Fetterman Makes Decision About Supporting ICE Funding

Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. John Fetterman said this week he will not vote to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), rejecting calls from members of his own party and raising questions about unity as Congress faces a pivotal spending vote.

Fetterman’s statement Monday came amid growing pressure from all seven Democratic members of the U.S. House from Pennsylvania to oppose DHS funding unless it includes reforms they say are necessary to rein in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agency practices. The House Democrats sent a formal letter Tuesday urging Fetterman and fellow Pennsylvania Sen. Dave McCormick (R) to vote against the current funding bill.

“We urge you to stand with us in opposing any DHS funding bill that does not include critical reforms,” the lawmakers said in the letter, delivered Tuesday, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. “We look forward to working together to advance legislation that both keeps our nation secure and upholds our fundamental values.”

The initiative was spearheaded by U.S. Representative Chris Deluzio, whose district in Western Pennsylvania encompasses parts of Allegheny County. Deluzio has been mentioned in Democratic circles as a potential primary challenger to Fetterman in 2028, the outlet noted further.

“Deluzio was joined by Democratic U.S. Reps. Brendan Boyle and Dwight Evans, who represent Philadelphia, as well as U.S. Reps. Madeleine Dean, Mary Gay Scanlon, and Chrissy Houlahan, whose districts include the Philadelphia suburbs. U.S. Rep. Summer Lee, a progressive Democrat whose district includes Pittsburgh, also signed the letter,” the outlet reported.

Boyle, the dean of the group and another potential challenger to Fetterman, added: “ICE is currently operating like a lawless, out-of-control agency. We cannot send it another blank check.”

The House Dems urged the state’s senators to vote against any bill that funds the department “without first securing meaningful, enforceable reforms to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and related DHS agency activity.”

Fetterman acknowledged disagreements with some immigration enforcement tactics but said he would not support what he characterized as an effort to trigger a partial federal government shutdown over the issue. In a statement, he said he opposes shutting the government and is open to discussions on the DHS appropriations bill, including potentially removing it from a larger bundle of spending legislation.

He spoke out against ICE’s operation in Minneapolis and called for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s firing on Tuesday. But he added that he “will never vote to shut our government down, especially our Defense Department.” He stated that permitting a partial shutdown would not defund ICE, as the agency received $178 billion in funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he opposed.

“I reject the calls to defund or abolish ICE,” Fetterman said Monday. “I strongly disagree with many strategies and practices ICE deployed in Minneapolis, and believe that must change.”

He said he wants “a conversation” about the DHS appropriations bill and supports taking it out of the spending package, but said “it is unlikely that will happen.”

McCormick, meanwhile, reaffirmed his support for Border Patrol and ICE on Sunday, but he also called for “a full investigation into the tragedy in Minneapolis” that left protester Alex Pretti, who was armed, dead.

His position diverges from other Democrats who want stricter reforms tied to DHS funding, including measures aimed at limiting ICE’s authority and increasing accountability after recent controversial enforcement actions that have drawn national scrutiny.

This week’s Senate vote is expected as lawmakers attempt to resolve disagreements before key funding deadlines.

“We voted against this bill last week and ask that you do the same,” the lawmakers say in the letter. “Funding without adequate reform risks endorsing current approaches that undermine public safety and due process, erode American liberties, and weaken public trust.”