IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah


IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal law enforcement agency within DHS, received approximately $75 billion of the allocated $170.7 billion. This additional funding from the OBBBA paved the way for increased ICE enforcement and detention in the United States, which has led to controversy.
When passing the OBBBA, Congress used a special legislative procedure called the budget reconciliation process, which was established through the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA). The CBA created the House and Senate Budget Committees, which hold responsibility for drafting an annual budget resolution. This resolution is a non-binding agreement that acts as a blueprint for federal spending, but does not become law or require the President’s signature. The CBA also established procedures that govern the congressional budget process.
The budget reconciliation process is an example of one of these procedures. It allows Congress to fast-track legislation that modifies existing law related to spending, taxes, or the debt limit, in order to ensure implementation of priorities laid out in the annual budget resolution. Specifically, the budget reconciliation process expedites legislation by only requiring a majority vote in the Senate, therefore avoiding the threat of a filibuster. This procedural advantage proved critical to the passage of the OBBBA, which cleared the Senate on a tiebreaking vote cast by Vice President J.D. Vance.
On a legal basis, the controversies surrounding ICE’s actions under the Trump Administration stem from different interpretations of the United States Constitution. In short, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to authorize the spending of public money and raise revenue via taxation, known as the power of the purse, while Article II vests executive power in the President of the United States.
While the Constitution precisely lays out these distinct powers, tensions arise when they overlap. Recently, debate has sparked over how the executive branch allocates congressionally appropriated funds within ICE. In this debate, proponents of expanded executive discretion argue that since ICE is an executive agency under the DHS umbrella, the President has broad discretion to allocate funds within ICE. Comparatively, critics of expanded executive discretion argue that because Congress has the power of the purse, they have the authority to shape spending priorities and constrain how executive agencies spend the money allocated to them.
One prominent framework supporting expanded executive discretion is the Unitary Executive Theory, a constitutional law theory holding that the President of the United States possesses broad authority to direct and control the executive branch. Under this view, executive agencies are viewed as extensions of the President’s power rather than as independent actors.
Proponents of this theory argue that once Congress has appropriated funds to an executive agency, the President has the constitutional authority to determine how those funds are allocated. Because the OBBBA appropriated additional funds to the DHS, the Unitary Executive Theory has been used to justify President Trump’s discretion over how those funds are being allocated, a significant portion of which are directed towards expanded ICE enforcement, detention, and removal operations.
A contrasting framework of the United States Constitution rejects expanded executive discretion and emphasizes Article I of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress power of the purse, and establishes separation of powers. This viewpoint claims that executive agencies are not merely extensions of presidential power, but rather, institutions that must be constrained by statute.
Simply put, proponents of this framework argue that even though executive agencies operate within the executive branch, they ultimately exist because Congress creates them through law. Accordingly, proponents contend that because Congress creates these agencies and controls their funding, it should retain the authority to set spending priorities and impose constraints on how appropriated funds are used.
Supporters of executive discretion in funding agencies like ICE often cite Article II of the United States Constitution and the Unitary Executive Theory, which rose to prominence through Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent at the conclusion of the Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson. Scalia’s interpretation of Article II is that all executive power is vested in the President of the United States. Under this interpretation, the President is authorized to control the funding decisions that executive agencies make within statutory limits.
While Congress has the power of the purse, this position argues that an executive agency should not be obligated to balance its spending choices with what Congress desires, as the money has already been congressionally appropriated to it. Supporters of this view justify President Trump’s decision to expand ICE enforcement and detention priorities, interpreting that under Article II, the President has the power to allocate funds in an agency within statutory bounds.
In addition to the Unitary Executive Theory, individuals against limiting executive discretion and ICE’s power argue that the Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land, is a constitutional justification for the expansion of ICE enforcement and detention. This interpretation of the constitution challenges attempts from local and state governments to remove ICE agents from their jurisdiction. Supporters of ICE saw a legal win on February 2, 2026, when US district judge Katherine Menendez declined to halt Operation Metro Surge over a lawsuit filed by Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis against the DHS. In her ruling, Menendez indicated that Minnesota had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of proving a Tenth Amendment violation, and that halting ICE operations would prevent the Federal Government from carrying out constitutionally authorized duties.
On a moral level, individuals in favor of expanded ICE operations argue that increased enforcement directly improves national security and public safety. The DHS released information claiming that over the first six weeks of Operation Metro Surge, federal law enforcement arrested 3,000 criminal illegal aliens. The DHS further claims that this number includes, “vicious murderers, rapists, child pedophiles, and incredibly dangerous individuals,” therefore greatly benefiting public safety.
While opponents of expanded ICE enforcement and detention frequently cite the deaths of Alex Preti and Renee Good as examples of the drawbacks of expanded ICE power, The Heritage Foundation refutes this point. Heritage claims Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are to blame for these deaths due to their encouragement of anti-ICE protests and refusal to cooperate with DHS law enforcement. Heritage recommends that in order to improve public safety and maximize the effectiveness of ICE’s expanded operations, there should be an increase in workplace enforcement and targeted, unpredictable arrests.
Proponents of limiting executive discretion believe that the Unitary Executive Theory is a misinterpretation of the United States Constitution. One core argument is that while executive agencies serve presidential functions, they also do both quasi-legislative tasks, such as implementing policies and regulations that carry the force of the law, and quasi-judicial functions, including settling disputes within their agency. For these reasons, critics of the Unitary Executive Theory believe that Congress has the authority to protect executive agencies from political control.
The landmark Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. The United States reinforces this view. This case holds that when an agency performs both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, Congress may limit the President’s authority to remove its officials, therefore directly preserving an executive agency’s institutional independence from political control.
Furthermore, critics claim that the Unitary Executive Theory reduces checks on the executive branch and weakens institutional independence, ultimately increasing the concentration of executive power. Because ICE performs functions that involve both rule implementation and case adjudication, critics argue that Congress should have imposed clearer statutory constraints on how the additional $75 billion in funding is directed and used. Instead, the OBBBA grants the executive branch broad discretion over resource allocation within the agency, raising constitutional concerns about whether Congress has adequately exercised its power of the purse or has effectively surrendered its spending authority to the President.
Proponents of limiting executive discretion often point to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as a major check on executive power. Passed in 1946, the APA governs how federal agencies create and enforce regulations, meaning executive actions must comply with its requirements. The 2024 Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo strengthened these limits by overturning the Chevron Doctrine and requiring courts, rather than agencies, to independently interpret ambiguous laws. This ruling is especially relevant to recent lawsuits challenging expanded ICE enforcement under Operation Metro Surge, as courts are now more likely to independently assess whether ICE’s actions exceed the authority granted by Congress, rather than referring back to the agency itself.
Critics of expanded ICE powers also raise significant due process, civil liberties, and economic concerns about the scale and scope of ICE operations. Of individuals booked into ICE custody in Fiscal Year 2025, only 5 percent had violent convictions, and 73 percent had no criminal convictions at all. With the White House targeting 3,000 arrests per day, opponents argue this enforcement goal will inevitably sweep up non-criminals, raising concerns that detention is being used as a tool of mass enforcement without regard to individual circumstances or public safety risk.
Under the current Trump administration, expanded ICE enforcement and detention operations have become a central issue, raising both moral and legal concerns. Proponents of executive discretion ground their legal claims in Unitary Executive Theory, stating that the President has broad authority to allocate funds within executive agencies. Supporters of ICE’s expanded operations argue that heightened immigration enforcement and detention significantly improve public safety. Conversely, proponents of limiting executive discretion ground their legal claims in Article I of the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedents that limit executive power in allocating the specific use of funds within executive agencies like ICE. Critics of ICE’s expanded operations argue that they neglect due process and basic human rights.
Looking forward, these competing constitutional and moral arguments will continue to shape immigration enforcement, the broader landscape of United States governance, and ongoing debates over the correct balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
Q: Who has the authority to spend the funding allocated to ICE and other executive agencies, Congress or the President?
A: Different interpretations of the constitution lead to different answers to this question. While some may believe that Article II of the United States constitution vests all executive power in the President of the United States, this view conflicts with the Power of the Purse given to Congress in Article I.
Q: Is the expansion of ICE enforcement legally justified under the Constitution?
A: There is no single agreed upon answer to this question. Arguments in favor of ICE expansion include the Unitary Executive Theory and the Supremacy Clause. In comparison, arguments against expanded ICE operations cite the APA, Impoundment Control Act, Supreme Court Precedents (Humphreys Executor v. The United States) and recent judicial cases, such as Loper Bright v Raimando — all of which look to limit concentrated executive power and place checks on the executive branch.
Q: Why is the expansion of ICE operations controversial on a moral level?
A: Arguments in favor of expanded ICE operations cite an increase in public safety. Arguments against ICE expansion cite the lack of overall immigration reform, as well as the neglecting of due process and civil liberties for individuals targeted by ICE.
Ronan Kiter is an ACE fellow.
The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration was first published by ACE and republished with permission

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.
The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.
But the more basic, functional, aspect of the problem is that the context has always been corporate interest v public interest. Corporations are structured in such a way that their only interest is the bottom line, how to constantly increase their profit, and so please their shareholders. There is no concern for the public good. That is the source of the problem. And that is what must be reformed. (See my post, "Making the Titans of Finance and Industry Accept Social Responsibility.")
People will say that it is the nature of the beast for corporations to be concerned solely with their bottom line. That is certainly true for the beast as it has developed, from the Robber Barons on. But there is nothing inherent in the idea of a corporation or capitalism that makes it inimical to factoring in a concern for the public good. The essence of capitalism is that control of the means of production and the distribution of products lies in private hands; that will remain unchanged.
My point is that we must rethink what a corporation is. What is its function in our economy and society?
Corporations are a creature of the law. We forget that businesses are entitled to the benefits of incorporation because they provide something of value … they are critical to the economic health of the country and their workers. They meet both economic and societal needs.
From this perspective, corporations exist to enhance the greater good. But from the perspective of their CEOs and shareholders, they exist to make them money. And so, unfortunately, as we have seen repeatedly since the industrial revolution, corporations have been mostly intent on making money and have done much that has had a negative impact on the greater good. Often with full knowledge.
The answer to this conundrum is to reform the laws governing corporate organization by restructuring corporate governance. The goal of this effort should be to make consideration of the greater good … the public interest as well as worker interest … an integral part of the corporate decision-making process.
I propose that this reform has four primary elements:
These requirements will engage corporations in a more healthy, long-term perspective, rather than the short-term one resulting from the current emphasis on stock price.
Most people currently involved in corporate management, most shareholders, and the broader market will most likely not react kindly to these proposed changes. They would involve both a major change in corporate culture and a likely reduction in the financial benefits that accrue to those running and investing in corporations.
But with the passage of time, with the emergence of a new generation of business leaders, these changes will become such a part of the corporate method that it will be hard to imagine that it was ever otherwise. This is the rational way to manage a business if it is to be not just productive but a good citizen of our society.
If we are to ensure that corporations work towards a goal that includes the greater good, then this reform has to take place.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.
WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”
In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.
The portrait of Reza Valizadeh stands in the Senate Russell Rotunda in front of images of wrongful American detainees that the Foley Foundation has helped bring home. (Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)
The morning of Wednesday, May 6, the families of the campaign stood together in the Senate Russell Rotunda holding the portraits of their loved ones.
One of the people holding portraits was Neda Sharghi, a former chair of the campaign, whose brother returned to the U.S. in 2023 after being wrongfully detained in Iran for 5 years, convicted of espionage without a trial.
Sharghi said the challenges of individual advocacy reinforce the value of a campaign made up of families.
“Individual families generally have a hard time getting the attention of the media, senior-level officials, and the administration,” Sharghi said. “We decided that we were going to bring our voices together and advocate as a whole organization.”
While people walked through the portraits set up on easels, Congress was out of session, so no lawmakers were spotted.
“For a lot of these families, it’s the last photo they have of their loved one,” said the artist for the campaign, Isaac Campbell. “Art offers so much opportunity for storytelling and interpretation and reflection that I think it’s really the best way to meet people and remind them that these people are not political issues, they’re human beings.”
Valizadeh is among 42 Americans determined to be wrongfully detained overseas by the Foley Foundation. Because the U.S. does not publicly disclose a list of wrongful detentions abroad, the nonprofit advocacy group researches cases and maintains a list. The Foley Foundations names 16 of the 42 whose families requested public advocacy. These people hail from Florida, California, Massachusetts, Texas, New York, Virginia, Michigan, and Washington, D.C. The Bring Our Families Home campaign is a family-led initiative funded by the Foley Foundation.
The Foundation began its work advocating for American hostages and reporter safety in 2014, just 16 days after American journalist James Foley was murdered by ISIS in Syria while covering the civil war.
The concept of the portraits was meant to use the power of art and communicate the humanity behind each individual story.
One of those stories is Zach Shahin, an American businessman arrested in the United Arab Emirates in March 2008. In 2017, a Dubai court sentenced him to spend the rest of his life in prison for a white-collar crime without any evidence, according to his sister-in-law Aida Dagher. Like many families in the campaign, Dagher gave up her career and has worked endlessly to bring her brother-in-law home.
“This is his 19th year,” Dagher said. “We’ve been fighting all the time to get him out. We’re hoping the U.S. government is doing what they should, the UAE government as well. We’re hoping that now finally they will compromise, settle, whatever it takes to release them.”
Wrongfully Detained Americans Overseas
Wrongfully Detained Americans Overseas public.flourish.studio
A Flourish data visualization by Jacques Abou-Rizk
Campbell said the murals are meant to make people stop to think about the scale of what he calls the American hostage crisis.
“It’s hopeful because you look at all those stickers of people coming home, and they far outnumber the people that are still in detainment,” he said. “And that could be the same result for these other families that are in detainment, and hopefully will be, that they’ll come home.”
Among those involved is Ryan Fayhee, a former federal prosecutor and board member of the Foley Foundation who now conducts pro-bono work for families of those wrongfully detained abroad. His pro bono work began with Paul Whelan in 2018, a veteran arrested in Russia for alleged espionage, before being released as part of a United States-Russia prisoner swap in 2024. He now represents Valizadeh, who is being held in Evin Prison in Tehran.
“He’d already been in Evin Prison last July when the Israeli strike targeted the prison,” Fayhee said. “With a continuing blackout in Iran and threats from the IRGC to his family, we really haven’t been able to communicate in any way, and that’s deeply concerning.”
But Fayhee expressed hope over the changing landscape of American hostage and detainee recovery over the past decade. In 2015, after Foley’s murder, President Barack Obama signed Presidential Policy Directive 30, which created the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs and restructured U.S. policy toward terrorist negotiations. In 2020, Congress passed the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act, which codified some of the processes set up in the policy directive.
“Even from the time when I began doing work of this sort with Paul Whelan and his family… we’re just light years ahead of where we were in terms of the resources, the personnel, the engagement, the willingness to resolve,” Fayhee said.
Dagher, who lives in Texas, stressed the importance of the Foley Foundation and the campaign in bringing these families together.
“[Zach Shahin’s] wife cries every single day for the last 18 years,” Dagher said. “That’s why I left my career… But I think finally we’ll get him out. I feel that this year they will be out.”
Jacques Abou-Rizk is a graduate student journalist at Northwestern Medill.
When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.
Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.
The money the White House is tapping into to pay people like Transportation Safety Administration airport screeners and Coast Guard members was approved by Congress, but not through regular appropriations. DHS is using a pot of $10 billion dollars set aside in last year’s massive budget reconciliation bill – the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) – to cover payroll for more than 100,000 employees, the same bill that reserved $75 billion in multi-year operating funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Accessing that money to pay DHS employees, however, is legally dubious. The funds are made available in Section 90007 of the OBBBA until September 2029, but specifically for supporting DHS’s work “to safeguard the borders of the United States.” TSA agents working security lines in U.S. airports for domestic flights are not safeguarding the border, for example. Similarly for FEMA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), parts of DHS substantially focused on domestic security.
Government watchdog groups and other appropriations experts argue that tapping into that $10 billion runs afoul of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which prohibits federal employees from moving funds from a purpose given in law to a purpose not given for the money in law. The law gives teeth to Congress’s “power of the purse” under the Constitution. Former Senate Budget Committee and Office of Management and Budget staffer Bobby Kogan thought using this section of the law for other purposes was a clear ADA violation.
The Trump Administration made a similar violation during the government shutdown last October by using research and development funds for military personnel pay.
The trouble with the ADA is that it relies on agency heads to report violations to the President and the Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of Congress currently controlled by the Republican majorities of the House and Senate. In this case, the president directed the violation and Republicans in Congress do not want GAO to challenge it. Although violating the Antideficiency Act carries with it criminal penalties, no one has ever been prosecuted under it. Unlike the current situation, most violations have been by mistake.
Legal or not, the OBBA funds will run dry at the end of this week based on the rate at which DHS is spending it down.
Congress is moving forward to end the DHS funding lapse. The Senate began the process of budget reconciliation on funding for DHS for the remainder of the fiscal year and beyond this week. Because it allows for expedited consideration of spending and revenue bills, reconciliation will allow the Senate to overcome the 60-vote threshold holding back this funding in the regular appropriations process, which Democrats have leveraged for more than two months over their concerns about immigration enforcement agencies within DHS.
As the name implies, budget reconciliation requires the House and Senate to agree on which programs will be funded and at what level. That hasn’t happened yet, as some House Republicans want to fund immigration enforcement at a higher level than the Senate and include other items like funding for the Iran war.
Nevertheless, the unchecked ability of the executive branch to use money appropriated by Congress for other purposes violates the bedrock principle of the separation of the power of the purse from the power of the sword, which dates back to the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution of the 17th century. The Constitution grants Congress the power to determine how federal funds will be spent as a check on the presidency. What we’re experiencing now is a Congress and Executive Branch that does not care to check the President to the harm of the government’s democratic structure.
Using the reconciliation process still undermines congressional power in this case. The framework the Senate approved would extend funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for more than three years. Regular appropriations bills generally apply only to one fiscal year. They also carry with them language requiring agencies perform certain oversight-related duties or prohibitions on using funds for specific purposes. ICE and CBP will get a blank check through the next Congress, which, if Democrats retake the majorities, will have to live with it.
DHS Funding During the Shutdown was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t