10
Loading video...
By Billal Rahman and Amanda Castro
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Six Democratic members of Congress who voted for a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill that included money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were projected to retain their seats after facing Republican challengers in Tuesday's midterm elections.
It comes as Democrats prepare to take control of the House and Senate following the midterms, renewing the question of whether the party can use its majorities both chambers of Congress to restrict or repeal ICE funding.
The results came on a bruising night for President Donald Trump and Republicans, as a Democratic wave cost the party control of the House and Senate. The shift represents a major political setback for Trump, whose second-term agenda has faced growing scrutiny, particularly over his administration's aggressive immigration crackdown.
Read More on News
With Democrats now poised to control both chambers, the election could give the party renewed leverage to challenge the administration's immigration policies, scrutinize ICE operations and seek limits on the agency's funding. The results also drew fresh attention to the six Democrats who backed DHS funding that included money for ICE but still survived Republican challenges at the ballot box.
...
Don Davis of North Carolina led Republican Laurie Buckhout in the 1st Congressional District by 10,305 votes, according to unofficial results from the North Carolina State Board of Elections. With all 290 precincts reporting, Davis had 156,564 votes to 146,259 for Buckhout. Libertarian Tom Bailey received 9,880 votes.
Vicente Gonzalez held Texas' 34th District, defeating Republican Eric Flores. The latest AP-supplied results show Gonzalez with 112,667 votes, or 55.6 percent, to Flores' 80,572, or 39.8 percent, a margin of 32,095 votes, with about 99 percent of the vote counted.
Henry Cuellar won reelection in Texas' 28th Congressional District over Republican Tano Tijerina. The latest Texas Secretary of State figures reported Wednesday showed Cuellar with 113,315 votes, or 65.8 percent, to Tijerina's 51,065, or 29.6 percent, a margin of 62,250 votes.
Tom Suozzi secured another term in New York's 3rd Congressional District, defeating Republican Michael LiPetri. The latest figures sourced from the Associated Press (AP) showed Suozzi with 144,174 votes, or 55.1 percent, to LiPetri's 117,001, or 44.7 percent, a margin of 27,173 votes, with counting continuing.
Related Story
Newsweek Webinar: How the Politics of AI Could Shape Midterms
Laura Gillen won reelection in New York's 4th Congressional District over Republican Jeanine Driscoll. AP-supplied results showed Gillen with 160,234 votes, or 56.1 percent, to Driscoll's 124,259, or 43.5 percent, a margin of 35,975 votes, with about 97 percent of the vote counted.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez was called as the winner in Washington's 3rd Congressional District against Republican state Senator John Braun. AP-supplied results showed Gluesenkamp Perez with 143,417 votes, or 55 percent, to Braun's 115,271, or 44.2 percent, a margin of 28,146 votes.
Seven House Democrats voted for a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill on January 22. The measure passed 220-207, with seven Democrats joining 213 Republicans in voting in favor. A total of 206 Democrats voted against it, while Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky was the only Republican to oppose the bill.
The bill included funding for ICE alongside appropriations for other federal agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration.
Jared Golden of Maine announced in November 2025 that he would not seek reelection. His 2nd Congressional District remained too close to call Wednesday afternoon, with Republican former Governor Paul LePage leading Democrat Matt Dunlap by 1,686 votes, 155,230 to 153,544, with roughly 87 percent of the vote counted.
Four of the seven Democrats again crossed party lines on March 5 to support a similar DHS funding measure. Gillen, Suozzi and Gonzalez voted against it.
The vote sparked backlash from progressives who argued that the measure did not do enough to constrain the Trump administration's immigration enforcement operations.
Several of the Democrats said at the time their votes were intended to protect funding for agencies such as FEMA and the Coast Guard rather than endorse ICE's enforcement tactics.
“Congress has an obligation to fund federal agencies that provide essential public services and resources to all Americans," Gonzalez said in a press release on January 22.
Davis defended his vote by pointing to the importance of disaster relief and Coast Guard funding in eastern North Carolina.
“Strong, reliable support for disaster relief is non-negotiable,” he said, adding that the region also depended on a well-resourced Coast Guard.
Gluesenkamp Perez said ICE would continue operating with existing funding even if DHS were shut down, while other agencies and local communities would bear the consequences. Gillen similarly cited funding for FEMA, the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard, while calling for then Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's impeachment.
Cuellar, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, defended his vote by arguing that the bill provided greater oversight of ICE while protecting funding for other agencies, including FEMA and the Coast Guard. In a speech on the House floor, he said the measure was “better than the alternatives of either funding the Department under a continuing resolution or shutting down the government.”
Golden defended the need to fund federal law enforcement, pointing to provisions for body cameras and de-escalation training. Suozzi later expressed regret, saying he had failed to recognize that the vote would be viewed as a referendum on ICE's conduct in Minneapolis, where two U.S. citizens were shot to death by federal authorities in January. He said he heard his constituents' anger and accepted responsibility.
The results underline divisions among Democrats over how to approach ICE funding and immigration enforcement. Some lawmakers have argued that funding DHS is necessary to maintain essential federal services, while progressives have pushed for tighter restrictions on ICE and greater accountability for immigration agents.
Can the Democrats Now Defund ICE?
Democrats could use control of the House to pass legislation seeking to restrict ICE funding when the new Congress takes office in January. But changing the agency's funding would be more complicated than simply refusing to approve another annual appropriations bill.
Congress has already approved substantial multi-year funding for immigration enforcement. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump on July 4, 2025, provided approximately $75 billion for ICE and $65 billion for Customs and Border Protection, which includes the U.S. Border Patrol. Both agencies have been on the front lines of President Trump's mass deportation campaign.
That money was separate from the annual DHS appropriations legislation the House considered in January.
A separate reconciliation law, the Secure America Act, was signed on June 10. It provided nearly $70 billion in additional funding for ICE, Customs and Border Protection and DHS, available through September 30, 2029. The law means significant funding has already been appropriated and remains available beyond the current fiscal year.
To claw back or restrict that money, Democrats would need Congress to pass legislation rescinding previously appropriated funds or limiting how they can be used.
Under the normal process, legislation could pass the House with a simple majority, generally 218 votes when all seats are filled. In the Senate, however, most legislation would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Any measure would also require the president's signature or enough support in Congress to override a veto.
Budget reconciliation offers another potential route because qualifying legislation can pass the Senate with a simple majority and is not subject to the usual 60-vote threshold. But reconciliation is governed by strict budgetary rules and cannot automatically be used to enact any policy change a congressional majority wants.
The House-passed January funding bill, meanwhile, did not become law in its original form. The Senate removed annual appropriations for ICE and the U.S. Border Patrol from the revised legislation that Trump signed on April 30.
However, the agencies retained access to substantial funding Congress had previously approved.
That leaves Democrats with a significant legislative and procedural challenge even with control of both chambers. Blocking future annual appropriations could restrict new funding for ICE, but it would not, by itself, eliminate money Congress has already made available to the agency.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Matthew Cannon and Dave Siminoff.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines