Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
After 45 days of a partial government shutdown, it isn't exactly news that the Department of Homeland Security remains ... shut down. And yet, it is.
There was genuine hope early Friday that the shutdown would end after the Republican-controlled Senate approved a bill to fund all of DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration, except for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Protection. Nevertheless, the shutdown persisted after a chaotic day, when House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) called the Senate deal a "joke" and House Republicans passed their own eight-week measure to fund the department.
The nation's airports remain chaotic, despite President Donald Trump signing an executive order on Friday to unilaterally pay TSA agents. White House border czar Tom Homan said yesterday that security agents will "hopefully" be paid by today or tomorrow, and suggested that ICE agents deployed to airports may remain there even after TSA officers are paid. And in a dark twist, the situation at airports has grown so dire that a new market has arisen: line-sitters for airport security lines.
So, when will all of this end? It's anyone's guess. The House and Senate left town, despite failing to find a way through this crisis. And the blame game - which, politically, is often how shutdowns are decided - is in full swing.
Republicans say it's the Democrats' fault because the party has refused to fund ICE without more accountability for the federal agents implementing the president's immigration policy. Democrats throughout this episode have responded by saying they are willing to fund every part of DHS except ICE, whose agents are getting paid despite the shutdown because of last summer's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, an offer Republicans have so far declined.
That is why this moment is so important: Republicans in the House are now actively bucking every member of their party in the Senate who agreed to go along with the Senate bill, which passed unanimously, giving Democrats a significantly larger cudgel to use in blaming them for the shutdown.
"House Republicans are rejecting a bipartisan bill supported by 53 Republican senators that would end the chaos at the airports, pay TSA and stop inconveniencing millions of Americans," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Friday.
This is clearly the tension now in this shutdown. When Johnson faced reporters Friday, longtime Fox News correspondent Chad Pergram pressed him on how the Republican speaker was out of step with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, whom the reporter called the "engineer behind" the Senate agreement.
Johnson decided to take aim at Democrats.
"I wouldn't call John Thune the engineer of this; Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate have forced this upon the Senate," Johnson said.
One issue with Johnson's formulation is that Republicans control the Senate.
In apparent acknowledgment, Johnson tried to expand what's at stake, citing national security and immigration policy. "The very serious threats to the homeland, and everybody. It is not just long lines at the airport; it is the danger and safety of everyone," Johnson said.
Some Republican observers have acknowledged the pretzel that Johnson finds himself twisted into.
"They are trying to get everything they want," Ari Fleischer, a longtime Republican operative and former White House press secretary, said on Fox around Johnson's comments. "If they block this, Republicans in the House now are going to be the ones who own the blame for TSA workers and the delays at the airports."
So why would Johnson put himself in this position?
The clearest answer is to save his own job. The House Freedom Caucus, the most far-right wing of Republicans in the chamber, was in outright revolt and would never have gone along with it in the first place. To pass the Senate deal, Johnson would likely have had to ask Democrats for help - something the party's leaders indicated they would have given if asked.
But asking Democrats for help to pass a stopgap funding bill is what cost former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy his job.
And it is crystal clear that Johnson doesn't want to add former to his title.
What we're watching
What is next in the conflict with Iran?
Our colleague Dan Lamothe - who has been on an absolute tear in reporting on this war - wrote over the weekend that the Pentagon is "preparing for weeks of ground operations in Iran, U.S. officials said, as thousands of American soldiers and Marines arrive in the Middle East for what could become a dangerous new phase of the war."
The key to all of this: It was unclear when the story broke on Saturday whether Trump would approve all, some or none of the plans, but the officials told Dan that any ground operations would "fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops."
The wild card here - as it has been since the outset - is Trump, and how deep he wants to go in a conflict with the nation.
Trump’s rationale for this conflict has been scattered since the start, from a focus on Iran’s nuclear program to a possible imminent threat to possible regime change. Trump has also said for weeks that the war is largely over. "I think the war is very complete, pretty much," Trump told CBS earlier this month. And last week the president said, "We’ve won this, this war has been won."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-New Jersey), who has previously worked as a civilian adviser to generals in Afghanistan, told CNN yesterday that this is "one of the most consequential moments that I’ve ever seen in my time in government."
And then he directed his commentary at Trump: "I want to take a moment to make a direct call to President Trump and congressional Republicans, saying, ‘We cannot have American troops on the ground in Iran.’"
There is clearly a lot of pressure on Trump around this conflict. As we reported earlier this month, this war has put a massive wedge in the coalition of voters who elected Trump in 2024. Republicans are growing increasingly concerned about rising gas prices. And most stock market indexes, which the president follows closely, have fallen around 10 percent since the start of the war. So what comes next - and, specifically, what the president decides - will be something worth watching.
(COMMENT, BELOW)