Time is on Democrats’ side in a way that might feel counterintuitive amid a partial shutdown of the federal government.
The Senate left Washington last week with no agreement in place — or really in the works — to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The standoff over potential restrictions on the ways Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement agencies carry out President Donald Trump’s deportation blitz remains entrenched.
Those who see the lack of a deal as a sign of the new normal in Washington — in which bipartisan compromises have become increasingly rare — miss that the solidarity among Democrats in the face of Republican refusals to negotiate in good faith is actually anything but business as usual. It is evidence that Democrats are (finally) accepting the stakes of the moment.
In a normal political environment, the New York Democrats’ letter would be understood as a moderate negotiating position.
Being in the minority is never easy, especially not for those who consider themselves the stewards of good governance, especially compared with an administration in which autocratic whims and craven corruption are the norm. The deal last month to split DHS funding from a larger appropriations bill granted congressional Democrats a rare victory. Earlier this month, the House and Senate minority leaders, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer, sent their GOP counterparts a letter listing their party’s stance.
In a normal political environment, the New York Democrats’ letter would be understood as a moderate negotiating position. The 10 guardrails Jeffries and Schumer laid out are nowhere near the progressive wing’s wish to fully abolish ICE (eventually). In fact, several of the points are already laws or enacted policies that DHS is simply ignoring, including its refusal to allow lawmaker visits to detention facilities.
Yet Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota summarily dismissed any notion of a quick agreement, calling the Democrats’ proposal “very unrealistic and unserious.” His blithe disparagement reflects the unfortunate advantage his party typically has in these high-pressure talks. From where Thune is sitting, all Republicans have to do to safeguard the status quo is wait.
Recent history supports that thinking. Last year’s record-long federal shutdown ended because a group of eight Senate Democrats agreed to a proposed vote on extending key Affordable Care Act subsidies. Those Democrats were willing to break ranks for a vote, not a GOP commitment to extend the subsidies. It’s therefore not surprising that some observers thought the announcement of ICE’s withdrawal and an end to operations in Minnesota would be enough of an olive branch from the administration to achieve at least a two-week extension.
Despite a few early messaging stumbles, though, Democrats have shown little sign of wavering. Instead, they have rightly seen the notion of watering down their original asks as a nonstarter. Even the most moderate members of the party have decried the lack of seriousness from their GOP counterparts. “All we’re proposing is that ICE abide by the same rules that police forces — state police and municipal police — abide by across the country. Pretty straightforward,” Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said last week. “The fact that they won’t accept that is pretty chilling.” What happens next depends on which side does the better job of playing the long game. The political calculus of this partial government closure — DHS is the lone Cabinet agency affected — differs from that in past shutdown situations. Unlike last fall, national parks remain open and federal assistance is flowing normally because the rest of the federal government remains open. And thanks to the massive surge of funding to ICE and Border Patrol in the reconciliation bill passed last summer, those segments of DHS are still functioning despite being the cause of the stalemate on Capitol Hill. The remaining alphabet soup that makes up DHS — including the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard — will be the entities affected. Yet the soonest TSA agents are expected to see the closure hit their paychecks is mid-March. The continued functioning of most of the federal government means the public is largely insulated from this political fight. Without the usual pressure to reach a deal, Democrats have flexibility to dig in their heels and wait for real reforms. But Republicans know it’s much easier to kill the momentum for reforms than it is to reverse a new status quo. That’s why they’re so opposed to codifying even relatively anodyne changes into law. Thune’s play is to be conservative not as a political ideology but as the opposite of progress. In a joint statement last week, Jeffries and Schumer shrugged off a counterproposal from the White House as “both incomplete and insufficient.” As they crafter a counter-counteroffer, Politico reported that the “absence of leaked bill text in the exchanges between Democrats and the White House was one subtle sign of encouragement for those watching the negotiations that both sides were taking the talks seriously.” What happens next depends on which side does the better job of playing the long game. For Democrats, the greatest danger would be to let reports that ICE has no new citywide enforcement missions planned after leaving Minneapolis lull them into a false sense of victory. Republicans are hoping that with the likes of Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino relegated to the sidelines and the worst ICE aggressions and atrocities no longer making national headlines daily, the status quo will suffice. For that GOP strategy to succeed, Jeffries and Schumer must forget the anger toward ICE that has suffused the country over the past month.
Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He focuses on politics and policymaking at the federal level, including Congress and the White House. 
