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

Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less