CBP Chief Rodney Scott (left), Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons (middle) and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow (right) testify at budget hearing.
WASHINGTON- The acting director of ICE on Thursday told Congress that while the Trump administration pumped $75 billion extra into ICE over four years, many activities remain cash starved and the agency needs about $5.4 billion in additional funding for 2027.
There’s misinformation with the Big Beautiful Bill that ICE is fully funded,” said Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, whose resignation was announced later that day.
He added that the recent influx of money funds adequately funds detaining and deporting immigrants. But everything from “putting gas in the vehicles” to special unit investigation teams remained underfunded. He cited growing needs, in particular, to fund their intelligence network and victim specialist teams.
“We just don’t have that [money],” he said.
With the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill in July 2025, ICE had already become the largest law enforcement agency in the U.S.. The administration’s request for even more money came amid intense and continuing controversy over agents’ tactics, which have caused mass protests across the country.
“They [ICE] have been out of control,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., to Medill News as he walked through the tunnels of the U.S. Capitol. “They have acted grossly, illegally and unconstitutionally.”
Democrats at the hearing argued that funding for law enforcement agencies like ICE should not increase without significant reform and oversight. These same demands from Democrats spurred a partial government shutdown that began in February - now the longest in U.S. history. The hearing, however, focused on next year’s funding.
Lyons argued that the agency needed more money to continue its efforts. He said that 451,000 people had been detained by ICE under the Trump administration. Including “281,000 with criminal histories, 8,400 gang members and 1,600 known and suspected terrorists,” he said.
Immigration advocacy groups and academic researchers challenged that data, finding that 71% of current ICE detainees have no criminal conviction.
Republicans at the hearing echoed Lyons, highlighting ICE’s role in national security, while some Democrats expressed their concerns about the prospect of additional funding. Among other things, Democrats pointed to the 44 detainees who have died in ICE custody during the Trump administration.
“That is a 20-year high for an agency that was only formed in 2003,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.
She spoke about ICE agents arresting US citizens without warrants, tear-gassing a family on their way home from a basketball game, sexual abuse in detention centers and one Cuban man who recently died while in detention due to excessive force. His death was ruled a homicide, according to an autopsy report.
“In January of this year, ICE violated nearly 100 federal court orders,” she said, “which the chief federal judge in the state of Minnesota estimated was more violations than some federal agencies have committed during their entire existence.”
Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., questioned the pattern of “reckless, incompetent, cruel, illegal, corrupt and unconstitutional behavior,” she has seen from ICE agents. “These are leadership problems, not funding problems,” she said, later declaring that she would not give the agency “another penny.”
Colleen Putzel, a spokesperson from the D.C. based think tank the Migration Policy Institute, expressed frustration with the potential of an increased ICE budget, describing what she sees as a “mismatch” in funding in the immigration system.
She explained that while the budget for immigration enforcement operations like ICE remains at “large and growing levels,” other immigration agencies, such as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, have seen drastic cuts.
For example, the office, which runs immigration courts, has seen a quarter of their immigration judges fired in the past year. This has helped create a back-log of 3.8 million cases.
Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., who held office during the height of Operation Midway Blitz at the end of last year, sees a country where family budgets decline while ICE budgets grow.
“It would be a travesty for taxpayers," she said to Medill News Service, and for many across the country asking “Why is my gas price so expensive? Why can’t I buy a home? Why is my life so hard?”
Jamie Gareh is a graduate student at Medill.
A policy-driven look at AI-era job displacement and how “Transition Launch Pads” can speed reemployment through local hubs, retraining, and employer collaboration.
Every week brings another round of displacement announcements. Tech companies, logistics firms, financial institutions, retailers — cutting headcount at a pace that no longer surprises anyone. The headlines are routine. What isn't routine — in fact, what is conspicuously absent — is any serious account of what comes next. Not for the companies. For the workers.
That absence is a policy failure, and it is getting more expensive for us all by the quarter. The longer folks remain unemployed, the greater the costs. The individual and their loved ones obviously suffer. The community does as well due to that productive individual sitting on the sidelines and the high costs of sustaining unemployment.
AI-driven economic change has strained the infrastructure built to manage workforce transitions. Unemployment insurance was designed for temporary dislocation in stable industries. Retraining programs were built for a labor market that shifted over years and decades. Both remain valuable. But neither was designed for the AI economy.
We need new approaches to tackle a labor market problem that’s moving faster than policymakers anticipated. The policy gap most worth closing is the one that opens immediately after separation — before detachment hardens, before professional confidence drains, before the network that generates the next opportunity quietly dissolves. That window is narrow. Current policy barely touches it.
That’s where Transition Launch Pads can play a pivotal role in helping the unemployed become the re-employed ASAP.
Launch Pads would involve local employers, community colleges, state workforce agencies, and civic organizations partnering to establish physical, office-like hubs where recently displaced workers apply for temporary desk access and enter a structured period of retraining, networking, and job searching. Participants are placed into skill tracks driven by local labor demand, taught by community college instructors and employer-sponsored practitioners. They attend employer sessions. They join peer cohorts. They meet with workforce coaches. They interview. They build portfolios. They meet people — which is, more than any credential or course completion, how most workers find their next job.
The upshot is that Launch Pads provide folks with repeated, structured exposure to the people and opportunities that make reemployment possible, sooner.
Timing matters more than most workforce programs acknowledge. Research on unemployment duration shows that detachment compounds fast. The longer a worker stays outside a professional environment, the harder re-entry becomes — economically, socially, psychologically. Routine disappears. Confidence erodes. The weak ties that generate job leads dissolve without a shared context to sustain them. With that in mind, Launch Pads should require applicants to apply within fourteen days of job separation to qualify for the primary intake pool.
A few more recommendations for designing Launch Pads could make them even more effective.
On priority: the program should be oriented around workers zero to three months out of their last job. Those unemployed for longer periods of time face compounded challenges that no single hub can fully address. That tradeoff should be stated plainly — and paired with an honest acknowledgment that a complete response to long-term unemployment requires a different policy response.
On employer involvement: local employers could sponsor seats in the Launch Pad and, as a result, have more influence on curriculum input and recruiting access. Yet, steps should be taken to not turn the Launch Pad into a de facto recruiter for one employer alone so that a wide range of individuals can benefit from its programming and find their next chapter.
On accountability: stakeholders in a Launch Pad should actively and publicly track time to reemployment, earnings recovery relative to prior wages, and job persistence at eighteen months. This will give the public, workers, and employers the information required to see if the Launch Pad needs to undergo any key changes to realize its goals.
On funding: no single actor should carry the full weight. Local employers benefit from better-prepared candidates and should therefore chip in. States benefit from faster reemployment and reduced pressure on downstream services. The federal government has a standing interest through the existing workforce investment architecture that Launch Pads can integrate with rather than replace. Each funder has a self-interested reason to participate, which suggests this may be a promising model.
The displacement headlines are not slowing down. The policy response to them should not remain calibrated to an earlier era's assumptions about how workers transition and how long that takes. Launch Pads are not a complete answer. They are a faster, more structured, more human first response to a problem that existing institutions address too slowly, too passively, and often too late.
That is enough to make them worth building.
Kevin Frazier is a Senior Fellow at the Abundance Institute, directs the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas School of Law.
The Illinois State Capitol Building, in Springfield, Illinois on MAY 05, 2012.
The Illinois House passed a legislative proposal in a 72-35 partisan vote that would restrict where immigration detention centers can be built, located or operated in the state.
House Bill 5024 would amend state code so that an immigration detention center cannot be located, constructed, or operated by the federal government within 1,500 feet of a home or apartment complex, as well as any school, day care center, public park, or house of worship. Current detention facilities in the state would not be affected by the legislation.
The bill was introduced by House Speaker Emmanuel 'Chris' Welch in response to what he described as federal actions involving the Broadview detention facility.
“This is not an abstract policy debate for me — this is personal, and it is deeply local. The Broadview detention facility sits in the heart of the district I represent. And during Operation Midway Blitz, the people who live in and around that community did not just witness aggressive federal activity — they lived through trauma,” Welch said in a press statement.
“This bill says something very simple and very reasonable: detention facilities do not belong in the middle of our neighborhoods. They should not be next to schools. They should not be near day care centers. They should not sit beside parks, public housing, places of worship, or private homes. Because when a detention center is dropped into the middle of a residential community, it doesn’t just affect the people inside that building — it affects every child walking to school, every senior looking out their window, and every family trying to live in peace,” he continued.
One of the most notable witnesses on the bill was Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson, who testified in March in support of the legislation.
Appearing via Zoom, Thompson voiced support for the measure, highlighting concerns about how Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity at the village’s detention center has impacted residents.
Those concerns follow Operation Midway Blitz, which began in September 2025 and led Gov. JB Pritzker to create the Illinois Accountability Commission in response to federal immigration enforcement actions.
“In Broadview, we have residents who live as close as 600 feet away from the ICE facility,” Thompson told committee members. “That is not a statistic; those are people, families, children, individuals whose daily lives are directly impacted by what happens around that facility.”
House Republicans voiced concerns about the legislation, including Rep. Patrick Windhorst, who said the bill reflects ongoing conflict between Illinois Democrats and the federal government.
“The result of this effort to not work together with the federal government to resolve the issues, particularly related to immigration and enforcement of our laws, has resulted in huge problems in our state that the majority party attempts to blame the current presidential administration for,” Windhorst said, according to WQAD 8.
“But we need to take a hard look at what we're doing as a state to make sure we're fulfilling our obligations to protect our citizens and to enforce the laws, including the federal laws of our country,” he continued.
In Illinois, privately owned detention centers have been banned since 2019, with the enactment of the Private Detention Facility Moratorium Act, which prohibits state and local government agencies from contracting with or paying private prison companies for detention purposes, including federal immigration detention.
The bill is currently in the Senate Assignments Committee. If passed and signed by Gov. Pritzker, it would take effect immediately.
Angeles Ponpa is the Managing Editor of Latino News Network Midwest, overseeing Illinois Latino News, Wisconsin Latino News, and Michigan Latino News. She is based in Illinois.
Nearly 40% of Maryland newspapers question whether they will be able to operate without more funding within the next two years.
As Maryland’s legislative session winds down, a bill in the General Assembly intended to support local newspapers across the state appears unlikely to pass.
The Local Newspapers for Maryland Communities Act would have required the state government to spend 50% of their print and digital advertising budget on local outlets in the state. The bill does not favor any particular news outlets, rather stipulating that organizations must produce original local content and have at least one reporter in or around Maryland.
Daniel Trielli, an assistant professor of media and democracy at the University of Maryland, said that type of support has been done in many communities.
"It might seem like a weird mechanism to support local news," he said, "but the reality is that this is a very traditional way that societies and communities have found, throughout history and throughout many countries, to support local news."
Maryland counties each have at least one newspaper, according to a 2025 report by the Northwestern University Local News Initiative. Nine Maryland counties, though, only have one news outlet covering their respective regions.
Trielli said the financial outlook for local newspapers across the state and country is dire. A 2024 report from the University of Maryland at College Park found nearly 40% of local publications in the state weren’t confident they could continue operating in two years without increased revenue.
"Often it is the case that local news is surviving by very little day by day," he said. "Just a little boost in their finances can make a real big difference in the survival of these news organizations."
Similar policies have been tried at the municipal level in major cities. New York City allocated more than $70 million over the first five years of its program.
MD Bill To Support Local News Appears Unlikely To Pass This Session was originally published by The Public News Service and is republished with permission.
