Skip to content 
The U.S. government is open again after a brief shutdown, but the truce came with a fuse attached.
A sprawling spending bill signed last week by Donald Trump restored funding for most federal agencies through the end of the fiscal year, but left the Department of Homeland Security on a short-term extension that expires Feb. 13, 2026, setting up a fresh confrontation that could partially shutter the nation’s security apparatus within days.
At the center of the standoff is not a dispute over top-line spending so much as a fight over how immigration enforcement is conducted, and how far Congress can go in writing new guardrails into a must-pass funding bill.
A Shutdown Ended, but DHS Was Carved Out
The shutdown lasted four days, beginning Jan. 31, when appropriations lapsed for major departments. The deal that ended it passed the House 217–214 and was quickly signed into law, a narrow vote that reflected how little slack either party has to maneuver.
Yet the agreement did not fully settle the government’s funding plan. Lawmakers punted DHS into a separate, two-week continuing resolution, effectively forcing a second negotiation on a department that includes immigration enforcement, aviation security, disaster response, and protective services.
In practical terms, Congress paid to keep most of Washington running, while reserving the most politically combustible agency for a separate showdown.
Why DHS Is the Flashpoint
Democrats have warned they will not support long-term DHS funding without statutory changes to rein in immigration enforcement tactics that have drawn intense scrutiny after two fatal shootings in Minneapolis involving federal agents in January.
Their demands, as described in reporting from Associated Press, include:
- Mandatory body cameras for agents
- Limits on agents wearing masks during operations
- Stronger requirements for judicial warrants in certain enforcement actions (instead of administrative paperwork)
- A more uniform code of conduct and accountability framework for immigration enforcement components
Republicans argue the proposed restrictions would endanger agents, expose them to harassment, and constrain operations.
Democrats counter that the conditions are basic transparency measures for armed federal power operating in neighborhoods.
The Body Camera Move, and What It Reveals
@abcnews Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says all DHS field officers in Minneapolis will receive body cameras, with plans to expand the program nationwide as funding allows. #abcnews #news
In an attempt to lower the temperature, Kristi Noem announced that DHS would begin deploying body cameras to every field officer in Minneapolis, calling it an immediate step that could expand nationwide if funding is available.
The announcement carried an implicit admission: DHS does not currently have the equipment to make body cameras universal across the immigration enforcement workforce.
The Washington Post reported that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has about 4,400 body cameras for roughly 22,000 employees, while U.S. Customs and Border Protection has about 13,400 cameras for more than 45,000 officers.
That gap matters because it turns a policy argument into an appropriations problem. A mandate is not just a line in a bill. It becomes procurement, training, storage, retention rules, discipline for noncompliance, and oversight, all paid for and enforced at scale.
A Deadline With Real Operational Consequences
If DHS funding lapses after Feb. 13, the immediate effects would depend on what activities are deemed essential, what money is already obligated, and how DHS implements shutdown contingency plans. But the risk is not theoretical. DHS is not a single program, it is an ecosystem.
A DHS funding lapse could disrupt or complicate functions across agencies that include:
- Transportation Security Administration
- Federal Emergency Management Agency
- United States Coast Guard
- Other components tied to border operations and protective missions
Even when front-line roles continue under shutdown rules, a lapse can still produce slowdowns in contracting, training, administrative support, and back-office functions that keep operations stable.
Pay uncertainty and scheduling disruptions also create their own strain, especially when deadlines are short and political brinkmanship is public.
The Negotiating Positions Are Hardening
House Democrats, led by Hakeem Jeffries, have framed the accountability demands as prerequisites, not bargaining chips.
Republicans, facing their own internal divisions and a narrow House margin, are trying to avoid a replay of the shutdown while resisting conditions that their base views as a concession on immigration enforcement.
The dynamic creates a narrow set of possible outcomes:
- A short extension of DHS funding, buying time but guaranteeing the fight returns.
- A full DHS appropriations deal that includes some guardrails, with both sides claiming they prevented something worse.
- A lapse focused on DHS, with pressure rising from any visible disruptions, and the political blame game getting louder.
There is also a broader political context that looms over the talks: shutdowns now arrive with a track record and a price tag.
Reuters noted the most recent prior shutdown lasted 43 days and cost the economy about $11 billion, a figure that sits in the background whenever lawmakers flirt with the edge again.
What Congress Is Trying to Legislate Through Funding
Appropriations fights often become proxy wars for policy. The DHS standoff is a stark version of that pattern.
Democrats are attempting to put immigration enforcement rules into statute by attaching them to the one thing DHS cannot operate without: money.
Republicans are attempting to keep the enforcement apparatus flexible while addressing public anger with narrower administrative steps, like targeted body camera deployment.
What happens by Feb. 13 will show whether Congress is prepared to impose operational constraints on immigration enforcement through the power of the purse, and whether DHS leadership is willing to accept rules that could reshape how agents operate in the field.
