Sen. Peter Welch told viewers on “CNN News Central” that blocking DHS funding will do “very little” to restrict ICE and CBP, and “I think what has had some significant impact is the bravery of the people in Minneapolis. This piece examines that claim, questions the real leverage of funding threats, and examines the political theater versus the practical steps needed for border and public safety.
Welch’s line of argument treats DHS appropriations like a blunt instrument that will barely touch frontline enforcement, and he doubled down by praising local activism with the phrase “I think what has had some significant impact is the bravery of the people in Minneapolis. From a Republican perspective, that reads as deflection. Funding matters for operations, but so do priorities and accountability from elected leaders.
When politicians say cutting money would do “very little,” they are usually pointing at legal constraints, contract obligations, and continuing resolutions that keep agencies running. That is true to a degree, but it misses why funding threats are effective: they force negotiation and expose policy choices. Saying it will do “very little” risks letting officials off the hook while voters still face the consequences at the border and on city streets.
ICE and CBP do their jobs under laws set by Congress and guidance from DHS. Republicans argue the problem is not only funding levels but what missions those dollars support. Redirecting attention to symbolic protests or local actions, as suggested by Welch’s praise for Minneapolis, should not replace hard questions about how federal resources are used to secure the border and enforce immigration law.
Calling out “bravery” in Minneapolis is politically charged and mixes different debates. There are legitimate conversations about local response to crises, but federal responsibility for immigration enforcement does not evaporate because activists protest. From a conservative view, law and order require clarity: who enforces federal statutes, who sets priorities, and who is accountable when policies fail?
Blocking DHS funding can be a negotiating tool, not just an instant fix. Conservatives often use appropriations leverage to demand reforms, oversight, or policy shifts. To dismiss that lever as ineffective grants the opposing side cover to maintain the status quo, while voters are left wondering why leaders tolerate porous enforcement and inconsistent priorities.
Practical solutions Republicans favor include firm accountability measures, clear mission statements for agencies, and targeted funding that prioritizes border security and deportations of criminal offenders. These are legislative fixes that use appropriations responsibly instead of bluntly cutting programs that protect citizens. If leaders will not use budget battles to produce real changes, then they should explain why they prefer spectacle over substance.
It is reasonable to applaud citizen courage in moments of crisis, but federal policy must be guided by law, enforcement capacity, and budgetary clarity. When an influential senator suggests funding moves will do “very little,” voters should ask whether that is realism or resignation. The parties can argue about tactics, but the public deserves concrete answers on how border security and law enforcement will actually be improved.
Darnell Thompkins is a Canadian-born American and conservative opinion writer who brings a unique perspective to political and cultural discussions. Passionate about traditional values and individual freedoms, Darnell’s commentary reflects his commitment to fostering meaningful dialogue. When he’s not writing, he enjoys watching hockey and celebrating the sport that connects his Canadian roots with his American journey.