Partial shutdown ends as Congress turns to ICE limits
House Republicans press Senate for 'talking filibuster' to pass SAVE Act
Also in today’s edition of ‘Regular Order’ for February 4, 2026:
President signs five funding bills into law.
Gun rights groups grumble more about Trump.
Trump doesn’t back off call to ‘take over’ elections.
CONGRESS-SPENDING. The 4-day partial government shutdown is over. Now comes the really hard part - trying to figure out a deal on funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
FUNDING. After another dose of GOP floor drama, the House voted 217-214 on Tuesday to approve five more government funding bills - plus a temporary funding plan for the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump quickly signed that into law down at the White House, flanked by Republicans holding red ‘America is Back’ hats.
OVAL OFFICE. “I’m thrilled to sign the Consolidated Appropriations Act to immediately reopen the federal government and fund the vast majority of operations through the rest of the fiscal year,” Trump said.
DRAMA. That celebration came only after yet another arm-twisting session on the House floor, as Speaker Mike Johnson had to deal with another group of GOP holdouts. It took nearly an hour, but GOP leaders again avoided an embarrassing procedural defeat. “We delivered for the American people,” Johnson told reporters.
BLACKJACK. But you could also argue that the only reason this package of five funding bills was approved was because 21 Democrats broke ranks to support it - offsetting the 21 House Republicans who voted against it.
FUNDING. “Minneapolis has shocked the conscience of America,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who voted for the 5-bill package, but had stern words for ICE from the floor of the House. “We the people want to end this violent occupation of our cities.”
DHS MONEY. That anger at ICE was what drove most Democrats to vote ‘No.’ “ICE is a rogue agency hellbent on terrorizing our neighbors and instilling fear in immigrant communities,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY).
EARMARKS. On the GOP side, 21 Republicans like Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) voted against the plan - in her case because of local projects in the bill. “That said, I fought hard to secure $3 million for vital CO-4 projects,” Boebert tweeted.
21 DEM YES VOTES. Bishop GA, Case HI, Clyburn SC, Courtney CT, Cuellar TX, Davids KS, Davis NC, DeLauro CT, Foster IL, Golden ME, Gottheimer NJ, Himes CT, Hoyer MD, Kaptur OH, Larsen WA, Perez WA, Peters CA, Schrier WA, David Scott GA, Sewell AL, and Veasey TX.
21 GOP NO VOTES. Biggs AZ, Boebert CO, Brecheen OK, Burchett TN, Burlison MO, Cammack FL, Crane AZ, Donalds FL, Fine FL, Gill TX, Massie KY, Mills FL, Ogles TN, Perry PA, Roy TX, Schweikert AZ, Self TX, Spartz IN, Steube FL, and Timmons SC.
WHAT’S NEXT. Now that the government shutdown is over, the next step is for the two parties to strike an agreement on guardrails for federal agents doing immigration enforcement. I don’t want to be negative, but it seems impossible to do that by February 13. We will be talking again next week about a possible shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security.
DEMANDS. What do Democrats want? The action list for ICE and Border Patrol agents includes:
No masks for federal agents.
Visible ID’s and badges for all agents.
Judicial warrants to enter homes.
Body cameras for all immigration enforcement agents.
End roving immigration patrols.
DEMS. “ICE has become the civil rights issue of our era,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY). “We need real, meaningful changes,” added Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA). “Trump's federal agents killed two Americans in broad daylight,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA). “We are not backing down.”
GOP. But while Democrats are adamant about the need for change, most Republicans are just as adamantly against most of those proposals. “Reform ICE is a shameful left-wing lie,” said Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX).
SANCTUARY CITIES. Republicans also have ideas, like getting blue states to cooperate more with immigration enforcement. “It’s something the American people demand and deserve,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson.
OFFENSE. “We should talk about ending sanctuary cities, we should talk about increasing penalties for illegal entry (by migrants),” said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO). “I think there’s a lot of things we should do to go on offense here.”
TALKS. It was clear yesterday that the White House will have the final say on any deal. “President Trump will be the ultimate decider of any policy changes - on anything,” added Trump’s Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
GAMBIT. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out in nine days. I’m sure some Republicans would love to take the already negotiated DHS funding bill and add something like the SAVE Act. Tell me what you think might happen next.
TALKING FILIBUSTER. Speaking of the SAVE Act - if you are hearing that Republicans have a new plan to get that bill through the Senate - it might sound too good to be true. This is the bill that requires people to prove U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and then show ID at the polls - a big GOP election year issue.
BELLA LUNA. Led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), House Republicans are turning up the pressure on GOP Senators to pass the SAVE Act by using a ‘talking filibuster.’ What’s this all about? Let me try to explain.
PROCEDURAL NERD NOTE. We often talk about how the Senate features unlimited debate. But there is actually a rule which limits how much Senators can speak. And that’s how some Republicans want to pass the SAVE Act.
TWO SPEECH RULE. Let’s start with Senate Rule XIX, which contains this provision: “No Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate,” the rule states.
PLAIN ENGLISH. What does that mean? It means if the Senate is debating a bill like the SAVE Act, Senators can only speak twice on the bill. That sounds like a simple way to force a final vote!!
UNLIMITED AMENDMENTS. But if you dig into Riddick’s Senate precedents, you will find that a Senator is entitled to speak twice on the bill, twice on any amendments, and twice on any debatable motion. And those amendments could be on absolutely any subject.
TIME. Let’s game this out with the 47 Democrats in the Senate. If they speak twice on the motion to start debate, that would be 94 speeches. Let’s say each Democrat spoke for 6 hours - that’s 564 hours, or almost 24 days.
EXTENDED DEBATE. Once you get on the bill, each amendment could then have 94 speeches of unlimited length. You can see that passing a bill using this ‘talking filibuster’ strategy could take weeks or even months.
THUNE. “Triggering a talking filibuster has ramifications, implications that I think everybody needs to be aware of,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Tuesday. “That obviously ties the floor up for an indefinite amount of time, with not only unlimited debate, but also unlimited amendments.”
STRATEGERY. The ‘two speech rule’ sounds so easy! But it’s not. Otherwise it would be a normal Senate option to avoid the need for 60 votes to break a filibuster. Beware of someone telling you that it’s an easy option for the SAVE Act.
ETHICS. Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) has blinked again on his push to expel Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL). Steube had threatened for a second time to force an expulsion vote on the House floor - but he backed off when it became clear that Democrats would not join in support.
HEARING. The Ethics Committee has set a March 5 hearing with Cherfilus-McCormick, who is accused of keeping $5 million in errant FEMA payments. “Once the Ethics Committee formally recommends expulsion, we will take up the motion and remove her from Congress,” Steube said.
WHAT’S NEXT. Even if the Ethics Committee recommends expulsion, I bet there will be some Democrats who will resist that option, arguing Cherfilus-McCormick still has to go through a federal trial, which could start in late April.
MACED. Earlier this week, New York Magazine ran an extensive piece on Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), where staffers told new stories of odd behavior. “Nancy Mace is Not Okay,” was the headline. It included tales of making staff clean her rental properties and bringing her bottles of tequila late at night. Mace responded as only she knows how.
EX-STAFFER. Meanwhile, Mace’s former Communications Director piled on. “Nancy Mace claiming she doesn’t drink alcohol might be the funniest, most brazen lie she’s told to date,” tweeted Natalie Johnson.
STORIES. “The woman drank so much she’d have interns or junior staff run to Congressional Liquor during the work day so she could imbibe during telephone town halls.”
GOVERNOR. Mace still has four more months of campaign time before the South Carolina Primary. She’s sort of like Trump - the headlines just never end, and the bad stuff just sort of seems to bounce off of her.
GUN RIGHTS. Once again this week, gun rights groups and some GOP lawmakers in Congress are expressing outrage at words from the Trump Administration about the Second Amendment. This time, the trouble started with Jeanine Pirro, the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C.
FOX NEWS. During an interview, Pirro declared that if you bring a gun into the District of Columbia, ‘mark my words you’re going to jail,” Pirro said. “I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else.”
CONGRESS. Once again, Second Amendment supporters in Congress were puzzled by what they were hearing. “Judge Jeanine's comments on Fox are a direct assault on the Constitution,” said Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO).
REBUKE. It was the same for gun rights groups. “We ARE NOT the problem,” the Gun Owners of America tweeted at Pirro. “Unacceptable and intolerable comments,” added the National Association for Gun Rights.
BACKPEDALING. Under fire, Pirro tried to smooth things over on Tuesday. “Let me be clear: I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment,” Judge Jeanine tweeted. But the damage had been done (again).
SECOND AMENDMENT. What’s going on here? I’m not quite sure. Last week it was President Trump and the FBI Director throwing shade at the Second Amendment. Honestly, it makes absolutely no sense. They are only aggravating people who are much more likely to vote Republican. Maybe you have some ideas on why the Trump Administration keeps fighting with gun rights supporters.
CLEAN UP ON AISLE 47. The gun rights issue wasn’t the only one where the Trump Administration was backtracking. A day after President Trump said he wanted to ‘take over’ election operations in 15 states, the White House tried to say that Trump was talking about something else.
CONFLATED. Asked by reporters about his comments a day earlier that Republicans should ‘take over’ elections in 15 states, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed Trump was talking about the SAVE Act.
BONGINO. But if you go back to Trump’s comments, the President wasn’t talking about the SAVE Act. “We should take over the voting in at least 15 places,” Trump said. “We have states that I won that show I didn’t win.”
QUESTION. And when Trump was asked what he meant - it wasn’t the SAVE Act. “I want to see elections be honest,” Trump said. “And if a state can’t run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it.”
LEAVITT. “The President believes in the United States Constitution,” Leavitt said at the West Wing stakeout. “However, he believes there has obviously been a lot of fraud and irregularities that have taken place in American elections.”
NO EVIDENCE. Once again, Trump and his allies are pushing the same old theme from 2020. Five years later, they keep claiming there was fraud - but they never bring forward any evidence of that fraud.
NOPE. On Capitol Hill, there was no GOP rush to embrace Trump’s call to take elections away from the individual states. “I’m not in favor of federalizing elections,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
BEHIND THE SCENES. As the final few House members voted Tuesday on a 5-bill funding plan, Rep. John James (R-MI) stood and looked at the tally board. He hadn’t voted yet - and as he reached down to get a voting card, James had second thoughts. The Michigan Republican grabbed a green card to vote ‘Yes,’ and a red card to vote ‘No.’ More in this X thread.
MUSE OF HISTORY. February 4, 1888. On this date, a petition signed by more than 6,000 people in the District of Columbia was sent to Congress, protesting against any effort to ban alcohol in the nation’s capital. “It will divert, not destroy, the liquor traffic,” the petition read. “The drug stores will become the saloon and perjury will prove to be the order of the day.”
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM:
The House meets at 10 am.
The Senate convenes at 10 am.
Follow me on Twitter @jamiedupree. Follow me on Bluesky.
Email me at jamiedupree@substack.com
Tips also welcome on Signal - jamiedupree.64
If you want to say ‘thanks’ - you can buy me a cup of coffee.
The SAVE Act will require showing a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Most Americans don't have a passport and a large number (estimated at more than 21 million) do not have ready access to a birth certificate. It takes time and money to obtain either of those documents. Married women will be disproportionately disenfranchised if they took their spouse's name. They will have to take extra steps since their name won't match their birth certificate. Young people and low-income voters will have an outsized burden. State officials risk prosecution if they make a mistake. This bill is not designed to make elections safer. It's designed to keep people from voting.
Trump seems to care very much about his legacy. Yet he is allowing stephen miller to orchestrate what will be an ugly stain on such legacy. He should fire miller and start treating immigrants as the human beings they are.