Why Democrats have little leverage to reform ICE

Hey there, it's the MPR Politics Podcast, I'm Miles Parks, I cover Voting, I'm Sam Greenglass,

I cover Congress, and I'm Human Abustio, and I cover Immigration.

And it's Friday, so let's catch up on some of the political news we haven't already

talked about on the pod, starting with an ongoing fight over funding at the Department

of Homeland Security.

Sam, this is an agency that has been without funding for more than 60 days now, can you

give us the latest?

Yeah, I feel like a lot of people maybe have forgotten that this agency is still shut

down and that this fight is ongoing, and it very much is.

So there was an agreement in the Senate, at least, to fund all of DHS, except for Immigration

Enforcement Agencies, ICE, and Border Patrol.

This passed the Senate, but it has been sitting in the House for the last three weeks amid push

back from inside the House Republican Caucus, who don't like this idea of carving out the

Immigration Enforcement Agencies, and handling them later in a party line vote, and who also

want to stick a lot of other stuff into that offensual party line vote.

So there's conflict there, and three weeks after I suppose a deal to end this thing, we

are still in the middle of this fight.

Hey, man, you cover the Department of Homeland Security, tell us a little bit more about

the impacts that we're feeling at this point.

Yeah, I mean, it's probably very normal for the average person to, as Sam said, forgot

that this was sort of happening.

You can go to the airport and you still see TSA that's there, and then maybe you remember

that TSA is also a part of Homeland Security while you're doing that.

But I think it's important to remember that for a while, those TSA agents were not getting

paid, and then President Trump signed a memo authorizing particular federal funds to

get moved over to streamline the pay, and then signed a separate memo to then start

paying the rest of the department.

And we're talking about a 20, 250,000 people that work for DHS.

Now there are other potential impacts, so TSA is getting paid, but yesterday the TSA

administrator testified that the agency is preparing to lose even more workers as the

shutdown drags on.

And attrition is something that TSA is particularly seen in the last six months, because there's

not just the shutdown, but the one from the fall as well.

And she said that shortages in TSA staffing could still lead to long delays at airports.

But then separate from that, the US Coast Guard Admiral Kevin Lunday said that there were

over 500 unpaid utility bills because of the shutdown, which is threatening to cut off

electricity and water to Coast Guard stations.

And so the average person might not be concerned about whether or not they're going to get their

mail or be able to go to a national park.

Like we talk about with other shutdowns, but there are real lags in training, real lag

in paycheck, real lag in just like programs operating with homeland right now.

The reason that Democrats have not signed on to funding DHS, though, is to push for reforms

to immigration enforcement.

Have we seen, even though there hasn't been a funding deal that puts changes into law,

have we still seen this have an impact on ice enforcement at all?

I mean, there definitely is so much pressure on the agency.

And so much scrutiny on the agency, I think the last four months, then we saw all of last

year.

I mean, right after two US citizens were shot and killed by federal immigration officers

that worked for DHS, so immigration and customs enforcement and border patrol.

Out of Minneapolis, we really saw Democratic senators suddenly shift their tone.

And that's what kind of started this whole thing is them saying we're not going to include

funding DHS with the rest of the federal government.

And since then, there hasn't been anything on the legislative front, but we have seen

the departure of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Nome as the first cabinet secretary

to leave the Trump administration.

And then as of last night, the head of ICE Todd Lyons also handed in his resignation.

And so we are seeing a lot of big leadership changes, that's not to say that the policies

have changed.

We are still seeing this administration take a very sharp, strong approach to not just

curbing illegal immigration, but legal migration.

But you know, we are kind of seeing some of the tone begin to waver at least for now.

Sam, you reported this week about the sort of kind of limits of the leverage that Democrats

have in terms of trying to force changes at ICE.

Can you explain that a little bit?

Yeah.

So one reason that Democrats have not been able to extract any of these demands that they

have been asking for is that the agencies are really not being hemmed in by the appropriations

process, which is one of the really big checks that Congress has on the executive branch

to initiate reforms or request information or seek policy changes.

And that is because last year, Congressional Republicans gave ICE and other agencies

within DHS a huge pot of money with very few strings attached, $75 billion for immigration

and customs enforcement.

And that has allowed that agency to continue their operations despite this shutdown without

feeling a lot of the pressure that Democrats hoped that they would.

And just to put that $75 billion number in some context, usually that agency gets about

$10 billion a year.

So this is just a huge, huge bucket of money with very few strings attached to how it's

spent.

And we don't fully know how it's being spent.

Because on one hand, it is allowing, for example, deportation officers to still get paid

even when other employees at DHS and even within ICE are not getting paid.

But then we're seeing this argument from top officials that it's like, well, they can't

just always use this money for these World Cup game training or something like that.

And so there are a lot of questions.

And ultimately, a lack of oversight is what it lands on.

And I talked about this with a former acting director of ICE, his name is John Sandwig.

And he basically described this $75 billion as a blank check.

When you have tens and tens of billions of dollars with very limited oversight and no fear

that you're going to have problems in the next fiscal year with Congress, you have created

a real vulnerability to fraud or just misconduct.

And now Republicans are gearing up to give these agencies more money in this fashion.

You know, at the top of this conversation, I mentioned that part of this deal to fund

DHS is to carve out these immigration enforcement agencies, immigration and customs enforcement

and border patrol and fund them separately in a party line maneuver for three years.

That's going to be another potential big pot of money without strings attached and without

this annual appropriations process.

Tell me a little bit more about that because that does seem rare to fund an agency.

I just have covered politics for the last decade.

I'm very used to every year.

You kind of have this annual argument about like everything in everything that Congress

funds essentially, but this would exempt these agencies from that level of scrutiny.

Is that in my understanding?

Yeah.

This is really unusual and another example of Congress relinquishing its authority and

regards to the executive branch.

And when it comes in this case to the power of the purse, you know, we've even heard some

Republicans express frustrations about this, including Republican representative Mark

Amade of Nevada.

But it's like saying, we're going to abolish Article 1 for three years.

We want to give you your stuff in a consistent, predictable, sustainable way.

That's our job.

That's what we owe to you.

Just prefund me for three years, really.

Why don't you prepay me for three years?

You'd be dumber and hell to do that.

Now, he is the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee in the House that funds DHS.

And so those comments were made during yesterday's budget hearing where, you know, members on

both sides of the aisle thought that it was silly, that they were talking about the fiscal

year 2027 budget when there is currently no fiscal year 2026 budget at all.

And so there really is this like broader question of how to actually move forward with this.

And I should say that that is a minority position among Republicans that we just heard.

And that when you talk to most Republicans, they accuse Democrats of subverting Congress's

responsibility to fund the government and believe that we are in an era where Democrats

may never again vote to fund ICE or border patrol.

And they are really left without any options here.

And the one other thing that I'll just add here is for people who don't follow regular

appropriations, like essentially every year, like the president comes out with a budget

and says, this is what I would like you to give all my federal agencies.

And then every top official from every federal agency gets called in the Congress to do what

these officials did yesterday, which is the president is asking money for this.

And here's why.

And congressional lawmakers get to ask questions about how money has been spent.

And then if they get this money, how it will be spent, that's the oversight.

If you do not go through this process every single year and you just essentially prepay

upfront three years, there's no reason for administration officials to come in and provide

an explanation for not just how they've spent the money, but also like how they plan to

spend future money.

Like there are other levels, like you can send letters and requests and stuff like that.

But this is just a very public, regular form.

All right.

Well, Helena, thank you so much for your time and for your reporting as always.

Thanks.

Let's take a quick break when we come back.

How Congress is responding to the war in Iran.

And we're back now joined by MPR White House correspondent Danielle Kurt Slavin.

Hi, Danielle.

Always happy to be here.

Always happy to have you.

So let's stick with this theme of Congress's relationship with the executive branch.

But this time, looking at it through different lens, through the lens of the ongoing war in

Iran, congressional Democrats forced a vote on what's known as the war power's resolution

related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Sam, get us up to speed there.

What is the war power's resolution?

And why does this matter?

OK.

So I want to start by going back just a little bit to the Constitution.

The Constitution gives the president always comes back to the Constitution.

The number of times that I've actually pulled out my pocket Constitution, first worries

about Congress in the last couple of months, is more than once.

So what I want to say is that the Constitution gives the president the power of being commander

in chief.

But it also gives Congress the power to declare war.

And in the founding era, the first century of this country that didn't actually create

a lot of tension.

But on the outside of World War II, the United States becomes this global superpower with

nuclear weapons.

And the president has a lot more leeway on their own to unilaterally get the United

States involved in conflict.

Fast forward to the Vietnam War, and President Nixon is carrying out a secret bombing campaign

in Cambodia.

There's a lot of congressional pushback when it becomes public and that prompts Congress

to pass something called the War Powers Resolution, which does a bunch of things, but two really

important ones.

One, it gives Congress the ability to pull back the president from conflict with a vote

of Congress.

And it also sets a 60-day timeline that the president has to pull back if Congress hasn't

formally authorized the president to be engaged in this conflict.

And these are the votes that we've been seeing in Congress over the last couple months

about Iran, but also other things like Venezuela.

Okay, so this vote failed in the House, I think, by one vote, right?

Where does that leave things?

So we keep seeing these votes happening again and again.

And we know that this is part of the strategy of Democrats is to keep holding these votes,

hoping that they can chip away Republicans as this conflict either widens or goes on,

especially as we get to this 60-day mark that I've been talking about in the context

of the War Powers Resolution.

We even date here from some Republicans in the early days of this conflict that if this

conflict is going on at that point, that's when they're really going to start to have

some more concerns.

And so that will be a big point to take stock of where Republicans are on this conflict.

How in Bolvin do you think the fact that these votes do keep failing, Danielle, how does

the White House take that in terms of basically giving them a little bit of a blank check

at this point?

Even though this War Powers Resolution that Sam is talking about only applies to Iran,

I do think that should, hypothetical here, should it continue to fail or be rejected in

Congress, then that might make the White House feel even better and more emboldened about

whatever they might be planning with regards to Cuba.

Trump has said several times, including this week, he has hinted at some sort of action

in Cuba.

USA Today, this week, quote, we may stop by Cuba after we're finished with this, this being

the conflict with Iran.

So yeah, I would say that they might well decide that, cool, if Congress still isn't going

to stop us after Venezuela after this, then we're just going to keep going.

Without Congress, strikes were ordered by President Clinton in the former Yugoslavia, President

Obama and Libya, President Trump and Syria, and President Biden in Yemen.

So this is not just President Trump who was doing this.

If you talk to War Powers historians, they say he is taking an additional constitutional

leap here when you look at the nature, the scope and the duration of this particular conflict.

And so I think Danielle is right to ask whether this continues to open that door for future

presidents to take these bigger and bigger leaps.

And there have been some new developments in recent days that we haven't talked about

on the pod yet.

Danielle, can you get us up to speed on the latest in the war?

Yes, absolutely.

So there have been a couple of things.

One is that there has been a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon that is a 10-day ceasefire.

But crucially, what we should point out here is that Hezbollah, which is Iran-backed and

which Israel has been attacking in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah is not Lebanon.

So there is this ongoing question of exactly how Hezbollah will act in light of the ceasefire.

We also learned today from President Trump, he posted on social media that the Strait

of Hormuz is open, however, the U.S. naval blockade is still in effect with regards to Iran.

What that means is that commercial ships can go through the Strait of Hormuz, but U.S.

ships are still stopping any ships from going into or out of Iranian ports.

Now does this mean that traffic is going to immediately bounce back to pre-Iran war levels?

There's a lot of questions regarding that.

I mean, Trump did say that Iran has removed or is removing all minds, but you can imagine

that some companies, shipping companies might still have some trepidation about going through

that Strait right now.

Yeah, and I should also say that markets have responded to these developments.

I know oil prices have come down to the stock market, shot up over the last day or so.

Also related to the economy this week, Danielle, the administration quietly announced a mechanism

related to tariffs.

After the Supreme Court ruled that some of Trump's tariffs were illegal, can you explain

what's going on there and how this refund program that was announced will work?

Yeah, I mean, I'm going to give you the very abbreviated version of this.

Customs and border protection, which is the government agency that collects tariffs.

They announced a new portal that is called Cape that is going to be where a big company

can go in and say, look, I paid all of these tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled were

unlawful.

Please give me all of this money back.

Thank you.

So this portal is going to open on Monday.

That is what we know.

And we also know that it's only going to be at first for certain tariff payments that

have been made.

The very short version is that CBP is going to pay out the easiest to pay out tariffs

first, the most recently paid ones and ones where there's not some sort of dispute or

additional tariffs or countervailing duties, anything like that involved.

So that's what's happening.

But there's a lot, lot that is still very uncertain.

For example, after the Supreme Court in February said, hey, the IEPA tariffs are unlawful,

then there was this question of when and how refunds were going to happen.

Well, a judge on the court for international trade ruled that, yeah, you do have to pay

back the tariffs.

Go do it.

Now the Trump administration right now has until early June to appeal that.

So one big question is, does the Trump administration appeal that how much of it do they appeal?

What direction do they go in?

It is quite possible that they could say that some tariffs they just don't have to pay

back for this reason or that.

One other thing though is that the Trump administration certainly has not talked about

tariff refunds with joy and alacrity.

Like from the beginning, they made it clear that they want to fight tariff refunds in court.

And just this week, a reporter asked Scott Besent, the Treasury Secretary, how these refunds

could affect the economy.

And here's what he said.

Again, we'll have to see what comes out and we'll have to see what the companies do with

them.

Just to be clear, just to be clear, thanks to the Supreme Court, some of this money is going

back to China.

So is that going to affect the US economy?

I don't know.

To fact check him for the millions time here, it is not China that pays the tariffs.

It never has been.

It is US companies importing goods that have been paying the tariffs.

Got it.

Well, I mean, I think big picture, the tariff thing does kind of relate to the war powers

resolution, Sam, in that this is something that Congress used to say was our job.

And now I guess I do see these things as a little bit connected.

Yeah.

I mean, and not just war powers and not just tariffs, but also this appropriations fight

with DHS funding that we've been talking about.

This is one more example of Congress relinquishing its constitutional powers to the executive branch.

You know, that is a through line of almost all of the stores we are doing about Congress

right now.

And I talked about this in the appropriations context with University of Michigan law

professor Sam Pagan-Stass.

He used to be a top official at the Office of Management and Budget.

And he says that if Congress doesn't step back in to reclaim its prerogative in these

practices, then we have a really great risk of executive branch tyranny.

And let's see why every executive in the future isn't going to follow some playbook like

this.

And so the question Bagan-Stass is posing there is not just what does that mean for this

administration, but for future presidents as well.

And that's something that Supreme Court justices also got at when they ruled against these tariffs

of Trumps.

You did have some of them saying, well, this could just lead future presidents to yeah,

just keep usurping Congress's power than what is Congress for in the first place.

So Supreme Court justices have thought about this.

So now the question is, even with a Supreme Court having raided Trump on this one thing,

these tariffs, then if he's been raided there, Congress still can step in for Trump's

other tariffs.

Congress still can step in and impose or say no thank you to those tariffs.

So it's not just a Supreme Court that is doing it here.

Okay, let's take one more break and we'll get back time for Can't Let It Go.

And we're back.

And it's time for Can't Let It Go, the part of the show where we talk about the things

from the week that we just cannot stop thinking about politics or otherwise.

And I'll start us off this week.

I, you know, I listen to a lot of music and I don't know about you guys.

I feel like as I'm discovering new music, I feel like I'm constantly just hoping for

that like lightning strike moment of like when something like really hits your core

unlike, I don't know, I feel like I listen to all these albums in the last like year.

Very rarely has something like really broken through.

I'm excited for where this is going.

Well, I just had, I don't know, there's nothing more than to say other than that.

I listened to an album this week that like did it and I was like on a walk with my dog

and it was like one of those like pink sunsets outside and I put on this album that I barely

knew anything about and like, I feel like I like, like to another plane, exactly like

I did like basically like a daydream walk for an hour and just listen to this record

over and over again.

And I'm going to play a little bit of the first song.

This is by a band called Sluse and the album is called Companion.

The song is called Beaty and nothing more I can say other than that it starts really

quiet.

It's like twangy kind of country rock.

It has a reference to the wire.

It is like everything.

It's like feels like it was, it was built in a focus group for me.

Me for miles.

Exactly.

I've got back on the SSRI.

My parents met in high school and they were just 17.

Some real Wilco vibes here.

Exactly.

It is like total Wilco vibes and like, I'm sorry, Miles, are you a dad?

I happen to be, I know, like, you have to be a charged dad now and it did feel like as

I was levitating to the, I was just like,

I'm leaning into myself here.

Hey, listen, listen, I am a stereotype of a suburban mob as well.

I get it.

I'm just saying I'm not being a jerk.

I totally get it.

I'm not, again, I'm like, I'm done with leaning away from myself.

I'm leaning in and like this album, I'm going to listen to 150 more times this year and

I recommend our listeners to go do the same.

I'm here for the country rock.

I can totally picture you on this walk in your neighborhood listening to the music.

Last thing on this is, I really like this one as happens.

I was, some on a walk of my dog in the first lyric of this song is about a person walking

their dog at sunset and I was on a walk of my dog at sunset and I don't know.

There's something about that moment when like music lines up with your life in a way

that also like hits different.

Sam, what can't you let go?

Okay, so Miles, you talked about a struck by lightning kind of moment with that music.

That is a nice segue into what I want to talk about, which have you seen the Netflix

series, Death by Lightning?

I watched the first episode, which I enjoyed.

I don't know why I didn't continue it, but I saw the first episode.

It was great.

Okay, so for folks who don't know what this is, this is a mini series about the assassination

of President Garfield.

This week, the Capitol Historical Society hosted a talk with the historian who wrote the book

that it's based from, which is called Destiny of the Republic, and Nick Offerman, who plays

Chester A. Arthur in the series.

So first of all, total nerd, Capitol moment that I got to experience this week.

But the thing that I keep thinking about is this amazing story that the historian described

in her talk, and she said that she was researching.

Her name is Candace Millard, and she was researching this book in the Library of Congress,

going through all of these documents in this very beautiful space, and she came across

an envelope that she thought was just going to be a run-of-the-mill letter.

So she starts to open it, and it turns out a bunch of hair spills onto the desk in front

of her, and written on the flip side of the envelope says, clipped from President Garfield's

head on his deathbed.

And first of all, wild, weird, kind of gross.

But what she told us is that it reminds you of this responsibility that you have as a

historian, as a storyteller, to see these as real human people, even all those years

ago.

And I think this is a great lesson for us as journalists, even though we're covering

people in the modern day.

These are sometimes larger than life figures.

We are writing the first draft of history, and I think that is something I want to keep

with me as we tell stories about people in politics in Washington.

Capitol Hill is interesting in that way that every time I've gone up there to cover something,

it is, that's one of the things I'm struck by as I'm talking to lawmakers who I see on

TV all the time, but I'm like, oh my god, that's like a person, like that person kind

of looks like my dad, or that person is kind of like, I'm just like, it is, it is very

weird to be that close and you are kind of reminded that like, these are human beings.

You know, I talked to a senator once who's like, I can't talk to you right now, I just

come from the dentist.

And you realize, yes, these are real people.

Yeah.

It will all make us get cavities too.

Danielle, what can't you let go of?

I have something kind of in that vein of politicians, they're just like us.

This week, New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani was talking about a new fund that his administration

is creating called the Mayor's Fund, the idea being to get a bunch of money from philanthropists

to help pay for, for example, his Universal Child Care Initiative, but he described it in

a very particular way and here is a cut.

I like to think of it this way, government is driving the race car and philanthropy is there

to give it that turbo boost to cross the finish line.

Or if you are a Mario Kart fan, government is Yoshi and philanthropy is the Golden Mushroom,

and edge we need to beat Bowser on the Rainbow Road.

To belabor this metaphor, even further, Bowser is corporate greed in this scenario.

It made me think about the passage of time, I tend to think of politicians as being several

decades older than me.

And here is a politician talking about an initiative and making it clear that like many of us, he

has sat on his friend's living room floor or dorm room floor and played hours of Mario

Kart.

I don't know, I grew up in Iowa, the senator there was Chuck Grassley, and I don't think

Chuck Grassley has ever sat on anyone's dorm room floor playing Mario Kart.

He's probably listened to a photograph, you know, and I am now at the age where my law

makers are.

Chuck Grassley catches strays also.

He's always posting complaints about the history channel, doesn't do real history anymore.

Listen, if Chuck Grassley's office is listening and you can tell me that he has played Mario Kart,

I will, he wants to play Mario Kart with me, hey, I'm down.

Alright, we can leave it there for today.

Our executive producer is Methoni Matari, our producers are Casey Morelle and Vrea Suggs,

our editor is Rachel Bay, special thanks to Dana Farrington, Ben Swayze, and Krishnadev

Kalmer.

And lastly, a big thank you to Anusha Madder, our Washington desk intern in the last few

months.

Thank you so much Anusha for everything you did to make our journalism better.

I'm Miles Parks, I cover voting.

I'm Sam Bringlass, I cover Congress.

And I'm Danielle Kurtzlavin, I cover the White House.

And thank you for listening to the MPR Politics podcast.