Will another deadly shooting bring another government shutdown?

WASHINGTON – Prominent Democrats have been insisting as a Jan. 30 federal funding deadline creeped closer that they likely wouldn’t risk another government shutdown, and all the pain that comes with it.

Minneapolis has changed their minds.

The latest deadly altercation in the city is threatening to imperil an 11th-hour scramble in Congress to get the last of its appropriations bills passed in less than a week. And it's prompting calls to strip out a Department of Homeland Security funding measure for a separate vote amid a spiking risk of a partial shutdown on the heels of last year's record-breaking crisis.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said in a statement after a Border Patrol agent shot and killed a 37-year-old man that Senate Democrats won't support keeping the government fully open while also funding DHS.

“What’s happening in Minnesota is appalling – and unacceptable in any American city," he said. “Senate Democrats will not provide the votes to proceed to the appropriations bill if the DHS funding bill is included.”

The fraught political moment – shaped by the killings of two Minnesotans by federal agents in fewer than three weeks – is underscoring just how central pushing back on President Donald Trump's immigration policies has become to the Democratic Party, especially with the midterm elections approaching in November.

It’s drawing new lines in the sand showing how far lawmakers are willing to go to prioritize fighting over immigration amid escalating federal raids – even if doing so jeopardizes major concessions they've won from Republicans on other central issues, such as health care and education.

"Senate Dems should block [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] funding this week," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, in a social media post after the Jan. 24 shooting. "We can and must stop this."

After canceling votes for a day due to a big impending snowstorm, senators will have just a matter of days next week to approve a massive spending package. Among the must-pass bills will be the Department of Homeland Security's annual funding measure, which includes money for ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP.

When the DHS appropriations bill, which was originally introduced in a bipartisan way, was first announced on Jan. 20, even one of its two main Democratic negotiators admitted it wouldn't satisfy many elements of her party. After an ICE officer shot and killed Renee Good, during an altercation on Jan. 7, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, acknowledged that her colleagues "may be dissatisfied with any bill that funds ICE."

"The bill takes several steps in the right direction, such as cutting ICE enforcement and removal operations and reducing the number of detention beds, but it does not include broader reforms Democrats proposed," said the Connecticut congresswoman.

The bill also would impose new restrictions on DHS, including requiring more de-escalation training for ICE and CBP agents, implementing more oversight of detention facilities and restricting how the agency can spend money.

For many Democrats, including DeLauro herself, that ultimately wasn't enough to get behind it. After days of intraparty fuming, she voted against the bill she helped craft.

Still, the measure passed the House of Representatives with the marginal support of seven Democrats before being tucked into one giant funding package and sent over to the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to survive. Republicans hold the Senate majority with 53 seats, while Democrats have 47, including two Independent senators who caucus with Democrats.

While Senate Democrats were initially frustrated by the DHS bill, many still seemed inclined to vote for the entire appropriations package rather than risk a partial shutdown. But those political dynamics shifted on Jan. 24, when a Border Patrol agent shot and killed a 37-year-old man, identified by Minnesota's attorney general as an intensive care unit nurse named Alex Pretti.

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, a top lawmaker considered by many to potentially be Schumer's eventual successor in leadership, said shortly thereafter he'd vote against funding DHS. So did Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia.

"I am voting against funding for DHS until and unless more controls are put in place to hold ICE accountable," Schatz posted. "These repeated incidents of violence across the country are unlawful, needlessly escalatory, and making all of us less safe."

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nevada, who cast a crucial vote to reopen the government last fall, called on Senate leadership to strip out the DHS bill, keeping the rest of the spending agreements while coming up with a compromise. It's unclear how amenable Senate Republicans would be to such a move.

"We have bipartisan agreement on 96% of the budget," she said in a statement. "We've already passed six funding bills. Let's pass the remaining five bipartisan bills and fund essential agencies while we continue to fight for a Department of Homeland Security that respects Americans' constitutional rights and preserves federal law enforcement's essential role to keep us safe."

The more progressive wings of the Senate Democratic caucus didn't waste any time encouraging their colleagues to take a stand against Trump.

"Congress should not fund this version of ICE," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, on X.

"I’m a 'hell no,'" said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, "not a penny more for ICE. We should not fund this terror."

Zachary Schermele is a congressional reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at [email protected]. Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @zachschermele.bsky.social.

(This story was updated to add a video.)