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

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

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

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less