Negotiations to try to end the ongoing Department of Homeland Security-specific shutdown — and, critically, fund the TSA — picked up earlier this week. After supposedly convincing President Donald Trump to jump onboard during a White House meeting, Senate Republicans said they were sending a proposal to Senate Democrats that would fund all parts of DHS except ICE’s removal operations.
Republicans said they have convinced Trump to drop his demand that they pass the SAVE America Act before making any deal with Democrats on DHS. The senators present at the meeting, in part, did this, they said, by committing to passing the SAVE America Act — in addition to funding for ICE’s removal operations — later this year using the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. Reconciliation allows budget-related legislation to pass with only 51 votes, meaning Republicans would not need help from Democrats.
Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee held a meeting Tuesday night to begin talking about their second party-line bill, following up on Trump’s memorably named 2025 grab-bag reconciliation package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Though Republicans plan to use the hypothetical 2026 reconciliation package to fund ICE’s enforcement operations, they almost certainly will include other, controversial GOP priorities, including war funding for Iran and, per their agreement with Trump, elements of the SAVE America Act.
“After consulting with President Trump and his team and Leader Thune, the Senate Budget Committee will expeditiously move toward creating a second budget reconciliation bill,” Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a Wednesday statement.
Despite increased enthusiasm around the idea, there are several major complications that could slow down the already lengthy reconciliation process down to a halt or make it impossible to bring through the finish line. The reconciliation proposal that earlier this month may have appeared to be Senate Republican leadership’s deus ex machina could easily become Majority Leader John Thune’s (R-SD) latest nightmare.
Here are five questions about what happens next.
Are Democrats on board with any aspect of this deal?
Senate Democrats are reiterating that they will not restore any DHS funding unless the deal also includes meaningful reforms to immigration officers’ conduct and practices. They sent a counterproposal to Republicans Wednesday afternoon to address their concerns.
Democrats on Tuesday were quick to point out that while the deal championed by Republicans would not fund ICE enforcement, it would fund Homeland Security Investigations and Border Patrol — two other entities involved in the abuses which Democrats have vowed to stand against.
They also said Republicans’ latest offer “does not have any reforms in ICE.”
It is unclear, however, if the offer may be enough to peel off the handful of votes Republicans would need to get the deal over the 60-vote threshold.
Can Republicans even come together on reconciliation?
One of the major and most obvious problems with an attempt to successfully pass a reconciliation bill is the fact that congressional Republicans are more divided within themselves than ever. That includes divisions within the House Republican caucus, the Senate Republican caucus and Republicans in the upper and lower chamber.
It will be an uphill battle to get a simple majority supporting a reconciliation package within the House and Senate caucuses. But it will be equally if not more difficult to get the House and the Senate to agree on the same reconciliation package.
In the Senate, Republicans can lose three votes and still pass a party-line reconciliation bill. Some have already shown skepticism on the chambers’ chances of successfully passing a package and in some cases have stated opposition to parts of the possible bill.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said she thought reconciliation was not a “good approach” for the issues at hand. Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) predicted it would be “very difficult” to get the votes and compared a second Republican reconciliation package to a “pipe dream,” per Politico.
Earlier this month, during the annual House Republicans retreat Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Jason Smith (R-MO) also said a second package has a low chance of success.
“I would love to do reconciliation 2,” Smith said. “I would also love to look like Brad Pitt.”
Is a SAVE Act done through reconciliation really a SAVE Act?
In a seeming attempt to get Trump and other MAGA proponents of the sweeping voter suppression bill off their back, a group of Senate Republicans pitched the idea that the SAVE America Act — which currently does not have the 60 votes it needs to overcome the filibuster — can be addressed via the hypothetical party-line reconciliation bill.
In theory, stuffing a bill deeply unpopular outside of the MAGA world into the reconciliation process, which only requires simple majority support in both chambers, may sound to its proponents like an enticing idea. That, despite a senior White House official denying it, is probably why senators are saying Trump got on board with the idea so quickly, shifting his stance on refusing to make a deal with Democrats on DHS funding until they agreed to pass the SAVE America Act.
In practice, however, it will not be as simple as stuffing the bill into a Republican package.
Every single provision going into a reconciliation bill must be directly related to the budget and has to comply with strict budget rules. In its current form, the SAVE America Act would presumably not meet those rules.
Senate Republicans are reportedly discussing incentives for states to adopt new policies such as voter ID rules that could comply with the Senate’s strict rules for reconciliation.
But as Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, told TPM earlier this week the overall goal of the SAVE America Act — “binding national requirements” on voting — would be harder to implement “unless you’re willing to break the rules of reconciliation.”
Republican lawmakers who have been rallying behind passing the SAVE America Act as a separate bill have been chronically online about this exact issue since the possible plan became public. The House Freedom Caucus even claimed the plan is an attempt to “gaslight” people.
Are there enough Republican votes to fund the Iran War?
In a Wednesday statement Graham said a second possible reconciliation package would include money to fund the war in Iran.
“The purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to make sure there is adequate funding to secure our homeland and to support our men and women in the military who are fighting so bravely,” Graham said in a statement.
An attempt to fund the Iran war through the same reconciliation package could further complicate the process depending on how much lawmakers decide to include.
Last week, the Pentagon reportedly asked the Trump White House to approve a more than $200 billion request that it wants to send to Congress amid the ongoing war in Iran. A portion or all of that reported request could be addressed in a party-line reconciliation package.
Many Republicans think this could be the only way to authorize more war funding since any other method would require a handful of Senate Democrats to join Republicans in support of giving more money for the Iran war.
But others, including some in the Senate Budget Committee, which would put together the budget resolution needed for the reconciliation process, have reservations.
“We had a conversation about it,” Scott, a member of the Budget Committee, said. “I’m interested in it, but I think it’s hard to do.”
“I don’t want it where it’s going to have a whole bunch of wasteful spending,” he added.
What about the ‘deficit hawks’?
Successfully implementing any of the above would also add to the national deficit unless Republicans find a way to offset the costs. That is almost certain to tick off some of the self-proclaimed deficit hawks on Capitol Hill. It adds another layer of complication and can make it harder for Republicans to get to a simple majority, especially in the House.
Republicans’ first reconciliation package, the One Big Beautiful Bill, cost the American people steep cuts to hugely popular programs like Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
One of the worst parts of the Trump era is the inescapable realization of just how many awful people walk among us.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said she thought reconciliation was not a “good approach” for the issues at hand.
Yes, I’m sure she is “very concerned”.
So the crazy-in-public Republicans have to negotiate with the crazy-in-public-and-private Republicans, along with a demented narcissist and “self-proclaimed deficit hawks”, plus Lindsay “Iwo Jima” Graham? Should be smooth sailing.
Enjoy flying home, boys.