Trump treats ICE like his personal military. Now it’s funded like one.

ALSO INSIDE: Congresswoman gives behind-the-scenes look at the longest House vote in history.

Jul 03, 2025

Cam here 👋 bringing you your daily dose of what people are doing – good, bad, and otherwise – in the world of politics. We’re diving into the stories you won’t see anywhere else. And remember, you can also keep up with me over on TikTok and Bluesky.

You won’t see anything from me tomorrow, as I’ll be enjoying the 4th of July weekend with friends and family. Hope your weekend plans are the same!

Since day one of Trump’s political career, people have desperately attempted to normalize his absurd abuses of power and blatant corruption – and 10 years later, much of corporate media remains a victim of their own attempts to return to a sense of normalcy.

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

Republicans effectively shut Democrats out of the federal budget process and passed Trump’s “skinny” budget, which is expected to add over $3 trillion to the federal deficit, take away health insurance for millions of people, and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans by $4.5 trillion.

However, one element of the budget that has been largely overlooked is its infusion of cash into the law enforcement agency Trump has a knack for using as his own, personal military: ICE.

In total, $171 billion has been promised to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. The money will be used to hire 10,000 more ICE agents, open enough detention facilities to hold over 100,000 people, deputize local law enforcement, militarize the border, and create a $10 billion slush fund for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. It also limits the number of immigration judges that can be hired, further clogging the bottleneck of cases in the system, so the administration can deport people before they’re able to see a judge.

ICE’s budget has now gone from $8 billion to nearly $75 billion ($30 billion for the agency’s base budget and $45 billion for detention centers), with another $90 billion dedicated to supporting its efforts.

To put this in context, funding to support ICE and Trump’s immigration agenda is larger than the military budget of every country in the world, except for the US and China (and it’s a close third).

ICE has grown more unpopular as Trump has expanded the agency’s power and used it as an authoritarian tool for intimidation and mass incarceration. Trump has been clear that this funding will be used to further empower ICE, but the coverage on the budget since it’s passed by the most prominent outlets* has omitted this expansion of Trump’s domestic military force in their reporting of legislation that is expected to “fulfill Trump’s domestic agenda.”

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

*Editor’s Note: Sometime after this was written, but before it was published, the Washington Post updated its headline from “House passes Trump’s bill” to “House passes tax and immigration bill, sending it to Trump’s desk,” so attention seems to be shifting towards the massive amount of money given to ICE.

Rep. Hoyle’s view of the budget process from behind the scenes

The unpopularity of Trump’s budget bill was not enough to deter Republicans from passing it on Thursday, a decision that could come back to haunt them in the midterms. The lack of buy-in from congressional Democrats — and by extension, the millions of people who voted for them — is one of the main reasons approval for the federal budget is underwater.

But the absence of any Democratic fingerprints on the budget isn’t from lack of trying, according to Oregon US Rep. Valerie Hoyle.

“They have no intention of working with Democrats at all,” Hoyle said. “We would offer amendments, we would ask questions, we would make suggestions. And Republicans stayed absolutely silent. But the point was to let Democrats know that they had no power and that they were inconsequential.”

Hoyle said voters from her purple district have demanded bipartisanship during both Biden’s and Trump’s presidencies, and have expressed frustration that Republicans have shut her out of the budgeting process. The end result is that any negotiation delays in the budget’s passing have been intra-party, as far-right Republicans have pushed for increasing tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting social programs even further.

The double standard can at least partially be attributed to news coverage of Democrats in power versus Republicans. During Biden’s term, working across the aisle was portrayed as both a necessity and a weakness; senators willing to go against their party in 2023 to pass a budget were described as strategic political geniuses. Under Trump, ditching bipartisanship is described as a sign of strength, and its former advocates as cowards.

“Where is everybody screaming, ‘Why aren't they being bipartisan?’ Because I heard that over and over again [last term],” Hoyle said. I represent a swing district, very conservative areas, very progressive areas — a lot of working people. And what I would hear over and over is, ‘we want you to work in a bipartisan way.’”

US Rep. Juan Ciscomani, Arizona’s 6th Congressional District

Since taking office in 2023, Rep. Ciscomani has:

Seen his net worth increase from $268,000 to $610,000.
Sponsored 50 bills.
Authored one bill that has been signed into law

Fun Facts

Rep. Ciscomani turned out to be a guaranteed vote for Trump’s budget bill, despite opposition from voters in his district, the Arizona business community, and himself.

In February, Ciscomani signed a joint letter by the Congressional Hispanic Conference to US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, to let him know they opposed the cuts to social services in the House version of the budget.

“We need to uphold fiscal responsibility while ensuring that essential programs—programs that have empowered Americans to succeed—are not caught in the crossfire,” the letter stated. “Slashing Medicaid would have serious consequences, particularly in rural and predominantly Hispanic communities where hospitals and nursing homes are already struggling to keep their doors open.”

Despite these concerns, six of the letters’ signatories—including Ciscomani—voted in favor of the budget. Ciscomani went a step further, defending the budget resolution and denying it would lead to any of the cuts outlined in the letter.

“Now what I’m seeing is misleading headlines saying that this resolution cut Medicaid,” Ciscomani said of the reports based on his letter. “It didn’t do any of that. Hear from me directly: those are all straight up lies.”

At the time, Ciscomani defended his vote as approval of the bill's framework, and promised to ensure that social services like Medicaid would remain intact in its final iteration.

They weren’t, though — and, in fact, the cuts were deepened in the Senate.

These are the cuts Ciscomani and the Congressional Hispanic Conference said would “undermine programs that support working-class Americans,” and here’s how they’ve increased since the House’s initial vote in May:

From $880 billion in cuts to $1 trillion: Medicaid, Medicare, and public insurance through the Affordable Care Act
From $330 billion in cuts to $387 billion: education programs like Pell Grants and income-driven student loan repayment plans
From $230 billion in cuts to $287 billion: starvation prevention through programs like SNAP

Despite the $164 billion in additional cuts, Ciscomani voted to pass the amended budget without protest.

Prior to Thursday’s vote, voters protested Cisomani’s leadership, feeling betrayed by assurances his office gave throughout the budget process that he would vote to preserve social programs.

Healthcare cuts are more than a number

Millions of people are on track to lose their health insurance, thanks to more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and Medicare that Republicans greenlit Thursday in order to cover the cost of tax cuts for the 1% wealthiest Americans.

Earlier this year, I spoke with Janae, who’s seen the multigenerational benefits of programs that make healthcare accessible, like Medicare and Medicaid. Janae and her family are able to care for her grandfather thanks to the caregiver assistance they receive through Medicare, and when Janae was on Medicaid a few years’ back, it allowed her to undergo a necessary — but expensive — surgery.

“The past four years, I've been recovering from my gallbladder surgery. I had to be hospitalized before the procedure because of it. It was really bad,” Janae said. “And I know that people suffer like this every day. Like people who are chronically ill and people who have more severe illnesses that need more long-term care.”

Gallbladder surgery is lifesaving care: without it, Janae could have developed cancer, experienced organ failure, and been in a near-constant state of immense pain as her body kept producing gallstones.

If these cuts had taken place during Trump’s first term, this surgery and the ability to care for her grandfather would likely not have been options, and once the budget cuts are fully in effect, it's unlikely these options will be available for future generations.

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.