Senate Passes $70 Billion for ICE — and Refuses to Block a Fund Critics Fear Could Pay Jan. 6 Rioters

The Senate passed a $70 billion immigration enforcement funding package at approximately 5 a.m. Friday in a 52–47 vote, clearing the chamber after an 18-hour “vote-a-rama” in which Democratic lawmakers and a small group of Republican dissenters failed in every attempt to restrict a controversial Justice Department fund that critics fear could be used to compensate Jan. 6 rioters and other Trump political allies.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the only Republican to vote against the final bill. Every Senate Democrat voted no. The package now heads to the House of Representatives for a vote that could come as early as next week.

What the Bill Does

The legislation is the largest single immigration enforcement appropriation in U.S. history. Using the budget reconciliation process to bypass the 60-vote filibuster threshold, it funds core enforcement agencies through the end of President Trump’s current term:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement: $38.6 billion
Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol: $22.6 billion
Department of Homeland Security (general enforcement): $5 billion
Child exploitation investigations: $108.5 million

The total represents a transformational expansion of the budgets for agencies that have been central to the administration’s immigration enforcement operations. ICE, which has expanded detention capacity significantly since January 2025, would receive the largest single allocation in the agency’s history.

American Courant examined the contents of the immigration funding bill in May, when the package included about $72 billion in total and drew attention for provisions covering security at the White House ballroom — a line item that generated its own controversy and was trimmed in subsequent negotiations. The version that passed Friday was scaled back from that proposal but preserved the core enforcement funding structure.

The Fund at the Center of the Fight

The vote-a-rama was consumed less by the size of the ICE appropriation than by the fate of a $1.8 billion Justice Department “anti-weaponization” fund at the center of months of political and legal conflict.

The fund was created by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to compensate individuals the Trump administration argues were wrongly prosecuted by the Biden-era Justice Department. Critics in both parties immediately raised concerns that it could be used to pay Jan. 6 defendants, pardoned allies, or others connected to the administration.

Courts moved to block the fund in late May and early June, with Blanche publicly declaring it “dead, period” after federal judges found it lacked clear statutory authorization. The Senate bill raised the question of whether Congress would legislatively prohibit the fund — or simply allow it to remain a contested executive-branch tool pending the ongoing litigation.

The answer from the 52-vote majority was clear: no guardrails.

The Amendment Fight

Senators proposed multiple amendments to limit or eliminate the fund during the vote-a-rama. All of them failed.

The first test came on a Democratic-led amendment to eliminate the fund outright. It failed 49–50. Three Republicans — Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio, and Dan Sullivan of Alaska — joined Democrats in favor. All three are facing competitive reelection races in November. But three defections were not enough to overcome the majority.

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina offered a second approach: redirect the fund’s resources specifically to fraud-enforcement operations, a framing designed to draw more Republican support by recasting the fund as legitimate anti-fraud spending rather than a political slush fund. That amendment failed 84–15, drawing 12 Republican votes — but again far short of the 51 needed.

No other amendment on the fund attracted enough votes to pass. In amendment after amendment, Republican leadership held most of the caucus in line, demonstrating both the majority’s cohesion and the limits of bipartisan pressure on a procedural vote-a-rama.

What This Means for the Fund

The bill’s passage without any restrictions on the anti-weaponization fund does not restore it to operational status. Courts have already issued orders blocking the fund from disbursing money, and that litigation is ongoing. The Senate’s failure to act legislatively does, however, carry a signal: given the opportunity to restrict or prohibit the fund, the chamber with 52 Republican votes chose not to.

That posture strengthens the administration’s political hand as it pursues judicial relief. Courts cannot easily weigh “legislative acquiescence” in isolation, but the administration can point to the Senate’s inaction as evidence that there was no clear congressional intent to prohibit the fund.

For Democrats and the small group of Republicans who raised concerns, the immediate consequence is that the fund question returns entirely to the courts — where the legal arguments about executive authority and appropriations law will continue without a legislative resolution.

The Murkowski Signal

Lisa Murkowski’s opposition to the final bill was notable for its isolation. She has emerged as one of the Republicans most willing to break with the administration on politically charged votes, but in this case, she stood alone.

She has not publicly explained her vote in detail, though her earlier statements during debate suggested concerns about both the anti-weaponization fund and what she described as insufficient oversight mechanisms attached to the ICE appropriation. Her record — voting against the administration on other high-profile issues — has made her a visible figure in a Senate where a single Republican defection rarely determines an outcome but often signals broader unease.

The vote is unlikely to cost the bill anything; it passed with room to spare. But Murkowski’s continued willingness to register dissent, even in isolation, keeps that signal alive as the Senate moves toward more contested votes ahead of the November midterms.

The Path to the House

The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, where leadership has signaled a vote could come as early as next week. House and Senate Republican leadership worked to align the two chambers’ versions during negotiations, reducing the gap between them.

But House passage is not guaranteed. Several House Republicans have expressed concerns about the anti-weaponization fund provisions — or rather the absence of restrictions on it — and the overall spending levels. The dynamics in the House, where individual members have more latitude to express dissent without necessarily determining the outcome, could produce a more extended floor debate.

If the House passes the bill, it goes to President Trump’s desk, where a signature is expected. The administration has strongly supported the funding package throughout its legislative journey.

What It Looks Like on the Ground

For ICE and border enforcement agencies, the practical meaning of the bill is a substantial multiyear budget base that would support continued operations through 2028. The $38.6 billion for ICE alone represents a level of funding that would allow the agency to sustain expanded detention capacity, increase deportation flight operations, and invest in technology and staffing that previous budgets constrained.

Whether those funds will ultimately be deployed as intended depends on House passage, Trump’s signature, and the resolution of ongoing legal challenges to various enforcement policies. But in terms of the congressional authorization that the administration has sought, Friday’s Senate vote delivered the core of what was requested — minus only the guardrails that more than a dozen senators tried and failed to attach.