private property, but they certainly are operating at a level of unreasonable searches and seizures. There is that overlying constitutional debate going on. You also saw a little bit of the flicker of tensions between President Trump and the Republicans when Trump said the problem was that Alex Preddy had brought a gun. A lot of Republicans balked at that and said protecting your First Amendment right does not abrogate your your Second Amendment rights. This is a very, very layered conversation.

Brigid Bergin: Let's go to Alec in the Bronx. Alec, you're on WNYC.

Alec: Yes, good morning. Just want to remind all Americans that there was an immigration bill that was going to be passed. It was undermined by President Trump. Maybe we would not be dealing with this craziness if that had been passed. Of course it wasn't passed, and we're dealing with this insanity. It's really hard to deal with this situation, this constant barrage of unknowns and changes. Americans got to settle down and get real with this. That's all I got to say.

Brigid Bergin: Alec, thanks so much for your call. A lot of frustration there, Siobhan, in this sense that we didn't have to get to this point. At this point, do you sense that things are going to continue moving next week, or are all of these potential tripwires within the House setting this up for further delays?

Siobhan Hughes: It's a little bit hard to say right now, but I will say I have never seen Democrats have as much leverage against President Trump as they have right now. This does not strike me as one of those issues that just goes away. There are some episodes in American history that have very long tails that really stay with people for years afterwards. Something like the financial crisis, for example. I think this is one of those.

Brigid Bergin: At this point-- Let me see. Let me bring in another caller. Let's go to Nat in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Nat, you're on WNYC.

Nat: Hey, good morning.

Brigid Bergin: Good morning.

Nat: I was calling because I've heard a lot of Democratic governors give veiled threats about withholding tax money to the federal government. I'm wondering if that could be used potentially as leverage to really stop ICE in their tracks. I think people aren't making big enough moves. We're asking for crumbs like body cams and things like that. We should be making bigger moves to stop them from killing American citizens. I was wondering if that was actually something worth pursuing for especially Democratic states.

Siobhan Hughes: It sounds more like an escalation than a resolution because the pattern we have seen with President Trump and his administration is that people find a way to achieve their ends. It's part of the reason Democrats have had such trouble. Not only are they in the minority, but there's really a game of hide the ball going on. Every time Democrats come up with one fix, somebody at the administration finds their way around it. Don't forget, the country does have the ability to borrow money. Not only is withholding tax money problematic, but there's still another way to get your funds.

Brigid Bergin: I want to go to one more caller before we let you go, Siobhan, who I think is looking at the current state of affairs and then projecting ahead to what this could mean for elections in June, elections in November. Marvin in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC.

Marvin: Thank you for taking my call. Also while all of our thoughts are with Brian and his family, it's great to see what a magnificent team he has to carry this important program on. I think what we have to bear in mind is that Trump has created a private army, in effect in ICE, that isn't answerable to any regular rules of law, and that he can deploy to terrorize citizens and interfere with all upcoming elections. Just have a massive ICE sweep into Democratic district and keep people home and afraid to vote.

This is an issue of basic democracy. ICE has become a private army of thugs. If you look at the reports of who gets included in ICE, the lack of training, the lack of standards, the extraordinary amount of money that they're giving is bonuses. The fascists in Europe and the Nazis had to have their own private armies of black shirts and brown shirts. Trump is using the government, in effect, as his black shirts and brown shirts. That must be stopped.

Brigid Bergin: Marvin, thanks for your call. Summing up a lot of the concerns I think we heard from many of our callers in this segment, Siobhan. Just to bring it back to this idea of could what we are seeing happening now in the streets of Minneapolis, streets across the country, do you hear lawmakers, particularly Democratic lawmakers, talk about how this could be a threat to elections in November?

Siobhan Hughes: Before what I saw happening in Minneapolis, I have had Democrats privately express concerns to me that somehow Trump is raising a private army to enforce his will in the elections. I cannot say that there is any verification or evidence for that, but I can say it's an anxiety. I will also say that Republicans have been incredibly chastened by what they've seen happening in Minneapolis.

Brigid Bergin: Siobhan Hughes is a reporter covering Congress in the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau. Siobhan, thank you for coming on. Thanks for your reporting. I'm sure you will have a very busy weekend.

Siobhan Hughes: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2026 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.