By Joseph Lord
Contributing Writer
The U.S. House will consider legislation this week to provide around $70 billion in funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration enforcement agencies, amid concerns among moderate Republicans about a so-called weaponization fund, leaving the final outcome of the vote in doubt.
The funding measure — which provides immigration law enforcement funding until the end of President Donald Trump’s term in 2029 — passed the Senate after an extended voting process.
In an early morning vote on June 5, the Senate approved the measure 52-47. All Republicans except Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted for the measure, and all Democrats except Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., who did not vote, voted against it, setting it up for a vote in the House.
The funding legislation is being fast-tracked under the partisan reconciliation process in order to fully close the Department of Homeland Security funding gap following the start of a partial government shutdown in mid-February amid continued Democratic opposition to funding for portions of the executive branch.
The administration’s previously announced plans to create a proposed $1.8 billion compensation fund for individuals alleging harm caused by the federal government were a central issue in the debate and vote series leading to the Senate’s passage of the measure.
This “weaponization fund” prompted controversy on Capitol Hill and beyond, with several moderate Republicans demanding an outright legal prohibition on such a use of taxpayer funds.
After progress on the legislation stalled amid Senate Republicans’ opposition to the fund, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the administration would end the program on June 2 — a move that helped break internal Republican divisions.
“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said at the time.
Originally, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told reporters that the House had hoped to quickly move to a vote on a rule following the Senate’s passage of the measure. No such vote was held, potentially foreshadowing difficulties the bill may face in the lower chamber.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., can spare no more than two defections with his current majority, meaning every vote counts in party-line votes.
Lawmakers in purple New York, California and Pennsylvania districts are particularly vulnerable. Some moderate Republican House lawmakers have also expressed concerns about the weaponization fund, opposition that could easily tank the measure in the lower chamber.
One of the leading Republican opponents of the fund has been Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., a long-serving moderate member.
Fitzpatrick and Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., introduced their own bill — the Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act — to block any federal funds from being used to pay claims out of the account.
Senate Republicans’ updated legislative text also formally removes $1 billion in funding tied to Trump’s ballroom project and White House security updates.
Some Republican senators continue to express concerns about the Department of Justice’s proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund. Several Republican senators backed amendments to permanently eliminate the program, distrusting Blanche’s assurances that the administration no longer intends to pursue it.
During the Senate vote-a-rama on the legislation, GOP senators batted down several amendments seeking to ban the fund.
An amendment by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to block the anti-weaponization fund failed in a 49-50 vote.
An amendment offered by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., that would have reallocated taxpayer funds from an anti-weaponization fund to fraud enforcement was also rejected, 15-84.
Tillis had said he was introducing the amendment to ensure that the fund cannot be revived in the future.
“I think even DOJ knows that this was a bad idea, and what we need to do is provide finality,” Tillis said. “They’ve said that they’ve quiesced the program, then why can’t we just take the step of statutorily eliminating the question, so that a future decision to reopen it is eliminated?”
