WASHINGTON, DC—As midterm elections take place across the country, Senate Republicans are using the tactic known as “reconciliation” to bypass bipartisan agreements, all before a new Congress takes office.
In the latest example, the GOP-backed reconciliation bill to supplement funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents is expected to hit President Donald Trump’s desk no later than June first.
This bill will bypass the need for any input from Senate Democrats.
David Bateman, a professor of government at Cornell University, said that reconciliation incentivizes partisan rather than bipartisan legislation.
“But remember, the reason people use reconciliation is that it is the only way that majorities can deliver on the promises on which they ran,” Bateman said in an email interview.
Although the congressional tool is permissible, experts say it is being used incorrectly.
“In order to do this, they have had to distort the purpose: the tax cuts, for example, significantly increased the deficit. In a sense, all of these reconciliation bills were all ‘abuses’ of the process,” Bateman said. “[...] They deviated from its purpose.”
Using the process of reconciliation to bypass negotiations regarding ICE, Border Patrol, and the overall Department of Homeland Security is not a new idea. In fact, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-NC), who is also the Senate Budget Committee Chairman, discussed using the bill to fund DHS-related expenses almost a year and a half ago.
“The Senate Budget Committee – through the reconciliation process – will aggressively push the most transformational border security bill in American history and revitalize our military,” Graham said in a 2024 statement.
Graham included in this statement that there would be funds to finish the wall, build additional technology at the border, and hire more ICE agents. In the same statement, however, he said this would be done within weeks or months.
“If the Republicans go forward with this reconciliation bill, they are saying to an out-of-control President that he can continue to do whatever he wants,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, in an interview with Fulcrum. “[...] All Democrats are asking for is that ICE agents follow the same basic procedures as pretty much all police officers all across the country.”
While the reconciliation bill will benefit Senate Republicans and bypass Senate Democrats’ list of demands now, it may come to their detriment in the future.
SoRelle Wyckoff, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Virginia, said that if the bill passes, both parties could face various disadvantages.
“They [Democrats] would be totally shut out of the conversation and lose their ability to negotiate in the short term, but I don’t know how popular that would be among voters for Republicans to do that,” Wyckoff, who works at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy said. “[...] It's not good policy making for Democrats, but I do wonder if long-term it gave them a little more leverage.”
Now, as Republican senators craft the current reconciliation bill for ICE and Border Patrol funding, their stance on the issue extends beyond the budget—it’s a political battle with Senate Democrats pushing for reforms within the agencies.
Rather than the bipartisan negotiations seen within Congress prior to the spring recess, where both sides of the aisle voted to partially end the DHS shutdown by agreeing on a budget to fund TSA workers, Senate Republicans are taking the opportunity to fight against Senate Democrats and their request for reforms.
Steven Smith, a professor of political science at Arizona State University, said the use of the reconciliation bill has shifted since its inception in 1974. He added that its modern context wasn’t established till 2001.
“This budget process was designed to reduce the deficit, but here [in 2001,] the Republicans wanted to cut taxes, reduce revenues, all of which would have the effect of increasing the deficit,” said Smith in a phone interview. The second Bush administration tax cut was enacted as a reconciliation bill. The next year, there was another one. So that broke open thinking about what could go into a reconciliation bill.”
Smith said that since 2001, a reconciliation bill has only needed to address revenues, and in turn, has made the deficit worse.
University of Virginia Professor Wyckoff said the GOP strategy will likely continue using reconciliation bills to bypass bipartisan negotiations, just as they did with the Big Beautiful Bill. However, Wyckoff warns that this could have negative consequences for the institution of Congress.
“Using reconciliation in this way, and saying out loud, ‘We’re going to use reconciliation to bypass bipartisan negotiations,’ goes beyond political parties,” Wyckoff said. “It’s really bad for the institution; this isn’t how Congress is supposed to work.”
Jaylyn Preslicka is a reporter for Medill News Services.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.