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

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less