The fight over who controls federal spending has resurfaced in a big way, with Democrats debating whether to use appropriations as leverage to rein in ICE and to push back on U.S. operations tied to Venezuela. This piece explains the constitutional power at stake, the political dynamics inside both parties, and why the coming funding deadline could force a real showdown in Congress. Expect blunt arguments about prudence, politics, and the likely path to a short-term fix that keeps the government running while the bigger fights simmer.
Article I, Section 9 is plain: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” That line puts the power of the purse squarely in Congress, and it matters because whoever controls the checks controls policy in a real way. Republicans see appropriations as a sober responsibility, not a bargaining chip for radical change that risks public safety.
Progressive members on the left are pushing hard to punish ICE over a deadly shooting in Minneapolis and to hobble certain Venezuela operations, arguing the appropriations process is their lever. “A child has her lost her mom. And y’all want to pretend that it is OK,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, fighting back tears. “I am asking if there is anyone that will stand for the very people that elected us and sent us to Congress?”
Other Democrats want hearings and oversight, which is normal; Rep. Bennie Thompson said, “A lot of people are talking about different reforms, and that’s their prerogative,” and added that “Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee have written [Chairman Andrew] Garbarino, R-N.Y., saying, ‘We’d like to have an oversight hearing on what’s happening with ICE.’ That’s a reasonable request.” Yet when pressed, Thompson confessed, “That’s above my pay grade.”
On the more aggressive flank, Rep. Jamie Raskin urged Democrats to use every tool: “We should use every means at our disposal to do it,” said Raskin. “Including the appropriations process.” That language makes conservatives nervous because appropriations can have wide, unintended consequences if used as blunt instruments in hot political moments.
Republicans remember the chaos of the fall shutdown and are openly skeptical of a repeat strategy. “It will be weapons-grade stupid,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo. “But I don’t put anything past them. So, maybe they’ve not learned anything from the fall shutdown, which was dumb.” Leaders on our side are determined to avoid another breakdown that shuts down services and hurts ordinary Americans.
House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed those concerns: “I am concerned about that,” he said when asked about a possible shutdown over ICE. The calendar is tight; funding for nine parts of the government, including Homeland Security, hits a Jan. 30 deadline, and lawmakers are already debating whether to pass bills or punt to a continuing resolution. A CR would preserve current levels and prevent a shutdown, which is the most likely outcome if both parties choose stability over brinkmanship.
Democratic leaders are trying to tamp down progressive energy on this front because they fear the political fallout from another funding fight. Asked whether ICE should be a red line, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries replied, “Our focus right now, in terms of the appropriations bill, are getting the three bills that are going to be on the floor today over the finish line. And then we’ll turn to the Homeland Security.” He later added, “No, what I’m focused on right now, Chad, is to make life better for the American people by extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits. Which, by the way, a lot of folks in this institution believe was not possible.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dodged direct answers when asked about abolishing ICE, conceding only that “I have lots of problems with ICE.” Multiple reporters pressed him, and he chose silence over escalation. That reluctance shows Democrats are balancing base fury against pragmatic calculations about midterm risks and governing responsibilities.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez acknowledged that leadership has a different job: “They’re responsible for leading an entire caucus that elects members from across the country. So, they’re in a different position,” said Ocasio-Cortez. She still criticized ICE policy, saying funding “exploded virtually overnight, and we are seeing the ramifications of it in terms of the abuse of power that is happening.” Even so, she signaled tactical patience about when to press hard.
The Minnesota shooting that sparked these debates underscores the emotional pressure Democrats face, but emotions alone do not rewrite the Constitution. Lawmakers can cut funds, add restrictions, or direct agencies how to operate, but they should weigh national security, border control, and operational continuity. The most likely path forward is a mix of targeted oversight and a short-term funding patch that keeps agencies running while Congress argues about long-term fixes.
At the end of the day, appropriations is raw political power wrapped in legal responsibility. Republicans will push for measured responses that protect public safety and avoid another shutdown, while progressives test limits to force change. The clock is ticking, and the coming days will reveal whether leaders choose responsible governance or another round of destructive posturing.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.