Trump, GOP Pull Off Brilliant Move After DHS Shutdown Breakthrough
President Donald Trump vowed to sign an executive order to “immediately” pay Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers amid the ongoing shutdown impacting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Hours later, Senate Democrats caved and helped pass a new, last-minute deal that brings Congress one step closer to ending the Homeland Security shutdown.
In the early hours of Friday morning, the Senate unanimously passed a deal to reopen most of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This was 42 days into the shutdown that was caused by the Trump administration’s immigration operations in Minnesota.
It was an agreement that gave New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats some of what they wanted: no money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or parts of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). But it didn’t have the strict changes they wanted, like making agents show their faces or getting court orders.
Thune said that Democrats are still losing the policy fight over immigration enforcement, even though the deal is similar to past attempts by Democrats to pass similar laws that set aside money for immigration.
“We’ve been trying for weeks to fund the whole thing,” Thune said. “And, I mean, in the end, this is what they were willing to agree to. But again, it’s different that it has zero reforms in it. I mean, they got no reforms on DHS, which they could have had if they had been willing to work with us a little bit on that.”
Schumer said that if Republicans hadn’t blocked their initial attempts, “this could have been done three weeks ago.”
“This is exactly what we wanted,” Schumer said. “This is what we asked for, and I’m very proud of my caucus. My caucus held the line.”
The House will now look at the DHS funding deal. Republicans aren’t happy about not funding important parts of President Donald Trump’s plan to crack down on immigration.
The most recent plan came after Senate Democrats stopped a seventh attempt to reopen DHS. Talks that went back and forth all day Thursday didn’t seem to get them any closer to a solution. Trump also said he would sign an order that would pay Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents as long lines and long wait times at major airports continue during the shutdown.
The Republicans’ main point all along has been that if Schumer and his caucus wanted reforms, they would have to agree to pay for immigration enforcement. This is partly a concession to the Democrats.
And ICE and CBP are still flush with roughly $75 billion in cash from Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” giving the agencies a buffer for a time.
“The good news is we anticipated this a year ago. I mean, one of the reasons we front loaded, pre-loaded up the ‘one big, beautiful bill’ with advanced funding for Homeland Security was because we anticipated this was likely going to happen, and it did,” Thune said. “I still think it’s unfortunate. The Dems wanted reforms. We tried to work with them on reforms. They ended up getting no reforms.”
The same process used to pass that colossal legislative package will likely be turned to again fund immigration enforcement.
Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt envisions funding ICE and CBP for several years.
“Democrats are trying to shut down ICE funding for the remainder of the fiscal year — ultimately they won’t be successful,” Schmitt said on X. “In response, I’ll be pushing to lock in funding for deportation operations and salaries for a decade.”
It might still be hard to do this, though, because Republicans want to add a few other things to the mix, like parts of the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act and money for the war in Iran.
Some Republicans are already lowering their expectations about what can and can’t be done in the party-line process, since anything in the bill has to meet strict rules in the Senate.
“I think we have to set our sights a little bit lower on this reconciliation bill,” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News. “It’s got to be targeted to fund ICE for 10 years, I think that’s the number one thing to us.”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
