Murphy Slams ICE Funding Deal, Alleges ‘Playbook of Brutality’ and Budgetary Deception

Appropriators claim cuts while maintaining $3.84B Republican increase — spend plan data exposes year-old funding as new baseline

WASHINGTON — Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, issued a blistering rebuke today of the newly released Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill, breaking ranks with Democratic leadership over a deal he claims cements “lawlessness” and funds “dystopian” enforcement tactics.

The deal, negotiated by Senate Appropriations Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) and Senator Katie Britt (R-AL), has sparked a civil war within the Democratic caucus. Murphy, who was largely sidelined during the final negotiations despite his subcommittee leadership, accused the bill of providing a “blank check” to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A ‘Playbook of Brutality’

In a statement that sent shockwaves through the Capitol, Murphy didn’t mince words regarding the humanitarian and operational failures he sees in the legislation.

“The proposed Appropriations bill... puts no meaningful constraints on the growing lawlessness of ICE, and increases funding for detention over the last Appropriations bill passed in 2024,” Murphy said. “Democrats have no obligation to support a bill that not only funds the dystopian scenes we are seeing in Minneapolis but will allow DHS to replicate that playbook of brutality in cities all over this country.”

Murphy further criticized the bill for failing to prioritize border security, noting it “doesn’t put CBP agents back at the border where they belong.”

The “Fake Baseline” Controversy

At the heart of the dispute is a technical but explosive disagreement over funding levels. While Democratic leadership, led by Senator Murray, has touted the bill as a victory that “cuts” ICE funding, internal documents and spend-plan data suggest a different reality.

Critics and budget analysts point to a “fake baseline” maneuver:

• The Claim: Leadership is comparing the FY2026 proposal to the FY2024 enacted levels ($3.43 billion for custody operations), making the current $3.838 billion look like a necessary adjustment.

• The Reality: The actual FY2025 spending level, established during last year’s Republican-led continuing resolution, was $3.84 billion.

By using the 2024 numbers as the comparison point, leadership is claiming a “cut” while actually maintaining the $403 million detention funding surge enacted by Republicans nearly dollar-for-dollar. Murphy’s statement explicitly acknowledged this discrepancy, directly contradicting his colleagues’ claims of fiscal restraint.

A Divided Democratic Front

The rift highlights a profound strategic divide. Senator Patty Murray defended the bill as a necessary evil to avoid a government shutdown, characterizing ICE as “out-of-control” and “un-American” even while advocating for a bill that maintains its current funding.

“The hard truth is that Democrats must win political power to enact the kind of accountability we need,” Murray stated, suggesting that the current deal was the best possible outcome given the political climate.

However, Murphy’s defection suggests that rank-and-file Democrats and immigration advocates may not be so quick to fall in line. By invoking the “dystopian scenes” in Minneapolis—a reference to recent high-profile enforcement actions—Murphy has signaled that he views the bill not as a compromise, but as a surrender.

Context of the Negotiations

The bill’s arrival comes at a moment of heightened tension. The current administration has made expanding jail bed capacity a top priority, leading to increased raids in interior cities.

The inclusion of Section 214 in the bill—which allows the DHS Secretary to reprogram and transfer funds into ICE operations “as necessary”—further inflames critics. They argue this provides a “slush fund” that renders any legislative “guardrails” toothless, allowing the agency to move money into detention regardless of Congressional intent.