There’s a political showdown brewing over Congressional spending and war powers, and it seems tensions are rising. Recently, a section in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution caught attention: it states that no funds should be taken from the Treasury due to legislative expenditures.
Congress holds significant power over federal spending, which is arguably its most critical responsibility. Following the U.S. military strike on Venezuela, some left-leaning voices demanded cuts to Pentagon and State Department funding. There’s also a conversation happening about the Department of Homeland Security and ICE following an incident where an agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. This has put liberal Democrats in a bit of a tailspin.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, expressed deep concern, stating, “A child has lost his mother! And you want to pretend it’s okay?” She appealed for solidarity with the constituents who elected them.
Meanwhile, Rep. Bennie Thompson, the leading Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, noted the varying proposals for reform, saying they have a reasonable request for oversight hearings regarding ICE. When asked if Congress should leverage its spending power to instigate reforms at ICE, Thompson hesitated, indicating that might be beyond his responsibilities.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, another prominent Democrat, has been more vocal about utilizing Congress’s financial authority. He suggested that they should exhaust all options, including budgetary changes, to achieve necessary reforms.
In some cases, it’s warranted to cut off funding or impose spending limits. Lawmakers can also stipulate prohibitions on certain federal agency activities within spending bills, altering how taxpayer money is utilized. However, many progressives are furious—some are calling for cuts to ICE, with even louder whispers about a potential government shutdown looming.
The pending deadline for addressing funding issues is January 30, 2026, and there are concerns about the consequences of inaction. House Speaker Mike Johnson voiced his worry, labeling a shutdown a “terrible idea.” Although some Republicans aren’t keen on the left reviving shutdown strategies after a previous lengthy shutdown, the tension remains palpable.
Congress hasn’t tackled funding bills for the Pentagon, State Department, or DHS for 2026 yet. It’s getting tight since funding for nine federal departments, including DHS, expires at the end of January.
The House just approved a spending package for various departments, and the Senate plans to follow suit. However, it’s likely Congress will need a “continuing resolution” to keep government running post-deadline—basically maintaining current spending levels to avoid a shutdown. Some progressives hope to wield this deadline as leverage against ICE operations, potentially shifting policies during the DHS funding discussions.
If the House and Senate fail to agree on a comprehensive DHS spending bill, they may resort to extending current funding levels, unless they find themselves short on votes and need Democratic support. While some Democrats want to leverage funding debates against ICE, a shutdown over this issue seems improbable.
Interestingly, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are cautious about reigniting funding controversies this year. Jeffries expressed his intent to focus on other critical matters, like renewing Affordable Care Act subsidies. Schumer, when pressed on ICE, didn’t commit to a clear stance, indicating he’s got bigger issues on his agenda.
With the political landscape shifting, especially after the recent incident in Minnesota, calls from within the party are urging Democrats to utilize their power to push for reforms. This brings to mind the question: did Jeffries and Schumer pick the right battle this time? Or will political pressures demand a more aggressive stance? We’ll learn the answers soon enough.
