A complex and protracted legislative process to fund U.S. immigration enforcement agencies has seen several key developments — including the dropping of a controversial $1 billion White House security provision and ongoing disputes over a separate $1.776 billion settlement fund. The Senate ultimately passed a $70 billion bill to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, but the process highlighted internal divisions within the Republican party and opposition from Democrats.
Legislative Background and Process
Funding Dispute and Reconciliation
Funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had been delayed since early 2025. Democrats blocked the funding after federal agents fatally shot two protesters in Minneapolis, demanding policy changes. This led to a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a later government shutdown that ended in April when Congress passed funding for the rest of DHS without funding for ICE and CBP.
To bypass the 60-vote threshold needed for most legislation, Senate Republicans used a budget reconciliation process, which allows certain budget-related bills to pass with a simple majority. This requires near-unanimous Republican support.
The $70 Billion Package
The core legislation provides approximately $70 billion to fund ICE and CBP through the end of President Trump's term. The bill is structured to advance without needing Democratic votes.
Key Points of Contention
White House Ballroom Security Funding ($1 Billion)
A provision was initially included in the bill to allocate $1 billion to the Secret Service for security upgrades related to President Trump's proposed White House ballroom and East Wing Modernization Project.
- Administration's Position: The White House argued the funding was necessary for security upgrades, citing an assassination attempt on President Trump at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in April. They stated the funds were for security adjustments, not the ballroom's construction, which they claimed would be privately funded.
- Parliamentarian Ruling: The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that the ballroom security funding could not be included in the reconciliation bill due to Senate rules (the Byrd rule), which require provisions to be directly tied to federal spending and the jurisdiction of a single committee.
- Internal Republican Opposition: Some Senate Republicans, including Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Rand Paul (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA), expressed opposition. Concerns included the $1 billion price tag, the political optics of spending taxpayer money on a ballroom project while voters face cost-of-living pressures, and the previous commitment that the project would be privately funded.
- Outcome: After facing opposition from within the party and a parliamentary ruling against it, the ballroom security funding was dropped from the bill.
Department of Justice "Anti-Weaponization" Settlement Fund ($1.776 Billion)
A separate point of contention was a $1.776 billion fund established as part of a settlement resolving a lawsuit by President Trump against the IRS over leaked tax returns. The fund was intended to compensate individuals who claimed political targeting by the government.
- Nature of the Fund: The fund, referred to as an "anti-weaponization" fund, could potentially compensate individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. A federal judge temporarily blocked payouts from the fund.
- Republican Concerns: Many Senate Republicans criticized the fund as a political liability and a misuse of resources. Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) were among those who voiced strong criticism. They sought to add parameters to limit who could receive payments or to scrap the fund entirely.
- Democratic Opposition: Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), condemned the fund as a "slush fund" and attempted to eliminate it through amendments.
- Administration's Stance: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche initially stated the fund would not proceed, but President Trump later indicated it was "very important." The administration's shifting position created uncertainty.
- Outcome: After weeks of deadlock, the White House agreed to drop the settlement fund from the immigration bill. Democratic attempts to permanently ban the fund through amendments failed.
Legislative Timeline and Final Passage
- Initial Delay: The bill was delayed for weeks due to the disputes over the ballroom funding and the settlement fund.
- Deadline Missed: President Trump had set a June 1 deadline for the bill, which was missed.
- Amendments and Vote-a-Rama: The Senate began a "vote-a-rama" on the bill, a process allowing for unlimited amendments.
- An amendment by Senator Schumer to block the settlement fund failed 49-50. Three Republicans (Susan Collins, Dan Sullivan, and Jon Husted) joined all Democrats in support.
- An amendment by Senator Thom Tillis to redirect settlement funds to fraud enforcement also failed.
- Other amendments, including one by Senator Bill Cassidy to redirect funds to injured law enforcement, were also rejected.
- Final Passage: The Senate passed the $70 billion bill early on a Friday morning with a vote of 52-47. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was the only Republican to vote against the final package.
- House Action: The bill was then sent to the House of Representatives for consideration.
Immigration Enforcement Funding: Broader Context
The White House Ballroom Project
The proposed ballroom is a separate initiative from the immigration funding bill, but its funding became a major source of debate.
- Project Scope: The project involves a 90,000 square-foot ballroom intended to be built on the site of the demolished East Wing. It is estimated to cost $400 million and is designed to accommodate large indoor events.
- Funding: President Trump initially stated the project would be funded entirely by private donors. Internal documents show that cost estimates have ranged from $200 million to $600 million, with projections indicating a significant portion could come from taxpayer sources for security and underground components.
- Legal Challenges: The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit challenging the project, arguing the president lacked the authority to proceed without congressional approval.
- Initial Injunction: In March, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction halting most construction, ruling that the president is a "steward, not an owner" of the White House.
- Appeals Court: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals extended a pause on the injunction, allowing construction to continue temporarily while the case was considered.
- Revised Order: In November, Judge Leon issued a revised order blocking above-ground construction but allowing below-ground work on security facilities, including a bunker. He stated that "national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity." The administration continued to pursue appeals.
- Congressional Action: Following a security incident at the Washington Hilton, three Republican senators introduced legislation to provide $400 million for the ballroom, arguing it would be a more secure venue. Senator Rand Paul also introduced separate legislation.
The DOJ Settlement Fund ("Anti-Weaponization" Fund)
- Origin: The fund was created as part of a settlement of a lawsuit by President Trump against the IRS over leaked tax returns.
- Purpose: The stated purpose was to compensate individuals who alleged they were targets of political "weaponization" by the federal government. Critics argued it could be used to pay individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 attack.
- Status: The fund has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge and is the subject of ongoing political debate. The administration has stated it will not proceed with the fund, but legislative efforts to permanently prohibit it have failed.