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

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less