Federal agents stand at a front gate as Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison and Angie Craig, all Democrats from Minnesota, attempt to enter the Immigration and Customs Enforcement regional headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis on Jan. 10, 2026. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — As they seek to rein in President Donald Trump’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement, Democrats in Congress want to formalize some policies that previous administrations have used.
Of the 10 policy suggestions Democratic leaders in negotiations offered to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, which was in crisis Financing expiry since February 14th Amid widespread uproar over the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens by immigration agents in Minneapolis last month, seven of them were employed in at least some capacity by previous administrations.
Democrats are demanding the Trump administration reinstate measures it rejected in its controversial push to carry out mass deportations. Previous policies that Democrats want to formalize include use-of-force standards, allowing unannounced visits by members of Congress to facilities holding immigrants and obtaining court warrants before entering private homes.
“Many of the things Democrats are calling for are a return to previous policies,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior DHS official during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. “Some of them are reacting to the way this administration conducts its operations, which previous administrations have not done.”
Formalizing the policies into law as part of an agreement to pass a Treasury Department funding bill for fiscal year 2026 would make them more enduring.
“Policies and guidelines … apply as the current leadership applies them,” Cardinal Brown said. “They are not absolute values and can be changed much more frequently.”
But agreement between congressional Democrats and the White House on changes to immigration enforcement appears elusive. The White House’s response to the proposals was “incomplete and inadequate,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Feb. 9 statement.
No current movement in the negotiations
Democrats sent a counterproposal to Republicans and the White House behind schedule Monday, but did not make those changes public, according to a statement from party leaders.
While there is bipartisan support for some of the proposals, such as requiring the utilize of body-worn cameras, others, such as banning immigration officers from wearing face coverings and requiring warrants to enter private property, have been flatly rejected by the Trump administration.
A White House official said the “Trump administration remains committed to engaging in good faith discussions with Democrats.”
“President Trump has made it clear that he wants open government,” the White House official said.
Even if the department closes, immigration enforcement will continue as Trump funded massive tax cuts and a $170 billion spending package last year.
The Democrats’ proposals do not include consequences if DHS does not comply, raising an issue of effectiveness, said Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to provide free or low-cost legal services to immigrants.
“When Congress negotiates policies, does it act on those policies and deprive them of the funds that we know ICE and CBP will use to violate guardrails in the first place?” Altman said.
Changes are needed after the deaths in Minneapolis
After Renee Good was shot and killed by immigration agent Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, lawmakers amended the Department of Homeland Security funding bill and added guardrails such as:
But a second death in Minnesota, that of critical care nurse Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, led Democrats to reject funding for DHS without stronger policy changes to the immigration enforcement tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
Only three of the ten proposals from Schumer and Jeffries, both from New York, would be completely novel.
They are: Banning ICE and other immigration agencies from wearing face coverings, Banning racial profiling afterward The Supreme Court cleared the way for last year’s practice and standardization of DHS agents’ uniforms.
When asked, the heads of ICE and CBP rejected Democrats’ request to have their immigration officers forego face coverings during a supervisory hearing last week before the House Homeland Security Committee.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott have joined Republicans in Congress in arguing that masks and face coverings prevent their officers from being pressured.
Local collaboration
Other proposals, including banning immigration enforcement at so-called sensitive locations such as religious sites, child care facilities, hospitals and schools, would expand previous DHS policies that narrow enforcement at such locations.
The Democrats’ proposal would ban enforcement in these sensitive locations. Prior guidance allowed the practice to be carried out to a narrow extent.
Then-acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello repealed the directive shortly after President Donald Trump took office in January last year. There are several lawsuits from religious groups challenging the Trump administration’s move.
A requirement that immigration officials seek permission from local and state governments before conducting gigantic enforcement actions like the one in Minneapolis would build on previous federal-local cooperation guidelines.
But that measure would be far-fetched, Cardinal Brown said.
“I think that’s going to be a tough question,” she said. “The federal government has the power to enforce immigration law anywhere in the country it desires.”
She said a more realistic option would be for the federal government to inform or coordinate with local authorities about large-scale immigration actions.
Another proposed requirement that DHS officers provide identification also builds on previous guidance.
Another proposal builds on DHS’s targeted enforcement policy and ends “indiscriminate arrests” without a warrant.
Under current immigration lawIf an officer encounters a person believed to be in the United States illegally and is able to flee before a warrant is issued, an arrest without a warrant is lawful.
Democrats want to raise standards for the forms ICE uses to authorize an arrest. These administrative forms are signed by an ICE agent rather than a judge.
Court orders
The remaining proposals would return DHS policies to those in effect under the guidance of previous administrations. This includes Standards for the utilize of force, Use of body cameras in dealing with the public, Allowing unannounced check-ins for members of Congress in detention centers where immigrants are held and to enter private property, judicial authorization is required.
An internal ICE memo, obtained from The Associated Pressshowed that Lyons had directed ICE agents to enter private residences without a warrant, a departure from longstanding DHS policy.
“This court order issue is so troubling,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).
He said the question of whether trespassing on private property requires a warrant has already been decided under the Fourth Amendment.
“The fact that it’s being discussed now is really scary,” Johnson said.
Body cameras
Providing funding for DHS to purchase body cameras for immigration officers is a proposal that Democrats and Republicans appear to have agreed on.
earlier this monthDHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that body cameras would be provided to all immigration officers in Minneapolis and said that “the body camera program will be expanded nationwide as funding becomes available.”
During an oversight hearing on Capitol Hill, Lyons said that about 3,000 ICE officers currently have body cameras and another 6,000 cameras are on the way. Scott said about 10,000 Border Patrol agents, about half of the entire force, have body cameras.
But body cameras are no guarantee against misconduct, Altman said.
CBP officers were wearing body cameras when Pretti was shot. Scott said the footage would be released after the investigation is complete.
“We are currently seeing officers on the ground wearing body-worn cameras and dealing with abuse and violence on a daily basis,” Altman said.
Control visits
One of the proposals would also end a DHS policy that requires members of Congress to give seven days’ notice of supervisory visits to facilities housing immigrants, although a 2019 budget law allows unannounced visits.
Since last summer, several lawmakers have been denied supervisory visits to ICE facilities which led them to sue in federal court.
On the day DHS funding expired, February 14, the Justice Department submitted a brief stating that unannounced oversight visits by lawmakers could be denied because of the shutdown.
The government argued that immigration enforcement during the lockdown was funded by tax cuts and a spending bill that lacked language allowing unannounced visits, rather than regular appropriations.
“There is no legal basis for the court to order the defendant’s conduct while the earmarked funds have expired.” according to the document.
