House Judiciary panel advances reconciliation text with $81 billion for immigration enforcement amid fierce debate over due process

The House Judiciary Committee on an extended markup advanced a reconciliation "committee print" that would provide roughly $81 billion in new funding tied mainly to immigration enforcement, regulatory rollbacks and other items, and transmitted the text to the Budget Committee after hours of debate and dozens of amendments.

Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) opened the session by framing the measure as a response to what he called an unprecedented surge of unlawful migration and said the panel’s text would “provide a total of $81,000,000,000 in funding” across agencies to strengthen enforcement. He characterized the proposal as necessary to secure the border and support enforcement operations.

Democrats pushed repeatedly for changes they said would protect civil liberties and communities. Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told the committee the package risked “stripping the courts of their power” and repeatedly warned that the measure would enable deportations without adequate judicial oversight. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and other Democrats criticized the bill’s funding priorities and legal changes and urged protections for asylum seekers and for people who could be wrongly targeted.

What the committee advanced - Funding and enforcement details: The chair’s opening summary and subsequent debate described $81 billion in new spending for homeland security, the Department of Justice and related programs, including a headline $45 billion allocation referenced for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention and removal operations. Members read portions of the text aloud and committee staff described line items that target detention capacity, personnel, transportation and legal support for immigration cases. - Fees and offsets: The package also included multiple immigration-related fee changes designed to raise revenue — a $1,000 fee for filing an asylum application, fees on Temporary Protected Status renewals and diversity-visa registration fees among others — with CBO revenue estimates cited during debate. - Manager’s amendment and other changes: Committee members adopted a manager’s amendment that made several technical and programmatic edits (the amendment changed the ESTA fee formula, adjusted a Brand USA transfer amount and increased Secret Service funding, among other technical edits). The manager’s amendment was adopted by voice vote and the full, amended committee print was ordered transmitted to the Budget Committee.

Democratic objections and amendment fights Democrats offered and pressed multiple amendments that sought to limit or condition funding and to preserve legal protections. Several recurring themes emerged in committee debate: - Due process and U.S. citizens: Democratic members repeatedly asked the committee to prohibit use of funds to detain or deport U.S. citizens and to require that funds be conditioned on ensuring meaningful due process for people removed from the country. Those amendments failed on roll calls; recorded tallies quoted in the transcript show multiple close, recorded votes defeating those proposals. - Deportations overseas and El Salvador: Members cited reports that some people removed after summary administrative processes had been sent to facilities in El Salvador and urged the committee to bar any use of funds for detention of people in foreign facilities. An amendment to prohibit funds for detention in foreign countries was defeated in a recorded vote. - Children and vulnerable people: Democratic speakers emphasized protections for unaccompanied children, including sustained criticism of any proposal that would lengthen or institutionalize family detention or require intrusive strip‑searches or body‑marking examinations (tattoo checks) of minors. Members warned that private, for‑profit detention operators would be the likely recipients of expanded detention funding. - Judicial contempt and enforcement of court orders: Democrats repeatedly highlighted provisions in the text that they said would limit courts’ ability to enforce contempt orders against the executive branch. Those provisions drew particularly sharp criticism during exchanges about recent court rulings and the reported removal of people without adequate hearings.

Floor of items and key votes - Manager’s amendment: Adopted by the committee (voice vote). The manager’s amendment reduced the ESTA fee in one provision and increased funding to the Secret Service, among other technical changes; the chair urged adoption and the committee accepted the manager’s amendment. - Transmission: After debate and a series of recorded votes on individual amendments, the committee voted to transmit the committee print and accompanying materials to the Budget Committee. The clerk recorded the motion for transmission and the committee ordered the committee print transmitted.

What failed on recorded votes: Several Democratic amendments to bar use of funds to detain or deport U.S. citizens, to require explicit due‑process protections for people removed with government funds, and to bar detention of migrants in foreign facilities were defeated in recorded roll calls. Other amendments seeking to strike fee provisions or to protect privacy and shelters for survivors of domestic violence similarly failed to advance.

Why it matters The Judiciary Committee’s text would reshape immigration enforcement funding and some agency authorities if enacted into final reconciliation legislation. Because the provisions intersect with constitutional and statutory protections that are often litigated in federal courts, members warned in committee that the package will prompt further litigation over due process, separation of powers and the role of the courts in policing executive action.

Next steps The amended committee print was transmitted to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the larger reconciliation package. Multiple members said they would continue to press their amendments and concerns on the floor and in subsequent conference or budget negotiations. Several members also said they intended to pursue oversight letters and document requests about specific operations (including transfers of people to facilities abroad) that they identified during the markup.

Ending note The markup exposed sharp partisan divisions about enforcement, fees, and the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The committee adopted the manager’s edits and moved the text forward, but the recorded votes in committee make clear that the underlying issues — how to fund enforcement, who pays fees, and how to preserve judicial review and due process — will remain central in the broader reconciliation fight on the floor and in the courts.