Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Special Session Watch: Florida Reaches Compromise Over Immigration Law

News

Special Session Watch: Florida Reaches Compromise Over Immigration Law

By February 13, legislators had agreed on two new bills, to replace the now defunct TRUMP Act, which were rapidly signed into law by DeSantis

Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash

Sessions Abound

The Florida legislature concluded its third special session of 2025 on February 13, marking the end of a remarkable period of political theater that exposed deep rifts between Governor Ron DeSantis and state lawmakers. While the conflict played out through immigration policy, the true battle centered on control and influence in one of America's reddest states.

The drama began when DeSantis called for a special session starting January 27 to address immigration enforcement - an unusual move given the regular session was set to begin in March. Legislators, caught off guard and bristling at the lack of consultation, responded with an unprecedented show of defiance: they gaveled out and launched their own session, claiming their approach better aligned with President Trump's immigration priorities.


State Rep. Anna Eskamani captured the mounting tension, noting, "We have seen a lot of online back-and-forth chatters, dueling statements being released. And it doesn't seem like Governor DeSantis is letting go. He seems really angry about us finally exhibiting independence as a legislative branch."

The TRUMP Act

The legislature's defiance manifested in the "Tackling and Reforming Unlawful Migration Policy (TRUMP) Act,"a comprehensive $485 million overhaul of Florida's immigration enforcement structure. The Act's most contentious provisions included mandatory death penalties for unauthorized immigrants convicted of capital offenses and the elimination of in-state tuition for DACA recipients. It also centralized immigration authority under the Commissioner of Agriculture, rather than dispersing powers across multiple agencies as DeSantis had proposed.

Power Struggle

House Speaker Perez and Senate President Albritton pulled no punches in their criticism of the governor. In a pointed statement, they declared DeSantis "did not read President Trump's Executive Orders before calling a special session. As a matter of fact, they didn't exist. And, it would appear he didn't read SB2B/HB 1B [the TRUMP Act] before issuing a response on social media."

The TRUMP Act passed with strong support - 82-30 in the House and 21-16 in the Senate. As State Sen. Joe Gruters, one of the bill's sponsors, explained, "In short, President Trump is asking for more badges, more detention beds and a laser-focus on catching illegal aliens that violate our law." It was reported that the Trump administration was involved in drafting the TRUMP Act, in particular the addition of the mandatory death penalty for immigrants convicted of capital offenses, a move that will raise the eyebrows of those concerned with the independence of state lawmaking from federal interference. The Governor was not pleased, declaring in an "X" post, "The veto pen is ready."

The political dynamics become even more intriguing given DeSantis's term-limited status, meaning he cannot stand again in the gubernatorial contest in 2026. The timing of this legislative rebellion, coming in DeSantis's final years in office, suggested a strategic realignment of Florida Republican politics toward Trump's immigration priorities.

Then Came The Compromise

Following the end of the second session, DeSantis started reigning in the rhetoric and claimed that conversations have taken place and that he thought they would "land the plane soon" on legislation which both sides could accept, thereby avoiding the need for any veto. Sure enough, on February 11 the legislature began the third special session aimed at passing compromise legislation.

By February 13, legislators had agreed on two new bills, to replace the now defunct TRUMP Act, which were rapidly signed into law by DeSantis. S0002 creates the State Board of Immigration Enforcement (led by the Governor and Cabinet) and establishes a supporting Immigration Enforcement Council of police chiefs and sheriffs, appointed by The Governor, Attorney General, Chief Financial Officer, and Commissioner of Agriculture, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A compromise to allow the Governor to maintain control. The bill also criminalizes non-citizen voting, requires law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, creates grant programs for local immigration enforcement, enhances penalties for unauthorized aliens who commit crimes, and mandates immigration status verification for state services. It allocates over $250 million for implementation, including law enforcement training and equipment.

S004 establishes criminal penalties for unauthorized entry and reentry into the state including a mandatory minimum 9-month imprisonment for adults, with escalating penalties for subsequent offenses. Additionally, the bill requires law enforcement to notify federal immigration authorities and the state Department of Law Enforcement upon arresting an unauthorized alien and mandates that such individuals be detained pending trial with no access to diversion programs. The bill also maintains the provision from the TRUMP Act that an unauthorized alien convicted of a capital felony must receive the death penalty.

Democrats opposing the new laws claim they violate the U.S. Constitution, and accuse supporting legislators of breaking their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution. They also predicted the laws would face legal challenge and ultimately be overturned. Democratic Sen. Rosalind Osgood pleaded on behalf of students without legal status who will now not receive in-state tuition rates and may be forced to drop out. She said lawmakers should be "showing some compassion and grace to a group of children. The children may be undocumented… but it's not their fault."

Republican Sen. Randy Fine was unmoved, and challenged describing such students as 'dreamers'. He said, "To call them dreamers implies that they have dreams and they have ambitions that are greater than other people. There are 193 countries in the world. We didn't swear an oath to help the other 192."

Looking Ahead

While the immediate crisis has passed, this episode represents more than just another chapter in Florida's immigration debate. It marks a significant shift in the state's political dynamics, demonstrating how a term-limited governor's waning influence can embolden legislative independence. The true impact may not lie in the specific immigration provisions - which may not survive legal challenges - but in fundamentally altering the relationship between Florida's executive and legislative branches. This realignment, sparked by immigration policy but rooted in power politics, could reshape Florida's governance for years to come.

Special Session Watch: Florida Reaches Compromise Over Immigration Law was first published on BillTrack50, and was republished with permission.

Stephen Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.


Read More

Collage.
Collage by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Bloomberg/Getty Images, Firearm Transaction Record Form via U.S. Department of Justice and Alec MacGillis/ProPublica.

“No One Is Watching”: How Trump Reversed Biden’s Crackdown on Gun Trafficking

Marianna Mitchem grew up in the Denver suburbs, where she played high school soccer. One day in April 1999, her team faced off against a nearby rival, Columbine High. The next day, two teenagers went on a shooting rampage at Columbine, killing more than a dozen people.

The massacre left an imprint on Mitchem. After graduating from Providence College, she joined the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Fearing for my friends and watching what was happening — you don’t forget things like that,” she told me. “I wanted to make a difference.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Mutual Surveillance?: The History and Consequences of the Treaty on Open Skies

American flag on a military uniform

adamkaz/Getty Images

Mutual Surveillance?: The History and Consequences of the Treaty on Open Skies

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

This week's congressional agenda includes anti-fraud legislation, ICE funding, FISA Section 702 renewal debates, and major committee hearings.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Fraud, Funding, and FISA

Fraud

This week in the House is Fraud Week based on the large number of bills likely to receive a vote that in some way are intended to decrease or eliminate many different kinds of fraud. Example bills up for a vote include:

Funding

One bill will likely become law this week if it passes the House:

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Florida's new congressional map, the Supreme Court's Callais decision, and challenges to voting rights protections raise urgent questions about redistricting, representation, and democratic accountability.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Florida’s New Map and the Shrinking Window for Accountability

When the Lines Began Moving Faster Than the Law

On May 4, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s new congressional map into law. The Legislature had passed it five days earlier, 83 to 28 in the House and 21 to 17 in the Senate. The map redraws four districts in ways that election analysts project would shift them from competitive or Democratic-leaning to safe Republican, potentially expanding a delegation Republicans already control 20 to 8.

The same day the Legislature voted, the Supreme Court decided Louisiana v. Callais. The Court ruled 6 to 3 that Louisiana’s majority-minority district could not survive Equal Protection scrutiny under the standards applied by the majority. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the ruling “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter” in redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less