The Senate passed a $70 billion immigration enforcement bill early Friday, funding ICE and Border Patrol through 2029 after weeks of partisan battles—and a last-minute retreat on Trump’s most controversial demand.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted 52-47 Friday morning to advance President Donald Trump’s $70 billion immigration enforcement package, a victory for Republicans that came only after stripping out the most contentious element: a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund critics called a slush fund for Trump allies. The bill, which includes $38.6 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and $22.6 billion for Border Patrol, now heads to the House—where its future is far from certain.
How the Bill Survived After a 18-Hour Marathon
The final vote came after an 18-hour “vote-a-rama” session, a rare procedural spectacle where senators offered 29 amendments—including multiple attempts to block the “anti-weaponization” fund. Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, pushed hard to permanently end the fund, which was designed to compensate individuals claiming political persecution by the government. But Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, insisted the fund was already dead after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the administration would not pursue it.
Schumer called the bill “rotten” and accused Republicans of prioritizing Trump’s agenda over fiscal responsibility. “Do we believe that Donald Trump… will be able to resist getting his sticky fingers in the slush fund when it would benefit himself and his family?” he asked during the debate. “No way, no way.” His warnings fell on deaf ears—Republicans held together despite internal divisions, with only Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, breaking ranks to vote against the final package.
I believe very strongly that we needed to fund ICE and CBP, but to completely bypass regular order and the appropriations process by funding for three and a half years, to me… it takes it out of the process that we have always looked to for funding our agencies.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
Murkowski’s opposition highlighted a broader Republican schism. Dozens of GOP senators had privately threatened to block the bill unless the “anti-weaponization” fund was removed entirely. When the Department of Justice announced it would not proceed with the fund, Republicans pivoted—but not before Democrats forced a series of votes to expose the division. Eight Republicans even voted for an amendment to bar payments to Jan. 6 rioters, though it failed to reach the 60-vote threshold needed for passage.
The $70 Billion Package: What’s Inside?
- $38.6 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- $22.6 billion for Border Patrol
- $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security
- $108.5 million for child exploitation investigations
The bill excludes two major Trump priorities: a $1 billion security upgrade for the White House ballroom (stripped after backlash) and the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. Instead, the package extends funding for immigration enforcement agencies through 2029—a move Republicans framed as necessary to avoid another government shutdown. “Democrats would not agree to anything,” Thune said, according to NBC News, “and eventually they walked away altogether.”
But the retreat on the “anti-weaponization” fund was not just a political concession—it was a tactical one. With midterm elections looming, Republicans could ill afford the perception of a slush fund for Trump allies. The fund’s original purpose—to compensate individuals claiming politically motivated prosecution—had become a liability, especially after reports suggested it could be used to pay Jan. 6 rioters. The DOJ’s decision to abandon the fund removed the last major obstacle to passage.
The GOP’s Divide: Who Won, Who Lost?
The bill’s passage reveals a Republican Party deeply divided between Trump loyalists and moderates. While the final vote was 52-47—with all Democrats opposed—internal GOP resistance nearly derailed the effort. Fox News reported that dozens of GOP rebels threatened to kill the bill unless the “anti-weaponization” fund was removed. Their leverage forced Trump’s hand: the fund’s demise was not just a legislative victory for Democrats but a strategic retreat by the administration.
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., who missed the final vote, had earlier criticized the bill’s use of budget reconciliation—a process that bypasses the usual 60-vote threshold. “To completely bypass regular order… takes it out of the process we’ve always looked to for funding our agencies,” Murkowski echoed, as reported by NBC News. The bill’s critics argue it sets a dangerous precedent: funding massive agencies for years without oversight.
I think what was talked about, and then ultimately done away with, is, in my view, it’s a settled issue.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.
Thune’s comment underscores the GOP’s shifting priorities. While Trump’s base demanded aggressive immigration enforcement, moderates feared the political fallout of the “anti-weaponization” fund. The bill’s passage suggests Republicans are willing to compromise—at least for now. But with the House still to act, and elections on the horizon, the fight over immigration funding is far from over.
What Happens Next?
The bill now moves to the House, where its fate is uncertain. Democrats, who uniformly opposed the Senate version, will have leverage to demand changes—particularly on the “anti-weaponization” fund, which they insist must be permanently blocked. Schumer has signaled he will push for further amendments, including restrictions on Trump’s tax immunity from audits, another controversial provision tied to the IRS settlement.
Al Jazeera reported that Democrats forced votes on multiple amendments during the Senate’s “vote-a-rama,” including measures to redirect the $1.8 billion fund to anti-fraud programs. These efforts failed, but they set the stage for a broader battle in the House. If Democrats can unite behind a revised bill, they may yet derail the GOP’s immigration priorities—though with midterms approaching, time is not on their side.
For now, the Senate’s victory is a tactical one. The $70 billion package secures funding for ICE and Border Patrol, but it also exposes deep divisions within the GOP. As Thune acknowledged, the “anti-weaponization” fund’s demise was a necessary retreat—but it may not be the last. With Trump’s influence still dominant in the party, future funding battles could reignite the same tensions. The question is no longer whether the bill passes, but whether it survives in its current form—and what that means for the 2026 elections.
The stakes could not be higher. Immigration remains a defining issue for Trump’s base, but the “anti-weaponization” fund’s collapse shows even his allies have limits. The Senate’s vote was a victory—but the real test comes next.
