Last month, Democratic lawmakers blocked federal funding for the Department of Homeland Security over the public conduct of immigration enforcement officials. Six weeks into that stalemate, the president has placed those officers and agents squarely back in public view – at the country’s busiest airports.

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel arrived at their new posts across the United States on Monday to aid fellow federal workers, delays wore on at terminals from New York to Houston. Despite mounting discontent from constituents facing travel setbacks, members of Congress don’t appear close to a compromise to fund DHS, which houses both ICE and the airport workers of the Transportation Security Administration.

Expected negotiations didn’t happen on Monday after President Donald Trump said he wanted to wait until a new DHS secretary is confirmed. Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin was confirmed Monday night.

Why We Wrote This

The arrival of Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, expected at more than a dozen major airports in the U.S., was the latest move in a standoff between Republicans and Democrats over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Despite the high-profile deployment, negotiations remained stalled.

Meanwhile, those TSA employees continued to work without pay, as staffing issues appeared to keep many security lines at a crawl.

“I think it increases talking points for Democrats who are critical of ICE,” says Cayce Myers, a political communications expert at Virginia Tech University. “I think it’s also going to increase the talking points for President Trump, who is saying that he’s having to resort to these alternative means to keep TSA going.”

At the end of the week, both the House and Senate are scheduled to head into a two-week Easter recess, meaning the DHS shutdown could stretch into mid-April. At that point, it would be the longest government shutdown ever.

Airports still affected

Federal immigration agents arrived, or were expected to arrive, at more than a dozen airports on Monday. DHS declined to confirm the locations, citing operational security, but reporters tracked ICE arrivals at airports, including in Phoenix, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Houston, New York City, and New Orleans. (An incident Sunday at LaGuardia Airport in New York, in which a jet that was landing hit a fire truck on the runway, was not related to the DHS funding shutdown.)

“While the Democrats continue to put the safety, dependability, and ease of our air travel at risk, President Trump is taking action to deploy hundreds of ICE officers, that are currently funded by Congress, to airports being adversely impacted,” said Lauren Bis, the acting assistant DHS secretary, in a statement. Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport on Monday urged travelers to arrive at least four hours early because of “TSA staffing constraints.”

The city’s mayor said the incoming ICE personnel includes two groups: Enforcement and Removal Operations, whose officers focus on civil immigration enforcement, and Homeland Security Investigations, whose agents pursue a broad range of criminal investigations.

ICE will help TSA officials with tasks such as “line management and crowd control within the domestic terminals,” said Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens. “Federal officials have indicated that this deployment is not intended to conduct immigration enforcement activities.”

Mr. Trump has suggested otherwise as he’s pitched the plan himself. He said he would move ICE agents into airports to provide security and to arrest unauthorized immigrants, “with heavy emphasis on those from Somalia.” The president also said that border czar Tom Homan was in charge.

Mixed reactions from officials

In Louisiana, where ICE personnel were sent to the international airport in New Orleans, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said he would welcome the National Guard at airports in his state to ease security lines – with the president’s approval.

The White House appeared open to sending in troops.

If ICE isn’t enough, “I’ll bring in the National Guard,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Monday.

In Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson said he has concerns about the federal deployment.

We will “use every tool we have to ensure that people, no matter their immigration status, can travel to and from Chicago safely and without harassment from the federal government,” Mayor Johnson said in a statement to the Monitor. He said Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport could expect around 75 ICE officers “across multiple shifts” beginning on Monday, in support roles that did not include screening.

Officers have been “walking through the parking lots, walking through the terminals,” says Scott Mechkowski, a former deputy field office director at ICE. “They’re looking for security threats ... like unattended bags.”

Meanwhile, “I know they’re enthusiastic” about the airport plan, says Pete Stewart, another retired ICE officer, speaking of those with whom he remains in touch. He says the new assignment could boost enforcement numbers.

While checking IDs at airports, ICE officers will “be able to get more arrests,” he says. “It’s a lot easier. ... It’s not like you have to go pound on people’s doors and do traffic stops.”

Groups that advocate for immigrants pushed back, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sending ICE to airports is meant to “inspire fear among families,” said Naureen Shah, ACLU director of policy and government affairs for immigration, in a statement. “This is the exact opposite of what the American people are clamoring for, which are real, enforceable changes to rein in ICE and Border Patrol’s cruel deportation and detention obsession.”

A union for TSA workers criticized the deployment of ICE personnel to airports – even as it reported that more than 50,000 employees have worked without pay for more than a month, and that hundreds have left.

“Putting untrained personnel at security checkpoints does not fill a gap. It creates one,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. TSA workers deserve to be paid, he said, “not replaced by untrained, armed agents who have shown how dangerous they can be.”

AFGE isn’t the only union to pan the plan. In a joint statement, flight attendant union leaders said dispatching ICE agents to airports “creates contradictory missions, as attempts to question passengers about immigration status may distract them from ensuring airport security.”

Standoff situation

After DHS law enforcement personnel fatally shot Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis nurse, on Jan. 24, Senate Democrats refused to pass an annual funding bill, which would have allocated $64.4 billion to the department, without significant changes to hold ICE and Customs and Border Protection more accountable to the public.

Democrats’ demands include banning agents from ICE and CBP from wearing masks, and requiring them to obtain judicial warrants signed by a judge – instead of administrative warrants signed by department officials – to enter people’s homes. These two requests have been sticking points for Republicans, who say those measures will constrain immigration agents and expose them to doxing.

On social media on Monday, Mr. Trump asked ICE not to wear masks at airports, though he said he was a “BIG” proponent of masks for agents dealing with violent criminals.

DHS has been shut down since Feb. 14. In addition to ICE and CBP, the shutdown affects other agencies housed within the department, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the TSA.

Even without renewed DHS funding, ICE and CBP have enough money, through last year’s Republican tax-and-spending bill, to continue immigration enforcement operations.

Democrats have repeatedly proposed bills to fund other parts of DHS while lawmakers negotiate reforms to ICE and CBP. Republicans generally say the agency must be funded as a whole, though some, including Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, have expressed support for voting to fund portions of DHS.

“I think it does start to weigh heavily on the psyche of voters back home that we’re lurching from one shutdown to another,” says Kevin Madden, a GOP strategist and a former adviser for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. He says Democrats in particular risk “paying a price” with voters for refusing to fund the department.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump has taken a central role in negotiations.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

The president “has done everything he can to own the shutdown at TSA and the lines at airports,” says Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist.

On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune proposed to Mr. Trump that Republicans could vote to fund other aspects of DHS and wait to pass funding for ICE and CBP in a separate budget bill. The president refused, demanding that Congress fund all of DHS and adding that they need to first pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that would mandate people prove their U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and to show ID at the polls. It faces strong opposition in the Senate.

Last month, Democratic lawmakers blocked federal funding for the Department of Homeland Security over the public conduct of immigration enforcement officials. Six weeks into that stalemate, the president has placed those officers and agents squarely back in public view – at the country’s busiest airports.

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel arrived at their new posts across the United States on Monday to aid fellow federal workers, delays wore on at terminals from New York to Houston. Despite mounting discontent from constituents facing travel setbacks, members of Congress don’t appear close to a compromise to fund DHS, which houses both ICE and the airport workers of the Transportation Security Administration.

Expected negotiations didn’t happen on Monday after President Donald Trump said he wanted to wait until a new DHS secretary is confirmed. Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin was confirmed Monday night.

Why We Wrote This

The arrival of Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, expected at more than a dozen major airports in the U.S., was the latest move in a standoff between Republicans and Democrats over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Despite the high-profile deployment, negotiations remained stalled.

Meanwhile, those TSA employees continued to work without pay, as staffing issues appeared to keep many security lines at a crawl.

“I think it increases talking points for Democrats who are critical of ICE,” says Cayce Myers, a political communications expert at Virginia Tech University. “I think it’s also going to increase the talking points for President Trump, who is saying that he’s having to resort to these alternative means to keep TSA going.”

At the end of the week, both the House and Senate are scheduled to head into a two-week Easter recess, meaning the DHS shutdown could stretch into mid-April. At that point, it would be the longest government shutdown ever.

Airports still affected

Federal immigration agents arrived, or were expected to arrive, at more than a dozen airports on Monday. DHS declined to confirm the locations, citing operational security, but reporters tracked ICE arrivals at airports, including in Phoenix, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Houston, New York City, and New Orleans. (An incident Sunday at LaGuardia Airport in New York, in which a jet that was landing hit a fire truck on the runway, was not related to the DHS funding shutdown.)

“While the Democrats continue to put the safety, dependability, and ease of our air travel at risk, President Trump is taking action to deploy hundreds of ICE officers, that are currently funded by Congress, to airports being adversely impacted,” said Lauren Bis, the acting assistant DHS secretary, in a statement. Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport on Monday urged travelers to arrive at least four hours early because of “TSA staffing constraints.”

The city’s mayor said the incoming ICE personnel includes two groups: Enforcement and Removal Operations, whose officers focus on civil immigration enforcement, and Homeland Security Investigations, whose agents pursue a broad range of criminal investigations.

ICE will help TSA officials with tasks such as “line management and crowd control within the domestic terminals,” said Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens. “Federal officials have indicated that this deployment is not intended to conduct immigration enforcement activities.”

Mr. Trump has suggested otherwise as he’s pitched the plan himself. He said he would move ICE agents into airports to provide security and to arrest unauthorized immigrants, “with heavy emphasis on those from Somalia.” The president also said that border czar Tom Homan was in charge.

Mixed reactions from officials

In Louisiana, where ICE personnel were sent to the international airport in New Orleans, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said he would welcome the National Guard at airports in his state to ease security lines – with the president’s approval.

The White House appeared open to sending in troops.

If ICE isn’t enough, “I’ll bring in the National Guard,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Monday.

In Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson said he has concerns about the federal deployment.

We will “use every tool we have to ensure that people, no matter their immigration status, can travel to and from Chicago safely and without harassment from the federal government,” Mayor Johnson said in a statement to the Monitor. He said Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport could expect around 75 ICE officers “across multiple shifts” beginning on Monday, in support roles that did not include screening.

Officers have been “walking through the parking lots, walking through the terminals,” says Scott Mechkowski, a former deputy field office director at ICE. “They’re looking for security threats ... like unattended bags.”

Meanwhile, “I know they’re enthusiastic” about the airport plan, says Pete Stewart, another retired ICE officer, speaking of those with whom he remains in touch. He says the new assignment could boost enforcement numbers.

While checking IDs at airports, ICE officers will “be able to get more arrests,” he says. “It’s a lot easier. ... It’s not like you have to go pound on people’s doors and do traffic stops.”

Groups that advocate for immigrants pushed back, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sending ICE to airports is meant to “inspire fear among families,” said Naureen Shah, ACLU director of policy and government affairs for immigration, in a statement. “This is the exact opposite of what the American people are clamoring for, which are real, enforceable changes to rein in ICE and Border Patrol’s cruel deportation and detention obsession.”

A union for TSA workers criticized the deployment of ICE personnel to airports – even as it reported that more than 50,000 employees have worked without pay for more than a month, and that hundreds have left.

“Putting untrained personnel at security checkpoints does not fill a gap. It creates one,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. TSA workers deserve to be paid, he said, “not replaced by untrained, armed agents who have shown how dangerous they can be.”

AFGE isn’t the only union to pan the plan. In a joint statement, flight attendant union leaders said dispatching ICE agents to airports “creates contradictory missions, as attempts to question passengers about immigration status may distract them from ensuring airport security.”

Standoff situation

After DHS law enforcement personnel fatally shot Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis nurse, on Jan. 24, Senate Democrats refused to pass an annual funding bill, which would have allocated $64.4 billion to the department, without significant changes to hold ICE and Customs and Border Protection more accountable to the public.

Democrats’ demands include banning agents from ICE and CBP from wearing masks, and requiring them to obtain judicial warrants signed by a judge – instead of administrative warrants signed by department officials – to enter people’s homes. These two requests have been sticking points for Republicans, who say those measures will constrain immigration agents and expose them to doxing.

On social media on Monday, Mr. Trump asked ICE not to wear masks at airports, though he said he was a “BIG” proponent of masks for agents dealing with violent criminals.

DHS has been shut down since Feb. 14. In addition to ICE and CBP, the shutdown affects other agencies housed within the department, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the TSA.

Even without renewed DHS funding, ICE and CBP have enough money, through last year’s Republican tax-and-spending bill, to continue immigration enforcement operations.

Democrats have repeatedly proposed bills to fund other parts of DHS while lawmakers negotiate reforms to ICE and CBP. Republicans generally say the agency must be funded as a whole, though some, including Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, have expressed support for voting to fund portions of DHS.

“I think it does start to weigh heavily on the psyche of voters back home that we’re lurching from one shutdown to another,” says Kevin Madden, a GOP strategist and a former adviser for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. He says Democrats in particular risk “paying a price” with voters for refusing to fund the department.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump has taken a central role in negotiations.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

The president “has done everything he can to own the shutdown at TSA and the lines at airports,” says Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist.

On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune proposed to Mr. Trump that Republicans could vote to fund other aspects of DHS and wait to pass funding for ICE and CBP in a separate budget bill. The president refused, demanding that Congress fund all of DHS and adding that they need to first pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that would mandate people prove their U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and to show ID at the polls. It faces strong opposition in the Senate.

Republicans are divided over employing a rarely used Senate procedure to pass a voter ID bill ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Many Republicans want to force Democrats to use what’s known as a talking filibuster against the SAVE America Act, a bill requiring Americans to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote, then to present photo ID at the polls. The bill, which passed the House and is championed by President Donald Trump, faces obstruction by Senate Democrats.

Republicans such as Utah Sen. Mike Lee want to get around that by moving to a talking filibuster, a lengthy process that would force opposing Democrats to speak for hours on end and grind the Senate to a halt.

Why We Wrote This

In the Senate, Democrats are in the minority but can stand in the way of the SAVE America Act. Republicans, despite pressure from President Donald Trump to pass the bill, don't appear likely to take advantage of the talking filibuster – even though some in their party are pushing to do so.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota says he won’t do that. Instead, Republicans plan to hold up debate for the next week or so to force Democrats to go on the record and publicly defend their opposition before voting on the bill. This wouldn’t be a talking filibuster and is expected to lead to a failed vote. The Senate is expected to kick off this process Tuesday.

Here’s how a talking filibuster would work, and why it’s causing so much controversy.

What’s the difference between a talking filibuster and a regular filibuster?

You won’t actually find the word “filibuster” in the Senate rules. It refers to a long-standing Senate practice of holding up debate to block a law’s passage or prolonging debate before a vote.

Most bills require a simple majority – 51 votes – to pass the Senate. But the chamber requires three-fifths of the senators – or 60 lawmakers – to first agree to wrap up debate and vote on the bill in question. That’s where the filibuster comes in.

If a majority leader knows his party doesn’t have the support of 60 members, the leader typically won’t bother putting a bill forward, because it won’t get past debate. But there’s an alternative: letting debate play out for as long as it takes to wear down a bill’s opponents.

A talking filibuster generally starts when the majority leader moves to bring a bill to the floor. If a simple majority passes the motion, the floor is open for debate. Under Senate rules, each member has at least two opportunities to take the floor. They can speak as long as they want, provided they can remain standing without eating or using the bathroom.

During this time, senators who oppose the bill in question can present as many amendments as they like, and each amendment can have its own period of debate.

It’s a battle of endurance that can last weeks or even months. But if the party pushing the bill can wear out its opponents instead of trying to get 60 votes to wrap up debate early, it can move forward and pass the bill on a simple majority. This hasn’t been done successfully in modern history.

Why is this such a challenge for Republicans?

President Donald Trump has been one of the SAVE America Act’s most vocal supporters. He’s threatened not to sign most legislation until the bill passes, while adding new demands such as a ban on most mail-in voting. The act is designed to curtail voting by noncitizens, which data shows does occur but is rare enough not to influence election outcomes.

Democrats argue that the bill will disenfranchise millions of voters who aren’t able to produce the required citizenship documents.

The pressure from the president is putting Mr. Thune in a bind. He insists the math is not there for Republicans to pass the bill, even if they did use a talking filibuster.

If each Democratic senator used their allotted time for two 12-hour speeches, a talking filibuster would last 47 days. During that time, the Senate could not move forward on other business – such as passing a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

The talking filibuster presents another thorny problem for Republicans: At least 51 would have to stay near the Senate chambers while Democratic members were speaking. That’s so a Democrat couldn’t earn themselves a break by calling a quorum, a move that would require a majority of senators to come to the floor and confirm enough members are present for the Senate to keep doing business.

“In practice, a dedicated minority can quite easily obstruct the majority,” says Steven S. Smith, professor emeritus of political science at Washington University in St. Louis.

Mr. Thune says the challenge of keeping 51 GOP senators unified over weeks – and the cost of missed business in the meantime – makes the talking filibuster a nonstarter. He has faced strong backlash from many Republican senators, who say the SAVE America Act is important enough to warrant a try. House Republicans are also threatening to oppose any Senate bills until the bill passes.

The Senate’s top Democrat, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, reportedly said on Sunday that Democrats are ready for “every single thing” Republicans might do to try to pass the bill.

What does this mean long-term?

The dispute about the talking filibuster highlights a change in what used to be a signature aspect of the Senate: open debate. For many, the filibuster embodies the ideal that one party must make an effort to get the other on board. In short, the filibuster might force the majority to debate – and work with – the minority party to get 60 votes, encouraging compromise instead of purely partisan lawmaking.

“The self-image of the Senate is set back in the 1930s,” says Gregory Koger, the author of “Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate.” Members prided themselves on having “great debates about the issues of the day.”

While some conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation, have called for a return to the open-debate style of the talking filibuster, saying it would promote transparency, other experts and lawmakers say the Senate has moved on.

The government’s size and scope have expanded over the centuries, and that’s reflected in senators’ growing workload. Air travel has also accustomed members to spending less time in Washington and more at home with their families and campaigning in their districts.

“Senators’ schedules are way too packed, and nobody wants to really go through the pain and suffering of a talking filibuster, whether you’re in the majority or the minority,” says Gregory Wawro, the co-author of an analysis on the causes and consequences of filibusters.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Lately, even the more modern “silent” filibuster – in which leaders won’t bring a bill to the floor without the support of at least 60 senators – has come under scrutiny. Mr. Trump has called for ending it multiple times, as have both Democratic and Republican senators.

Despite this, a majority of senators, particularly Republicans, support maintaining the tradition, saying it protects the minority party’s opinions and encourages compromise.

Republicans are divided over employing a rarely used Senate procedure to pass a voter ID bill ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Many Republicans want to force Democrats to use what’s known as a talking filibuster against the SAVE America Act, a bill requiring Americans to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote, then to present photo ID at the polls. The bill, which passed the House and is championed by President Donald Trump, faces obstruction by Senate Democrats.

Republicans such as Utah Sen. Mike Lee want to get around that by moving to a talking filibuster, a lengthy process that would force opposing Democrats to speak for hours on end and grind the Senate to a halt.

Why We Wrote This

In the Senate, Democrats are in the minority but can stand in the way of the SAVE America Act. Republicans, despite pressure from President Donald Trump to pass the bill, don't appear likely to take advantage of the talking filibuster – even though some in their party are pushing to do so.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota says he won’t do that. Instead, Republicans plan to hold up debate for the next week or so to force Democrats to go on the record and publicly defend their opposition before voting on the bill. This wouldn’t be a talking filibuster and is expected to lead to a failed vote. The Senate is expected to kick off this process Tuesday.

Here’s how a talking filibuster would work, and why it’s causing so much controversy.

What’s the difference between a talking filibuster and a regular filibuster?

You won’t actually find the word “filibuster” in the Senate rules. It refers to a long-standing Senate practice of holding up debate to block a law’s passage or prolonging debate before a vote.

Most bills require a simple majority – 51 votes – to pass the Senate. But the chamber requires three-fifths of the senators – or 60 lawmakers – to first agree to wrap up debate and vote on the bill in question. That’s where the filibuster comes in.

If a majority leader knows his party doesn’t have the support of 60 members, the leader typically won’t bother putting a bill forward, because it won’t get past debate. But there’s an alternative: letting debate play out for as long as it takes to wear down a bill’s opponents.

A talking filibuster generally starts when the majority leader moves to bring a bill to the floor. If a simple majority passes the motion, the floor is open for debate. Under Senate rules, each member has at least two opportunities to take the floor. They can speak as long as they want, provided they can remain standing without eating or using the bathroom.

During this time, senators who oppose the bill in question can present as many amendments as they like, and each amendment can have its own period of debate.

It’s a battle of endurance that can last weeks or even months. But if the party pushing the bill can wear out its opponents instead of trying to get 60 votes to wrap up debate early, it can move forward and pass the bill on a simple majority. This hasn’t been done successfully in modern history.

Why is this such a challenge for Republicans?

President Donald Trump has been one of the SAVE America Act’s most vocal supporters. He’s threatened not to sign most legislation until the bill passes, while adding new demands such as a ban on most mail-in voting. The act is designed to curtail voting by noncitizens, which data shows does occur but is rare enough not to influence election outcomes.

Democrats argue that the bill will disenfranchise millions of voters who aren’t able to produce the required citizenship documents.

The pressure from the president is putting Mr. Thune in a bind. He insists the math is not there for Republicans to pass the bill, even if they did use a talking filibuster.

If each Democratic senator used their allotted time for two 12-hour speeches, a talking filibuster would last 47 days. During that time, the Senate could not move forward on other business – such as passing a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

The talking filibuster presents another thorny problem for Republicans: At least 51 would have to stay near the Senate chambers while Democratic members were speaking. That’s so a Democrat couldn’t earn themselves a break by calling a quorum, a move that would require a majority of senators to come to the floor and confirm enough members are present for the Senate to keep doing business.

“In practice, a dedicated minority can quite easily obstruct the majority,” says Steven S. Smith, professor emeritus of political science at Washington University in St. Louis.

Mr. Thune says the challenge of keeping 51 GOP senators unified over weeks – and the cost of missed business in the meantime – makes the talking filibuster a nonstarter. He has faced strong backlash from many Republican senators, who say the SAVE America Act is important enough to warrant a try. House Republicans are also threatening to oppose any Senate bills until the bill passes.

The Senate’s top Democrat, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, reportedly said on Sunday that Democrats are ready for “every single thing” Republicans might do to try to pass the bill.

What does this mean long-term?

The dispute about the talking filibuster highlights a change in what used to be a signature aspect of the Senate: open debate. For many, the filibuster embodies the ideal that one party must make an effort to get the other on board. In short, the filibuster might force the majority to debate – and work with – the minority party to get 60 votes, encouraging compromise instead of purely partisan lawmaking.

“The self-image of the Senate is set back in the 1930s,” says Gregory Koger, the author of “Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate.” Members prided themselves on having “great debates about the issues of the day.”

While some conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation, have called for a return to the open-debate style of the talking filibuster, saying it would promote transparency, other experts and lawmakers say the Senate has moved on.

The government’s size and scope have expanded over the centuries, and that’s reflected in senators’ growing workload. Air travel has also accustomed members to spending less time in Washington and more at home with their families and campaigning in their districts.

“Senators’ schedules are way too packed, and nobody wants to really go through the pain and suffering of a talking filibuster, whether you’re in the majority or the minority,” says Gregory Wawro, the co-author of an analysis on the causes and consequences of filibusters.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Lately, even the more modern “silent” filibuster – in which leaders won’t bring a bill to the floor without the support of at least 60 senators – has come under scrutiny. Mr. Trump has called for ending it multiple times, as have both Democratic and Republican senators.

Despite this, a majority of senators, particularly Republicans, support maintaining the tradition, saying it protects the minority party’s opinions and encourages compromise.

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin appears on track to become the next Homeland Security secretary this month. He will be taking over a hulking agency that is strained by a government shutdown, on alert for heightened risks from war in Iran, and under pressure to carry out mass deportations.

Mr. Mullin’s rise to a Cabinet nomination might once have seemed unlikely to the rancher, former mixed martial arts fighter, and collegiate wrestler, who entered Congress in 2013 as a political outsider. “I didn’t even buy my first suit until after I won the primary,” the Republican said as a House freshman.

Around that time, Mr. Mullin pledged to serve no more than three terms – though he wound up serving five before running for the Senate. He said then that he didn’t want to waste time in Washington and “become part of the problem.”

Why We Wrote This

A leadership change is underway at the Department of Homeland Security at a critical time for the agency. Republicans are counting on Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a former wrestler and plumbing business owner, to navigate pressures including a loss of government funding.

President Donald Trump sees the Oklahoman as a solution. Two weeks ago, the president fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem after months of mounting controversies tied to her leadership, including conflict of interest concerns. When Mr. Trump tapped Mr. Mullin as her replacement, dubbing him a “MAGA Warrior,” the lawmaker expressed a mix of gratitude and surprise. Mr. Mullin will face his Senate colleagues at a confirmation hearing Wednesday.

“President Trump ran on restoring law and order, and he quickly delivered the most secure U.S. border in American history,” Mr. Mullin said in a social media post after news of his nomination. He said he looked forward to supporting Mr. Trump’s mission “to safeguard the American people and defend the homeland.”

If confirmed, the father of six will become the boss to more than 260,000 – overseeing airport and border security, immigration enforcement, the Secret Service, and the Coast Guard. He’ll be taking over at a tense time. A partial shutdown at DHS has strained resources for five weeks and left thousands without pay, while the war in Iran heightens threats to the homeland. The funding freeze began as Democrats in Congress demanded changes around the conduct of immigration officers and agents after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. Lawmakers still do not appear close to a resolution.

Mr. Mullin, who owned and ran a plumbing company prior to his years in government, lacks a law enforcement background. But that’s been true of most Senate-confirmed secretaries since DHS was formed after 9/11. A top qualification might be his loyalty, and resulting access, to President Trump. Observers also say Mr. Mullin’s bipartisan connections might serve him well during the confirmation process and beyond.

“He’s actually very well liked on both sides. He’s somebody that is going to be fair,” Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas told the Monitor. He predicts that Mr. Mullin “won’t have any trouble getting confirmed.”

Rural roots

The first-term senator grew up in rural Westville, an eastern Oklahoma town where his family has a cow-calf operation. He’s been spotted in the halls of Congress in a cowboy hat.

Mr. Mullin married his high school sweetheart in the late 1990s, around the time the Christian says he “gave my heart to the Lord.” His father, dealing with health issues, offered the newlyweds his plumbing company deep in debt.

The young Mullin says he saved the business, then started several others. Red tape, he says, propelled him into politics.

“I got fed up with the fact that my biggest threat, to our way of life, is the federal government,” he told an interviewer in 2013. “I can’t keep up with the amount of regulations.”

Mr. Mullin spent a decade in the House before joining the Senate following a special election in 2022.

His athletic legacy, as a wrestler and mixed martial arts fighter, followed him to Washington. A decade ago, the Oklahoma chapter of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame honored Mr. Mullin with an “Outstanding American” award, noting that a “recurring shoulder injury” cut short his dream of wrestling at a major university. He left higher education without a bachelor’s degree – reportedly the only current senator without one. Mr. Mullin did earn an associate’s degree from Oklahoma State University.

“Faith and family are very important to Markwayne,” says Lee Roy Smith, executive director of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame and a former wrestler himself. “It seems like everybody kind of knows him, because he’s a very friendly guy,” says Mr. Smith, who says that Mr. Mullin is a donor to his organization. “He’s tough when he needs to be tough. But he’s a networker and a collaborator.”

Mr. Smith says the senator has helped get Mr. Trump to attend some NCAA wrestling championship matches. According to Mr. Mullin, the president comforted one of the senator’s sons following a severe wrestling injury in 2020, calling to check in every week for 18 months.

“I’m not saying [President Tump]’s the most, you know, moral man out there,” Mr. Mullin told a podcast in 2024. “But as far as being a father and a leader, the guy’s got that right.”

Mr. Mullin has reciprocated that loyalty. On Jan. 6, 2021, he voted in favor of blocking President Joe Biden’s election victory (after helping to barricade a U.S. Capitol door against rioters seeking entry earlier that day).

Track record in Congress

The lawmaker has faced some bumps in the road. Mr. Mullin made headlines in 2023 for challenging a union leader to a fight during a Senate hearing, telling him, "If you want to run your mouth. ... We can finish it here.” Two years later, the two men made enough amends to endorse a nominee for labor secretary together.

Mr. Mullin has also fielded allegations of financial disclosure violations; the senator’s office has acknowledged late filings. The New York Times recently reported that his assets grew from around $2.8 million to $9 million when he first entered Congress, to between $29 million and $97 million in 2024. Much of that appears to have come from the value of his plumbing company, which he sold to a private equity firm in 2021. He also made a number of lucrative stock trades during his time in Congress. Members of Congress are not prohibited from trading individual stocks.

If confirmed, Mr. Mullin would arrive at DHS with some relevant expertise. For one, Mr. Mullin has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As DHS secretary, he would oversee the Coast Guard, which alongside other service branches has surged to the southern border.

An enrolled citizen of the Cherokee Nation, Mr. Mullin has also served on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. In Minnesota and beyond, tribal members have alleged that racial profiling by federal immigration officials has led to unjustified stops and arrests. DHS has denied such claims.

Proponents of strong immigration enforcement say it’s important for the DHS secretary to respect the institutional expertise of officials beneath them.

The men and women of DHS “are just wanting somebody to lead them,” says Scott Mechkowski, a retired deputy field office director at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “You need to have somebody that’s not there trying to brand themselves, and catapult themselves politically, or financially, to the next level.”

After being sidelined by the outgoing secretary, White House border czar Tom Homan is making a “concerted effort” to build rapport with Mr. Mullin, Politico has reported.

“Man for the moment”

MAGA credentials aside, Mr. Mullin has a reputation for extending a hand across the aisle.

He has led bipartisan workouts at a House gym. Some colleagues have nicknamed the senator the “House whisperer” – after his knack for liaising with the lower chamber.

Sen. John Fetterman has already made clear that Mr. Mullin has his vote. “I don’t know why other Democrats wouldn’t want to vote to support him for a new chapter here,” he told reporters last week. Elsewhere, the Pennsylvania Democrat has described Mr. Mullin as an upgrade from Ms. Noem, and as a “good dude.”

“We both agree that we’re not going to have anything like a tragedy like in Minneapolis,” Mr. Fetterman says. The focus now, he adds, is “secure our border, deport all the criminals.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Mullin enjoys strong endorsements from his colleagues on the right.

“Markwayne loves this country, and he’s going to do everything in his power to protect it, to protect our citizens,” GOP Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama told the Monitor.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“I think he is the man for the moment, and I think he’s going to meet it,” she says. “And the president knows that.”

Sarah Matusek reported from Denver, and Caitlin Babcock from Washington.

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin appears on track to become the next Homeland Security secretary this month. He will be taking over a hulking agency that is strained by a government shutdown, on alert for heightened risks from war in Iran, and under pressure to carry out mass deportations.

Mr. Mullin’s rise to a Cabinet nomination might once have seemed unlikely to the rancher, former mixed martial arts fighter, and collegiate wrestler, who entered Congress in 2013 as a political outsider. “I didn’t even buy my first suit until after I won the primary,” the Republican said as a House freshman.

Around that time, Mr. Mullin pledged to serve no more than three terms – though he wound up serving five before running for the Senate. He said then that he didn’t want to waste time in Washington and “become part of the problem.”

Why We Wrote This

A leadership change is underway at the Department of Homeland Security at a critical time for the agency. Republicans are counting on Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a former wrestler and plumbing business owner, to navigate pressures including a loss of government funding.

President Donald Trump sees the Oklahoman as a solution. Two weeks ago, the president fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem after months of mounting controversies tied to her leadership, including conflict of interest concerns. When Mr. Trump tapped Mr. Mullin as her replacement, dubbing him a “MAGA Warrior,” the lawmaker expressed a mix of gratitude and surprise. Mr. Mullin will face his Senate colleagues at a confirmation hearing Wednesday.

“President Trump ran on restoring law and order, and he quickly delivered the most secure U.S. border in American history,” Mr. Mullin said in a social media post after news of his nomination. He said he looked forward to supporting Mr. Trump’s mission “to safeguard the American people and defend the homeland.”

If confirmed, the father of six will become the boss to more than 260,000 – overseeing airport and border security, immigration enforcement, the Secret Service, and the Coast Guard. He’ll be taking over at a tense time. A partial shutdown at DHS has strained resources for five weeks and left thousands without pay, while the war in Iran heightens threats to the homeland. The funding freeze began as Democrats in Congress demanded changes around the conduct of immigration officers and agents after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. Lawmakers still do not appear close to a resolution.

Mr. Mullin, who owned and ran a plumbing company prior to his years in government, lacks a law enforcement background. But that’s been true of most Senate-confirmed secretaries since DHS was formed after 9/11. A top qualification might be his loyalty, and resulting access, to President Trump. Observers also say Mr. Mullin’s bipartisan connections might serve him well during the confirmation process and beyond.

“He’s actually very well liked on both sides. He’s somebody that is going to be fair,” Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas told the Monitor. He predicts that Mr. Mullin “won’t have any trouble getting confirmed.”

Rural roots

The first-term senator grew up in rural Westville, an eastern Oklahoma town where his family has a cow-calf operation. He’s been spotted in the halls of Congress in a cowboy hat.

Mr. Mullin married his high school sweetheart in the late 1990s, around the time the Christian says he “gave my heart to the Lord.” His father, dealing with health issues, offered the newlyweds his plumbing company deep in debt.

The young Mullin says he saved the business, then started several others. Red tape, he says, propelled him into politics.

“I got fed up with the fact that my biggest threat, to our way of life, is the federal government,” he told an interviewer in 2013. “I can’t keep up with the amount of regulations.”

Mr. Mullin spent a decade in the House before joining the Senate following a special election in 2022.

His athletic legacy, as a wrestler and mixed martial arts fighter, followed him to Washington. A decade ago, the Oklahoma chapter of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame honored Mr. Mullin with an “Outstanding American” award, noting that a “recurring shoulder injury” cut short his dream of wrestling at a major university. He left higher education without a bachelor’s degree – reportedly the only current senator without one. Mr. Mullin did earn an associate’s degree from Oklahoma State University.

“Faith and family are very important to Markwayne,” says Lee Roy Smith, executive director of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame and a former wrestler himself. “It seems like everybody kind of knows him, because he’s a very friendly guy,” says Mr. Smith, who says that Mr. Mullin is a donor to his organization. “He’s tough when he needs to be tough. But he’s a networker and a collaborator.”

Mr. Smith says the senator has helped get Mr. Trump to attend some NCAA wrestling championship matches. According to Mr. Mullin, the president comforted one of the senator’s sons following a severe wrestling injury in 2020, calling to check in every week for 18 months.

“I’m not saying [President Tump]’s the most, you know, moral man out there,” Mr. Mullin told a podcast in 2024. “But as far as being a father and a leader, the guy’s got that right.”

Mr. Mullin has reciprocated that loyalty. On Jan. 6, 2021, he voted in favor of blocking President Joe Biden’s election victory (after helping to barricade a U.S. Capitol door against rioters seeking entry earlier that day).

Track record in Congress

The lawmaker has faced some bumps in the road. Mr. Mullin made headlines in 2023 for challenging a union leader to a fight during a Senate hearing, telling him, "If you want to run your mouth. ... We can finish it here.” Two years later, the two men made enough amends to endorse a nominee for labor secretary together.

Mr. Mullin has also fielded allegations of financial disclosure violations; the senator’s office has acknowledged late filings. The New York Times recently reported that his assets grew from around $2.8 million to $9 million when he first entered Congress, to between $29 million and $97 million in 2024. Much of that appears to have come from the value of his plumbing company, which he sold to a private equity firm in 2021. He also made a number of lucrative stock trades during his time in Congress. Members of Congress are not prohibited from trading individual stocks.

If confirmed, Mr. Mullin would arrive at DHS with some relevant expertise. For one, Mr. Mullin has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As DHS secretary, he would oversee the Coast Guard, which alongside other service branches has surged to the southern border.

An enrolled citizen of the Cherokee Nation, Mr. Mullin has also served on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. In Minnesota and beyond, tribal members have alleged that racial profiling by federal immigration officials has led to unjustified stops and arrests. DHS has denied such claims.

Proponents of strong immigration enforcement say it’s important for the DHS secretary to respect the institutional expertise of officials beneath them.

The men and women of DHS “are just wanting somebody to lead them,” says Scott Mechkowski, a retired deputy field office director at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “You need to have somebody that’s not there trying to brand themselves, and catapult themselves politically, or financially, to the next level.”

After being sidelined by the outgoing secretary, White House border czar Tom Homan is making a “concerted effort” to build rapport with Mr. Mullin, Politico has reported.

“Man for the moment”

MAGA credentials aside, Mr. Mullin has a reputation for extending a hand across the aisle.

He has led bipartisan workouts at a House gym. Some colleagues have nicknamed the senator the “House whisperer” – after his knack for liaising with the lower chamber.

Sen. John Fetterman has already made clear that Mr. Mullin has his vote. “I don’t know why other Democrats wouldn’t want to vote to support him for a new chapter here,” he told reporters last week. Elsewhere, the Pennsylvania Democrat has described Mr. Mullin as an upgrade from Ms. Noem, and as a “good dude.”

“We both agree that we’re not going to have anything like a tragedy like in Minneapolis,” Mr. Fetterman says. The focus now, he adds, is “secure our border, deport all the criminals.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Mullin enjoys strong endorsements from his colleagues on the right.

“Markwayne loves this country, and he’s going to do everything in his power to protect it, to protect our citizens,” GOP Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama told the Monitor.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“I think he is the man for the moment, and I think he’s going to meet it,” she says. “And the president knows that.”

Sarah Matusek reported from Denver, and Caitlin Babcock from Washington.

At a time when housing prices are far outpacing the incomes of American families, a bipartisan bill aimed at making homes more affordable passed the Senate with an overwhelming 89-10 vote on Thursday.

But that bipartisanship could be offset by disagreements among Republican and Democratic senators and their colleagues in the House. While the Senate bill has incorporated many provisions from a similar bill in the lower chamber, there remain key differences that could keep it from going to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature. It’s also not clear whether Mr. Trump would sign it; he has said he won’t sign any legislation until the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote, is passed,

The president did, however, urge Congress in his State of the Union address to support one of the more controversial provisions of the bill, a cap on institutional investors in single family homes.

Why We Wrote This

In an era of political partisanship, Senate Republicans and Democrats came together on a bill aimed at addressing housing affordability. Yet disagreements in the House, which had passed its own version of the bill, could still derail the legislation.

The so-called build-to-rent provision, which would forbid major investors and companies from buying single-family homes if they already own 350 or more, also requires those who build or own 350 or more to sell them after seven years. Supporters say that would increase the number of homes available to individual buyers and help reduce costs. The House version of the bill did not include that provision.

“Our bill is fantastic. Their bill is good,” said Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who, with Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, co-sponsored the bill. “Putting those two together, we have the bicameral approach to housing.”

Sen. Brian Schatz (D) of Hawaii voted against the bill, and called the cap ofn 350 homes “bananas.”

“I don’t think people are clocking how bad this is going to be on the supply side,” he said after the vote. Banning build-to-rent housing will harm the rental market, he said.

If the two sides negotiate and compromise, and if President Trump signs the bill, the federal government will incentivize home construction by encouraging changes to local zoning rules and land-use regulations. The bill would also encourage changes in regulation on manufactured and modular housing, and expand existing savings programs for those receiving rental assistance, among other measures.

A shortage of housing

Housing became a featured issue in the 2024 presidential campaign. Between 2000 and 2024, median per-capita income has risen 155% (not adjusting for inflation), but median home prices have grown even more, around 207%, according to researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Lack of supply is a major factor. According to a 2025 McKinsey report, the U.S. housing shortage nearly doubled between 2012 and 2023, from 4.8 million to 8.2 million units.

Many Americans believe home ownership, long considered a major milestone in the American dream, is out of reach. According to a Harris poll conducted in November 2025, 53% of would-be first-time buyers do not expect to own a home until age 40 or later, because they say they can’t afford to. Seventy-one percent of aspiring homeowners say they are delaying at least one major life decision, such as marriage, children, or career changes, until they can afford to buy a home. For Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, that number is 84%.

Dozens of housing-related organizations, such as the National Housing Conference and the Institute for Real Estate Management, opposed the restriction on institutional investors in the Senate bill, saying it “would effectively eliminate” build-to-rent housing. But the legislation had support from a diverse coalition of industry leaders and advocacy groups, including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Realtors, the National Council of State Housing Agencies, AARP, and Habitat for Humanity.

Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer for the National Association of Realtors, says the bill is the “type of reform we have long advocated for.”

“It confronts barriers to housing at every level by helping communities plan and build for growth, streamlining federal processes that delay construction, modernizing financing options for manufactured and rural housing, improving access to credit, and strengthening awareness of VA home loan benefits,” she says. These are practical steps that can help boost supply, lower costs, and expand opportunity.”

American dream at risk?

According to a 2025 report by Apartment List, homeownership has become an unreachable goal for many young Americans. A February 2026 poll by The Washington Post found that 3 in 4 renters would like to own a home, but 65% say they won’t be able to do so in the near future.

The dream of home ownership has become more distant since the post-World War II housing boom. As troops returned from war, and homebuilders ramped up construction, 55% of those aged 30 (now aged 81-98) owned homes. For Baby Boomers, now aged 62-80, 48% owned homes at that age. For Gen X, that number had dropped to 42%, and for Millennials, only 33% of those aged in their 30s and 40s own their own home. Meanwhile, for Gen Z, now in their teens and 20s, 9% own their own home, and 30% are living with their parents.

Home ownership also remains a distant goal for many African Americans. As of 2024, three-quarters of white households own their homes, compared with 46.5% of Black households and about half of Hispanic households, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. One of the major causes is lack of supply. A 2025 study by McKinsey found that one-quarter of the housing gap, about 2 million units, is found in America’s largest cities, disproportionately affecting Black Americans who live in those communities.

Aniket Mehrotra is a policy coordinator in the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute, which studied the Senate bill. He says it “reflects how housing affordability is impacting everybody, every state and locality, suburban and urban. The solutions to meet the challenges need a big comprehensive bill that tackles the issue at the core.”

“Housing is an inherently public-private partnership, and the solution has to involve both government and the private sector,” he adds. In these political times, the Senate bill is revenue-neutral. It makes use of existing programs and does not require additional funding from the government. “The federal government is the enabler and the private sector is a doer.”

The House, however, must now take up the Senate’s changes to the bill. The provision to limit institutional investors’ ability to buy single-family homes, which President Trump supports, has come under sharp criticism from some conservative Republicans, who say it represents government intrusion into the marketplace.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the Senate version is not acceptable to the House.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“If the Senate thinks we’re gonna take this medicine, we’re gonna go to conference” committee, Mr. Scalise said on Wednesday, referring to the provision banning major investors.

Scalise said that House leadership will demand the addition of other House provisions excluded from the Senate bill, including a deregulation of community banks and a permanent ban on central bank digital currency.

At a time when housing prices are far outpacing the incomes of American families, a bipartisan bill aimed at making homes more affordable passed the Senate with an overwhelming 89-10 vote on Thursday.

But that bipartisanship could be offset by disagreements among Republican and Democratic senators and their colleagues in the House. While the Senate bill has incorporated many provisions from a similar bill in the lower chamber, there remain key differences that could keep it from going to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature. It’s also not clear whether Mr. Trump would sign it; he has said he won’t sign any legislation until the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote, is passed,

The president did, however, urge Congress in his State of the Union address to support one of the more controversial provisions of the bill, a cap on institutional investors in single family homes.

Why We Wrote This

In an era of political partisanship, Senate Republicans and Democrats came together on a bill aimed at addressing housing affordability. Yet disagreements in the House, which had passed its own version of the bill, could still derail the legislation.

The so-called build-to-rent provision, which would forbid major investors and companies from buying single-family homes if they already own 350 or more, also requires those who build or own 350 or more to sell them after seven years. Supporters say that would increase the number of homes available to individual buyers and help reduce costs. The House version of the bill did not include that provision.

“Our bill is fantastic. Their bill is good,” said Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who, with Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, co-sponsored the bill. “Putting those two together, we have the bicameral approach to housing.”

Sen. Brian Schatz (D) of Hawaii voted against the bill, and called the cap ofn 350 homes “bananas.”

“I don’t think people are clocking how bad this is going to be on the supply side,” he said after the vote. Banning build-to-rent housing will harm the rental market, he said.

If the two sides negotiate and compromise, and if President Trump signs the bill, the federal government will incentivize home construction by encouraging changes to local zoning rules and land-use regulations. The bill would also encourage changes in regulation on manufactured and modular housing, and expand existing savings programs for those receiving rental assistance, among other measures.

A shortage of housing

Housing became a featured issue in the 2024 presidential campaign. Between 2000 and 2024, median per-capita income has risen 155% (not adjusting for inflation), but median home prices have grown even more, around 207%, according to researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Lack of supply is a major factor. According to a 2025 McKinsey report, the U.S. housing shortage nearly doubled between 2012 and 2023, from 4.8 million to 8.2 million units.

Many Americans believe home ownership, long considered a major milestone in the American dream, is out of reach. According to a Harris poll conducted in November 2025, 53% of would-be first-time buyers do not expect to own a home until age 40 or later, because they say they can’t afford to. Seventy-one percent of aspiring homeowners say they are delaying at least one major life decision, such as marriage, children, or career changes, until they can afford to buy a home. For Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, that number is 84%.

Dozens of housing-related organizations, such as the National Housing Conference and the Institute for Real Estate Management, opposed the restriction on institutional investors in the Senate bill, saying it “would effectively eliminate” build-to-rent housing. But the legislation had support from a diverse coalition of industry leaders and advocacy groups, including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Realtors, the National Council of State Housing Agencies, AARP, and Habitat for Humanity.

Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer for the National Association of Realtors, says the bill is the “type of reform we have long advocated for.”

“It confronts barriers to housing at every level by helping communities plan and build for growth, streamlining federal processes that delay construction, modernizing financing options for manufactured and rural housing, improving access to credit, and strengthening awareness of VA home loan benefits,” she says. These are practical steps that can help boost supply, lower costs, and expand opportunity.”

American dream at risk?

According to a 2025 report by Apartment List, homeownership has become an unreachable goal for many young Americans. A February 2026 poll by The Washington Post found that 3 in 4 renters would like to own a home, but 65% say they won’t be able to do so in the near future.

The dream of home ownership has become more distant since the post-World War II housing boom. As troops returned from war, and homebuilders ramped up construction, 55% of those aged 30 (now aged 81-98) owned homes. For Baby Boomers, now aged 62-80, 48% owned homes at that age. For Gen X, that number had dropped to 42%, and for Millennials, only 33% of those aged in their 30s and 40s own their own home. Meanwhile, for Gen Z, now in their teens and 20s, 9% own their own home, and 30% are living with their parents.

Home ownership also remains a distant goal for many African Americans. As of 2024, three-quarters of white households own their homes, compared with 46.5% of Black households and about half of Hispanic households, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. One of the major causes is lack of supply. A 2025 study by McKinsey found that one-quarter of the housing gap, about 2 million units, is found in America’s largest cities, disproportionately affecting Black Americans who live in those communities.

Aniket Mehrotra is a policy coordinator in the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute, which studied the Senate bill. He says it “reflects how housing affordability is impacting everybody, every state and locality, suburban and urban. The solutions to meet the challenges need a big comprehensive bill that tackles the issue at the core.”

“Housing is an inherently public-private partnership, and the solution has to involve both government and the private sector,” he adds. In these political times, the Senate bill is revenue-neutral. It makes use of existing programs and does not require additional funding from the government. “The federal government is the enabler and the private sector is a doer.”

The House, however, must now take up the Senate’s changes to the bill. The provision to limit institutional investors’ ability to buy single-family homes, which President Trump supports, has come under sharp criticism from some conservative Republicans, who say it represents government intrusion into the marketplace.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the Senate version is not acceptable to the House.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“If the Senate thinks we’re gonna take this medicine, we’re gonna go to conference” committee, Mr. Scalise said on Wednesday, referring to the provision banning major investors.

Scalise said that House leadership will demand the addition of other House provisions excluded from the Senate bill, including a deregulation of community banks and a permanent ban on central bank digital currency.

Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines stunned lawmakers when, minutes before the March 4 filing deadline, he announced he would not seek reelection. Days later, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who has served in Congress for more than two decades, also said he would not run again, in a district that was recently redrawn.

Their announcements add to a list nearing record length. About 1 in 8 lawmakers – 55 in the House and 10 in the Senate – say they don’t plan to run for reelection, shaking up congressional seats ahead of November’s midterms, in which majorities in both the House and Senate could be in play.

Stated reasons for leaving Capitol Hill span from political burnout to the pursuit of higher office. Twelve members, including 10 Republicans, are running for governor in their home states. Most of the others are retiring from public service.

Why We Wrote This

More members of Congress are leaving their jobs than they normally do in a midterm election year, and some are leaving public service altogether. It’s a sign that being a senator or representative may be tougher than it used to be.

While it’s common for members to retire ahead of congressional elections, this year’s number is particularly high. The most in recent history was 72 in 1992, at the end of President George H.W. Bush’s term, when more than 60 House members left. Experts say this year’s exodus is a sign of a deeper trend, as members of Congress face challenges ranging from partisan deadlock to increasing safety threats.

“Life just isn’t very fun if you’re a member of Congress these days,” says David Barker, a professor of government at American University.

Why members are leaving

Forty of the 65 House members not seeking reelection are Republicans. That matches a trend in which members of the political party in power are more likely to leave ahead of a midterm election, when the president’s party usually loses seats in Congress.

Alan Abramowitz, a professor emeritus of political science at Emory University, says this means that some members of that party – in this case Republicans – might cut their losses and get out of a race before they lose. Others might simply not be interested in serving if their party commands less power in policymaking.

“As a member of the minority party, there’s not much you can accomplish,” says Dr. Abramowitz.

Dr. Barker says Congress has also changed in ways that could make members feel as though they’re not making a difference.

Polarization and gridlock usually mean that lawmakers don’t get to pass as many laws, for example. Members now generally spend more time fundraising. Congress has also ceded some of its power to the presidency in recent years. For example, presidents have made broad use of executive orders.

“If you’re a member who really just wants to make policy and wants to try to get stuff done, then you don’t really get a lot of chances to do that,” says Dr. Barker.

A third issue – redistricting – could also be a factor. When Representative Issa won reelection in 2024, his district leaned heavily Republican. By the time he announced he wasn’t running, Democrats were proclaiming confidence they could win there after California redrew many of its congressional districts.

Redistricting – or gerrymandering, as it’s called when districts are redrawn to benefit a certain party or candidate – typically only happens once every 10 years, after a census. That changed last summer after President Donald Trump urged lawmakers in Texas to redraw the state’s congressional districts to gain as many as five new Republican seats.

On that issue, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom responded by pushing a ballot measure to create new state maps that could give his party five extra seats. Since then, four states have redrawn their maps, and four others are considering legislation to do so.

That’s left some members, like Representative Issa, in districts they no longer recognize – and no longer think they can win.

Departures and the midterms

The slew of departures could mean that many congressional seats are more competitive in November than they would have been with an incumbent running.

When members leave out of fear their party will lose in midterm elections, says Jeff Lazarus, a political science professor at Georgia State University, “it creates a little bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Incumbents usually have the advantage of better name recognition and fundraising networks. When they choose not to run for reelection, that can leave two unfamiliar candidates vying for voters’ support – raising the odds of a surprise outcome.

All this is a challenge for Republicans, whose majority in Congress is already razor-thin. They’re already losing California Rep. Kevin Kiley, who announced he will run as an independent, citing frustration with what he called “hyperpartisanship” and the gerrymandering, though he says he’ll continue to caucus with Republicans.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Many political forecasts suggest Democrats are poised to take back control of the House of Representatives in November. The Senate, where Republicans have a 53-47 majority, would be harder for Democrats to flip. But some think they have a pathway to do so.

The departures of so many Republicans mean that “an environment that already was going to favor Democrats this cycle is going to favor them that much more,” says Dr. Barker.

Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines stunned lawmakers when, minutes before the March 4 filing deadline, he announced he would not seek reelection. Days later, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who has served in Congress for more than two decades, also said he would not run again, in a district that was recently redrawn.

Their announcements add to a list nearing record length. About 1 in 8 lawmakers – 55 in the House and 10 in the Senate – say they don’t plan to run for reelection, shaking up congressional seats ahead of November’s midterms, in which majorities in both the House and Senate could be in play.

Stated reasons for leaving Capitol Hill span from political burnout to the pursuit of higher office. Twelve members, including 10 Republicans, are running for governor in their home states. Most of the others are retiring from public service.

Why We Wrote This

More members of Congress are leaving their jobs than they normally do in a midterm election year, and some are leaving public service altogether. It’s a sign that being a senator or representative may be tougher than it used to be.

While it’s common for members to retire ahead of congressional elections, this year’s number is particularly high. The most in recent history was 72 in 1992, at the end of President George H.W. Bush’s term, when more than 60 House members left. Experts say this year’s exodus is a sign of a deeper trend, as members of Congress face challenges ranging from partisan deadlock to increasing safety threats.

“Life just isn’t very fun if you’re a member of Congress these days,” says David Barker, a professor of government at American University.

Why members are leaving

Forty of the 65 House members not seeking reelection are Republicans. That matches a trend in which members of the political party in power are more likely to leave ahead of a midterm election, when the president’s party usually loses seats in Congress.

Alan Abramowitz, a professor emeritus of political science at Emory University, says this means that some members of that party – in this case Republicans – might cut their losses and get out of a race before they lose. Others might simply not be interested in serving if their party commands less power in policymaking.

“As a member of the minority party, there’s not much you can accomplish,” says Dr. Abramowitz.

Dr. Barker says Congress has also changed in ways that could make members feel as though they’re not making a difference.

Polarization and gridlock usually mean that lawmakers don’t get to pass as many laws, for example. Members now generally spend more time fundraising. Congress has also ceded some of its power to the presidency in recent years. For example, presidents have made broad use of executive orders.

“If you’re a member who really just wants to make policy and wants to try to get stuff done, then you don’t really get a lot of chances to do that,” says Dr. Barker.

A third issue – redistricting – could also be a factor. When Representative Issa won reelection in 2024, his district leaned heavily Republican. By the time he announced he wasn’t running, Democrats were proclaiming confidence they could win there after California redrew many of its congressional districts.

Redistricting – or gerrymandering, as it’s called when districts are redrawn to benefit a certain party or candidate – typically only happens once every 10 years, after a census. That changed last summer after President Donald Trump urged lawmakers in Texas to redraw the state’s congressional districts to gain as many as five new Republican seats.

On that issue, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom responded by pushing a ballot measure to create new state maps that could give his party five extra seats. Since then, four states have redrawn their maps, and four others are considering legislation to do so.

That’s left some members, like Representative Issa, in districts they no longer recognize – and no longer think they can win.

Departures and the midterms

The slew of departures could mean that many congressional seats are more competitive in November than they would have been with an incumbent running.

When members leave out of fear their party will lose in midterm elections, says Jeff Lazarus, a political science professor at Georgia State University, “it creates a little bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Incumbents usually have the advantage of better name recognition and fundraising networks. When they choose not to run for reelection, that can leave two unfamiliar candidates vying for voters’ support – raising the odds of a surprise outcome.

All this is a challenge for Republicans, whose majority in Congress is already razor-thin. They’re already losing California Rep. Kevin Kiley, who announced he will run as an independent, citing frustration with what he called “hyperpartisanship” and the gerrymandering, though he says he’ll continue to caucus with Republicans.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Many political forecasts suggest Democrats are poised to take back control of the House of Representatives in November. The Senate, where Republicans have a 53-47 majority, would be harder for Democrats to flip. But some think they have a pathway to do so.

The departures of so many Republicans mean that “an environment that already was going to favor Democrats this cycle is going to favor them that much more,” says Dr. Barker.

Reagan Box didn’t plan to become the Door Dash candidate.

But when she quit her job as a horse trainer to launch her congressional campaign, Ms. Box needed a way to keep paying the bills. And as she began delivering food around the northwest Georgia district that, until three months ago, was represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene, she realized it wasn’t a bad way to get to know voters.

“I keep hearing, ‘I’ve never seen anyone willing to do this to run for office,’” says Ms. Box. “And doing that has given me insight into the struggles and failures within all this – stuff that most people would never experience.”

Why We Wrote This

The 17 candidates competing in Tuesday’s special election for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District run the gamut from a trash hauler to a hot dog slinger. The large field reflects a somewhat splintered Republican coalition, as former Representative Greene keeps lobbing a steady stream of criticism against her onetime ally, President Donald Trump.

Ms. Box, who says she was named after President Ronald Reagan, is one of a whopping 17 candidates vying to replace Ms. Greene, a onetime ally of Donald Trump who resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives in January after a falling-out with the president. The 12 Republicans, three Democrats, and two independents in the race include a trash hauler, a hot dog slinger, a pastor, a political writer, a former judge advocate general, a truck driver, and a handful of farmers. With so many candidates, Tuesday’s special election is highly likely to result in an April 7 runoff between the two top vote-getters.

The large field reflects a somewhat splintered Republican coalition. Ms. Greene has maintained a public profile since leaving Washington, and in interviews and social media posts she has issued a steady stream of criticism against President Trump. She accuses him of betraying the MAGA base on a host of issues, from the Epstein files to the war with Iran – a message some analysts say could very well resonate.

“There are probably a lot of Republican voters who agree with Greene’s position that Trump should be spending more time with domestic concerns, not foreign policy,” says Charles Bullock, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, in Athens.

The deep-red 14th district, which stretches from Lookout Mountain on the Tennessee border to the Atlanta exurbs, has a history of sending controversial candidates to Congress. In the 1970s the region was represented by Larry McDonald, a conservative Democrat and staunch anti-communist who chaired the John Birch Society, and who died when his plane was shot down after entering Soviet airspace in 1983.

Ms. Greene became a lightning rod after winning the seat in 2020 because of her public statements supporting conspiracy theories and her aggressive confrontations with fellow lawmakers. She later backed off or moderated some of those positions, but she remained one of the most high-profile House members until her resignation. She said she decided to resign her post in January in part because of a barrage of death threats against her family, as well as general disillusionment with politics.

“For a member of Congress to become such a household name is highly unusual, and that’s brought a lot of profile to the district,” says Nathan Price, a political science professor at the University of North Georgia.

Ms. Greene entered Congress as one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters, arguing that he actually won the 2020 election. But she later broke with Mr. Trump amid his administration’s initial resistance to releasing files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and over what she calls Mr. Trump’s abandonment of the “America First” agenda. She has not made an endorsement in the race to replace her.

For the candidates hoping to win her seat, in a district where President Trump remains popular, it’s a tricky line to walk.

With Ms. Greene, “we elected somebody in our district that was not a typical politician – and the district loved her,” says Republican candidate Jenna Turnipseed, an Army veteran who runs Chickamauga Creek Farms with her husband, John, near the Tennessee border. “That’s what made a bunch of people who might not typically be seen as politicians willing to run.”

Mr. Trump has endorsed Republican district attorney Clay Fuller, a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard who worked for the first Trump administration. The president came to the district in February to stump for Mr. Fuller.

Yet if his endorsement was intended to clear the field, it seems to have only galvanized the race. One reason may be Mr. Trump’s poor endorsement record in Georgia – eight of his ten endorsed candidates in the state lost in 2022.

“In other parts of the country, a Trump endorsement seals the deal, but that’s not been the experience in Georgia,” says Professor Bullock.

Mr. Fuller’s top GOP rival, in terms of name recognition, is former state Sen. Colton Moore, a truck driver who has held events featuring people firing machine guns. Both men hail from Dade County, in the state’s far northwest corner.

For Mr. Moore, the large field obscures what he describes as simple math: “It’s a two-man race at this point,” he says. Whoever emerges as the top Republican vote-getter on Tuesday is likely to face Democrat Shawn Harris in the April 7 runoff – and will be heavily favored to win in this conservative district.

During his time in the state senate, Mr. Moore sponsored a slew of conservative legislation and was barred from entering the House chamber after Republican lawmakers said he impugned the reputation of a late political leader. He was arrested last year after trying to enter the chamber.

Mr. Harris lost in 2024 to Ms. Greene, taking 35% of the vote to her 65%. This time around, he has amassed a $4 million campaign war chest, the largest in the race. A north Georgia cattle farmer and a Marine veteran, Mr. Harris has sought to play up his rural roots.

He sees the split between Ms. Greene and Mr. Trump as a sign of a larger discontent within the electorate that he believes will give candidates like him an opening. As “things started changing in the district, Greene and Trump started disagreeing,” he says.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

The rest of the field ranges from staunch “America First” conservatives like Nicky Lama, a 25-year-old entrepreneur from Dalton, to more moderate candidates like Ms. Box, the Door Dash driver, who says she hopes to work across party lines to tackle domestic issues.

A lot of Republicans are talking about “who Trump wants,” says Ms. Box. But “it’s about who we want, dude.”

Reagan Box didn’t plan to become the Door Dash candidate.

But when she quit her job as a horse trainer to launch her congressional campaign, Ms. Box needed a way to keep paying the bills. And as she began delivering food around the northwest Georgia district that, until three months ago, was represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene, she realized it wasn’t a bad way to get to know voters.

“I keep hearing, ‘I’ve never seen anyone willing to do this to run for office,’” says Ms. Box. “And doing that has given me insight into the struggles and failures within all this – stuff that most people would never experience.”

Why We Wrote This

The 17 candidates competing in Tuesday’s special election for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District run the gamut from a trash hauler to a hot dog slinger. The large field reflects a somewhat splintered Republican coalition, as former Representative Greene keeps lobbing a steady stream of criticism against her onetime ally, President Donald Trump.

Ms. Box, who says she was named after President Ronald Reagan, is one of a whopping 17 candidates vying to replace Ms. Greene, a onetime ally of Donald Trump who resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives in January after a falling-out with the president. The 12 Republicans, three Democrats, and two independents in the race include a trash hauler, a hot dog slinger, a pastor, a political writer, a former judge advocate general, a truck driver, and a handful of farmers. With so many candidates, Tuesday’s special election is highly likely to result in an April 7 runoff between the two top vote-getters.

The large field reflects a somewhat splintered Republican coalition. Ms. Greene has maintained a public profile since leaving Washington, and in interviews and social media posts she has issued a steady stream of criticism against President Trump. She accuses him of betraying the MAGA base on a host of issues, from the Epstein files to the war with Iran – a message some analysts say could very well resonate.

“There are probably a lot of Republican voters who agree with Greene’s position that Trump should be spending more time with domestic concerns, not foreign policy,” says Charles Bullock, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, in Athens.

The deep-red 14th district, which stretches from Lookout Mountain on the Tennessee border to the Atlanta exurbs, has a history of sending controversial candidates to Congress. In the 1970s the region was represented by Larry McDonald, a conservative Democrat and staunch anti-communist who chaired the John Birch Society, and who died when his plane was shot down after entering Soviet airspace in 1983.

Ms. Greene became a lightning rod after winning the seat in 2020 because of her public statements supporting conspiracy theories and her aggressive confrontations with fellow lawmakers. She later backed off or moderated some of those positions, but she remained one of the most high-profile House members until her resignation. She said she decided to resign her post in January in part because of a barrage of death threats against her family, as well as general disillusionment with politics.

“For a member of Congress to become such a household name is highly unusual, and that’s brought a lot of profile to the district,” says Nathan Price, a political science professor at the University of North Georgia.

Ms. Greene entered Congress as one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters, arguing that he actually won the 2020 election. But she later broke with Mr. Trump amid his administration’s initial resistance to releasing files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and over what she calls Mr. Trump’s abandonment of the “America First” agenda. She has not made an endorsement in the race to replace her.

For the candidates hoping to win her seat, in a district where President Trump remains popular, it’s a tricky line to walk.

With Ms. Greene, “we elected somebody in our district that was not a typical politician – and the district loved her,” says Republican candidate Jenna Turnipseed, an Army veteran who runs Chickamauga Creek Farms with her husband, John, near the Tennessee border. “That’s what made a bunch of people who might not typically be seen as politicians willing to run.”

Mr. Trump has endorsed Republican district attorney Clay Fuller, a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard who worked for the first Trump administration. The president came to the district in February to stump for Mr. Fuller.

Yet if his endorsement was intended to clear the field, it seems to have only galvanized the race. One reason may be Mr. Trump’s poor endorsement record in Georgia – eight of his ten endorsed candidates in the state lost in 2022.

“In other parts of the country, a Trump endorsement seals the deal, but that’s not been the experience in Georgia,” says Professor Bullock.

Mr. Fuller’s top GOP rival, in terms of name recognition, is former state Sen. Colton Moore, a truck driver who has held events featuring people firing machine guns. Both men hail from Dade County, in the state’s far northwest corner.

For Mr. Moore, the large field obscures what he describes as simple math: “It’s a two-man race at this point,” he says. Whoever emerges as the top Republican vote-getter on Tuesday is likely to face Democrat Shawn Harris in the April 7 runoff – and will be heavily favored to win in this conservative district.

During his time in the state senate, Mr. Moore sponsored a slew of conservative legislation and was barred from entering the House chamber after Republican lawmakers said he impugned the reputation of a late political leader. He was arrested last year after trying to enter the chamber.

Mr. Harris lost in 2024 to Ms. Greene, taking 35% of the vote to her 65%. This time around, he has amassed a $4 million campaign war chest, the largest in the race. A north Georgia cattle farmer and a Marine veteran, Mr. Harris has sought to play up his rural roots.

He sees the split between Ms. Greene and Mr. Trump as a sign of a larger discontent within the electorate that he believes will give candidates like him an opening. As “things started changing in the district, Greene and Trump started disagreeing,” he says.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

The rest of the field ranges from staunch “America First” conservatives like Nicky Lama, a 25-year-old entrepreneur from Dalton, to more moderate candidates like Ms. Box, the Door Dash driver, who says she hopes to work across party lines to tackle domestic issues.

A lot of Republicans are talking about “who Trump wants,” says Ms. Box. But “it’s about who we want, dude.”

Plans for the largest deportation operation in U.S. history rely on an institution whose leader the president fired this week.

Donning flak jackets and cowboy hats, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appeared in several videos over the past year defending agents and urging unauthorized immigrants to leave. Among other controversies, that self-promotion appears to have factored into President Donald Trump’s loss of confidence in her.

Ms. Noem’s demotion to become a “special envoy” for a new security initiative is the first Cabinet-level shakeup of Mr. Trump’s second term. The former South Dakota governor had drawn sharp criticism from Republicans in Congress over her leadership as well as her stewardship of taxpayer funding. Her ouster leaves the sprawling Department of Homeland Security in a leadership flux as it enters the fourth week of a funding shutdown – and stands alert for threats as the U.S. continues bombarding Iran.

Why We Wrote This

Kristi Noem’s firing as Secretary of Homeland Security is President Donald Trump’s first Cabinet shakeup of his second term. The challenges she faced leading a critical agency at a time of public polarization remain for her successor to navigate.

The leadership shift also arrives at a moment when members of Congress and the American public are engaged in vigorous debates over the role and future of DHS, following its rollout of an aggressive immigration enforcement campaign that resulted in federal agents killing two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. Democratic leadership in the Senate is withholding funding to demand agency changes. Public polling shows disapproval among a majority of U.S. adults in Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a DHS agency.

At the department’s headquarters, “The biggest problem it faces right now is legitimacy among the American public,” says Henry Brady, professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. Beyond a perceived lapse in ethics, he says, many Americans “don’t think the culture that’s been created in places like Minneapolis is a good culture for any agency.”

The president has tapped GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma as his next choice to be DHS secretary, with an expected March 31 start. The role requires Senate confirmation, which appears likely.

The next secretary will wade into the same challenges Ms. Noem faced over how to lead an agency overseeing immigration enforcement, disaster relief, border enforcement, and airline security, at a time of public polarization.

A secretary’s rise and missteps

After Ms. Noem’s stints as a state and federal lawmaker, South Dakotans elected her as their first female governor in 2018. During the Biden administration, she dispatched her state’s National Guard to the southern border to help fend off what she called a national security crisis stemming from high rates of illegal crossings.

Since her early days as DHS secretary, she featured prominently in the Trump administration’s social media videos and ads – from urging unauthorized immigrants to “self-deport” to standing before detainees in a Salvadoran prison.

Though illegal migration had already begun to fall during President Joe Biden’s final months in office, Ms. Noem and other Trump officials touted their own successes along the border early on. Border Patrol encounters, a proxy for illegal crossings, fell from thousands per day under the past administration to thousands a month now.

Under Ms. Noem’s leadership, “we saw mass deportations, record drops in border crossings, and the true end of catch and release,” the National Border Patrol Council said in a post noting her departure.

But she could not overcome scrutiny of DHS’ immigration enforcement tactics and her own public profile.

Ms. Noem had “obviously become a problem for the administration. So politically, [her firing] was overdue,” says Mark Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies. After reports of infighting between Ms. Noem and other DHS top brass, Mr. Krikorian says, the question is whether the incoming secretary will let border czar Tom Homan and “the other career professionals do their job.”

As Ms. Noem leaves, Democrats in Congress don’t expect much to change.

“Changing the name on the door will not change the policies, the abuses, or the Trump administration’s rejection of congressional oversight,” Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois said in a statement. “The American people deserve a Department of Homeland Security that respects the rule of law and answers to the public. We must abolish Trump’s ICE.”

In a way, surges in interior enforcement and deportations have overshadowed the administration’s achievements at the border, says Doris Meissner, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s U.S. immigration policy program.

The exporting of aggressive arrest tactics to city streets further north – such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis – “turned the tables in ways that ultimately [have] led to Kristi Noem being fired,” she says.

Pushback mounts

Beginning late last year, roughly 3,000 federal law enforcement agents surged to the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, where two Americans were fatally shot in January. DHS officials immediately claimed the acts were self-defense.

Ms. Noem took heat – including from some Republicans – for likening the slain citizens’ actions to domestic terrorism. Since mid-February, Democratic lawmakers have demanded reforms to immigration enforcement before voting to fund DHS. Critics of the holdup say the funds are especially vital to national security now, given a heightened threat environment amid the war in Iran.

The funding debate continued over testy exchanges with Ms. Noem in Congress this past week. Lawmakers, including Republicans, scrutinized reports of potential conflicts of interest and lack of transparency. They probed some of the department’s contracts, including for the “self-deportation” ad campaign. Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana challenged the secretary on the ads’ origins.

“You’re testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time? Is that my understanding?” asked the senator.

“We had conversations about making sure that we were telling people –”

“No ma’am,” the senator cut her off. “I’m asking ya, sorry to interrupt – but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?”

Ms. Noem affirmed again and noted “how effective” the ads had been.

“Well, they were effective in your name recognition,” said the senator. “To me, it puts the president in a terribly awkward spot.”

Mr. Trump has denied the secretary’s account of the ads, which reportedly angered him. “I never knew anything about it,” he told Reuters.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut has called for a perjury investigation into whether Ms. Noem lied under oath to Congress about contracts for advertising campaigns.

Separate accusations had been piling up for weeks, including internal frustrations with the secretary’s leadership and her alleged affair with a DHS adviser (Ms. Noem has called the rumor “tabloid garbage”). Then, in a March 2 letter to Congress, the DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari claimed that the department had “systematically obstructed the work” of his office over the past several months.

Mr. Cuffari alleged several instances in which DHS agencies denied the watchdog access to data. DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the inspector general’s claims.

“There are oversight mechanisms. They’ve not been properly utilized,” says Daniel Altman, the former head of investigations at the Office of Professional Responsibility at Customs and Border Protection, which falls under DHS.

Since he left the administration last year, Mr. Altman has raised transparency concerns around his former agency’s handling of the death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis at the hands of CBP personnel.

DHS officials need to rely on oversight protocols established by Congress and promote transparency, he says. “That will win back people’s confidence.”

“Trying to manage the whole”

Leadership shakeups aren’t new at DHS, which spans border and airport security, disaster funding, and the Secret Service.

During the Biden administration, the House impeached Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his handling of the southern border. (The Senate dismissed the charges.) During his first term, Mr. Trump rotated through several secretaries in the post. Observers say DHS is an especially challenging Cabinet-level department to run.

“It’s an aggregation of disparate pieces that were put together in sort of a forced marriage after 9/11,” says Professor Brady, who is also a past president of the American Political Science Association. “Each successive secretary has struggled with trying to manage the whole.”

Restructuring the department is an option – but unrealistic, given the difficulties of such an enormous undertaking, says Ms. Meissner, a former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which predated DHS.

Despite the secretary’s range of responsibilities, she says, “Leadership tone does matter.” Ms. Noem “made some very serious mistakes and misjudgments.”

Mr. Mullin, the Oklahoma senator, on Thursday expressed a mix of surprise and gratitude for Mr. Trump’s nomination for the job. A plumbing business owner, he also has a ranching background, like the outgoing secretary. During the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, he helped barricade a door in the House chamber against rioters seeking entry.

Senator Mullin has defended the administration’s immigration crackdown. Yet if confirmed, he will inherit DHS at a time when the public has soured on interior immigration enforcement, polling shows.

Mr. Mullin’s home state, where every county voted for Mr. Trump in 2024, has shown similar fissures in support. While Oklahoma has touted close collaboration with ICE, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt has questioned the “endgame” of interior raids and mass deportation. The mayor of Oklahoma City, also a Republican, commended property owners who he said walked away from a potential deal with DHS to use their sites as an ICE facility.

While the administration might be concerned about optics, it doesn’t appear open to changing mass deportation policy, says Ms. Meissner.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

She would advise Mr. Mullin to recognize that deporting the “worst of the worst” criminals from the country “can only be carried out effectively by a much more targeted enforcement effort,” she says.

Staff writer Caitlin Babcock contributed reporting from Washington.