Washington, D.C. — The Senate is preparing to begin a budget reconciliation process that could direct up to $72 billion in new funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a move that has prompted sharp criticism from civil rights groups who argue the agencies already operate with expanded enforcement powers and minimal oversight.
The proposal isn’t a standard spending bill. It’s a reconciliation package, which allows Republicans to advance it in the Senate with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes normally required to break a filibuster. That procedural choice makes it one of the most direct efforts yet to cement Trump’s immigration agenda without needing Democratic support.
The Latino civic organization Voto Latino is urging lawmakers to reject the proposal, citing a growing list of reported abuses, wrongful detentions, and deaths in custody. They argue the Trump administration has widened ICE and CBP’s enforcement authority without corresponding accountability from Congress, resulting in communities across the country experiencing increased detentions, wrongful deportations, and family separations. Despite billions in additional funding last year, the Senate is now considering tens of billions more, without what advocates describe as meaningful guardrails or reforms.
The organization argues that the agencies’ record under Secretary Markwayne Mullin reflects a pattern of abuse, inadequate medical care, and preventable deaths in custody. “Rewarding that record with a $72 billion blank check will only make it worse,” the group said.
Recent reporting from national and local outlets highlights the breadth of incidents fueling the backlash. The Texas Tribune documented the case of José Contreras Díaz, a longtime DACA recipient who was deported to Honduras while his wife was pregnant, later allowed to return, and then detained again, leaving him uncertain about what comes next. NBC Chicago reported that Kevin Gonzalez, an 18‑year‑old U.S. citizen with terminal cancer, died hours after his detained parents were released so they could say goodbye. In Georgia, WABE reported the death of Denny Adan Gonzalez, the second person to die in ICE custody in the state this year and the 18th nationwide in 2026.
Other cases involve U.S. citizens and military families and have raised concerns about the use of force:
- Brian Jose Morales Garcia, a U.S. citizen born in Denver, was deported to Mexico after a traffic stop despite repeatedly asserting his citizenship (Apr. 25, 2026).
- Deisy Rivera Ortega, the wife of an active-duty U.S. Army sergeant, was detained during a routine immigration appointment in Texas (Apr. 20, 2026).
- Marie‑Thérèse Ross‑Mahé, an 85‑year‑old French widow who married an American G.I., was held in a Louisiana detention center as her family struggled to reach her (Apr. 16, 2026).
- ICE agents smashed a car window to detain Edgar Gomez‑Ramirez in South Jersey (Mar. 30, 2026).
- Zoila Guerra Sandoval, whose daughter’s father died in the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, is now facing deportation despite being the parent of a U.S. citizen child (Apr. 24, 2026).
Republicans argue the package is needed to restore and expand enforcement funding after Democrats blocked the usual appropriations process. Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to criticize it as an attempt to bypass standard spending rules and broaden ICE authority without sufficient oversight.
Next step is the Senate procedural review. Under reconciliation rules, every provision must have a direct budgetary effect — not simply function as a policy change framed as spending. That gives the Senate parliamentarian significant power over which elements Republicans can keep in the bill.
Voto Latino is calling on Americans, community leaders, and organizations to contact their members of Congress and demand a “no” vote on the reconciliation package. The group argues that Congress should not approve billions more for agencies accused of abuse, wrongful deportations, and family separations without implementing meaningful oversight and accountability measures.
As the reconciliation process moves forward, lawmakers face competing pressures over border security, civil liberties, and federal spending. Advocates warn that without reforms, expanded funding risks deepening the very problems already documented across the country.
Senate Pushes $72 Billion ICE Funding Boost as Abuse Allegations Mount was first published by the Latino News Network and republished with permission.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.























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.