Shutdown Politics and the Cost of Demanding Everything

Democrats won major concessions on immigration enforcement but their refusal to compromise risks deepening a cycle that makes governing nearly impossible.

Just before leaving for Easter recess, Republicans in the House of Representatives agreed to the Senate's bipartisan plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security. This was a welcome development and brings us one step closer to ending a shutdown that's approaching fifty days. Democrats will celebrate the decision by Republicans in the House because it gives them more of what they want, but the precedents they've reinforced and their unwillingness to compromise should give us pause. Shutdowns are now so common that they seem to be a normal part of governing, an indicator of our system's growing inability to complete basic functions.

Politics is supposed to be the space where competing views are argued until arriving at a compromise. Essential to this definition is the idea that each side is able to determine its priorities and then willing to settle for less than everything it wants. In every debate the different sides will have something they're not willing to compromise, but that standard can't apply to every position. If it does, the system designed by our founders will falter and our national prospects will dim.

President Trump made a serious mistake when he encouraged former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to pursue disorganized and unfocused immigration enforcement. His focus on the message that federal agents would be removing dangerous criminals led Americans to believe that his administration would pursue threats to American communities. Given this expectation, it was confusing to see Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents rounding up laborers in Home Depot parking lots and detaining mothers as they were dropping children off at school. The president turned one of his strongest political issues into a liability by offending the sensibilities of most Americans.

Democrats were right to demand changes to the way immigration enforcement was being conducted but their refusal to fund DHS for more than a month ignored the significant concessions they obtained. Kristi Noem was fired as the DHS secretary and replaced by Markwayne Mullin, a former Senator who served as a leader in the No Labels organization, a group dedicated to creating bipartisanship and compromise in politics. Mullin is conservative but he's no radical and he was a good pick to head DHS. The fact that only two Senate Democrats supported his confirmation indicates the party's intent to oppose anything and anyone that doesn't perfectly match their expectations.

If the Democratic Party wins the 2028 presidential election, something that's increasingly likely given President Trump's performance and the unsettled state of the world, they'll have an opportunity to choose a DHS secretary fully in line with their positions. Until then, Democrats must decide what they can accept from the administration and what's necessary to fight over. Confirming Markwayne Mullin as DHS Secretary should have been an easy yes for Democrats.

Parts of the Democratic Party want their leaders to oppose the president regardless of the cost and despite the meaningful gains they've achieved. Democrats made an effective case to the American people that ICE operations needed to change, and the president responded to public sentiment. Kristi Noem was fired and Tom Homan replaced Greg Bovino as the leader of ICE operations in Minneapolis. Homan engaged with local leaders and changed the federal approach until the operation was mostly terminated soon after he arrived.

Beyond these significant changes in personnel, DHS is expanding the use of body cameras. During its operations in Minnesota, it agreed that ICE agents would wear cameras during interactions with the public and while conducting immigration enforcement. The Department has said the use of body cameras will expand as funds are made available. This caveat was a reasonable place for Democratic objections.

Given the huge influx of funding ICE received in last year's spending bill, it's hard to believe the agency couldn't find the money to purchase cameras immediately. Cameras will go a long way to holding agents accountable for their actions, even if these agents are wearing masks. This addresses a fundamental Democratic concern without forcing Republicans to support a ban on face coverings. If Democrats limited their demands to the rapid deployment of body cameras, Republicans might have agreed.

Significant changes in the way ICE is conducting immigration enforcement, most notably the end of large influxes of agents to American cities, wasn't sufficient for Democrats to end the partial government shutdown. As they continued to make demands of Republicans, Democrats were unwilling to support a Republican proposal to impose penalties on people who "dox" federal agents by sharing their personal information online. This seems counterproductive since it's the doxxing of agents that led to the use of masks in the first place. Democrats have also been unwilling to implement a twenty-five-foot standoff distance between agents and protestors, something that would protect agents while allowing protests to continue. Republicans might have been willing to discuss additional Democratic concerns if Democrats had been willing to offer something in return.

Democrats have been mostly silent when it comes to the inappropriate conduct of some protestors. In a nation of laws, federal agents must be able to carry out their responsibilities without interference if the conduct of their enforcement is lawful. Many Americans find immigration detentions distasteful, but that doesn't make them illegal. It's hard to govern a country and live in a community if groups of Americans now decide when and how they'll allow the federal government to enforce laws.

Immigration isn't the only issue that divides Americans and it's not difficult to imagine conservatives justifying aggressive action against law enforcement operations undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Internal Revenue Service because they don't agree with the underlying policies.

The right way to change laws is through legislation. It's now highly likely that Democrats retake control of the House next year, and possible they gain a majority in the Senate. If this happens, Democrats will expect the chance to shape the nation's agenda while keeping the government open. If Republicans follow the precedent now being set by Democrats, who in turn are emulating the earlier precedent set by Republicans, government will shut down over tax increases, healthcare policy and access to abortion unless Democrats concede everything Republicans demand. Shutdowns have now been normalized by both parties and there's no end to the list of issues that could trigger a lapse in government funding.

In America, our constitutional system was designed to give the minority a degree of power. This prevents the majority from trampling their rights and ignoring their views. The system only works, however, if the minority accepts the idea that having some power doesn't mean having all the power. Parties in the minority must sets limits on their demands.

Without a major change in sentiment among Democrats and Republicans, or the emergence of viable alternatives, it's difficult to see how our elected leaders can effectively govern. The standoff over ICE funding is a case study in what happens when one side receives a lot but demands everything. At the same time the undisciplined deployment of ICE to American cities is a case study in what happens when elected leaders exercise bad judgement. Democrats may derive a sense of satisfaction from demanding the total surrender of their opponents. Democrats got more of what they wanted when the president and Congressional Republicans agreed to the Senate proposal that separated ICE funding from the rest of DHS. Their strategy seems to be working, but only because Republicans were mature enough in the end to give in to Democratic demands. That maturity only goes so far, however, and we shouldn't be surprised next year when Republicans are in the minority and shut down the government to oppose Democratic priorities. This is no way to govern. It's past time for Americans to widen their gaze beyond the two parties in search of leaders with a different approach.

Colin Pascal is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a senior fellow at the Orion Policy Institute.