How Congress Uses Funding Deadlines to Control What Federal Agencies Can Do

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

On or around February 13-14, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security ran out of money. Not because Congress couldn’t agree on a budget number—they had one. Not because anyone disputed that border security needed funding. The impasse was about something more granular: whether ICE agents should be required to wear body cameras.

Senate Democrats refused to vote for DHS appropriations unless Republicans agreed to specific operational rules. Mandatory judicial warrants before entering private property. Visible identification badges. Body cameras with retention requirements. Use-of-force standards matching what applies to the FBI. These weren’t budget cuts or program eliminations. They were instructions about how federal agents must do their jobs, embedded in a spending bill.

This is how Congress governs now. Not through legislation that establishes policy and gets debated in committee hearings. Through funding deadlines that create leverage points every few months, where the threat of shutdown forces negotiations over operational details that would never pass as standalone bills.

Most federal agencies got funded through September 30. DHS got funded only through February 13. That wasn’t an accident—House and Senate leadership deliberately structured it that way to create maximum pressure during those two weeks. When you control when an agency runs out of money, you control when negotiations happen and what gets discussed.

Congress’s Power of the Purse

The Constitution gives Congress one unambiguous power over the executive branch: the power of the purse. Presidents can’t spend a dollar without congressional authorization.

Congress was supposed to pass twelve separate appropriations bills each year—one for defense, one for agriculture, one for commerce, and so on—with each bill debated, amended, and enacted before October 1. That hasn’t happened in decades. Instead, Congress now passes temporary funding patches that extend money for a few weeks or months while negotiations continue.

Federal agencies spend a significant portion of every year not knowing if they’ll have money next month. They can’t hire for multi-year projects. They can’t sign long-term contracts. Defense Secretary James Mattis testified that short-term budget extensions create “impacts on training, readiness and maintenance, personnel, and contracting” that degrade military preparedness.

When agencies operate on two-week or one-month extensions, Congress gets recurring leverage points. Every time an extension expires, Congress can renegotiate the terms. Not how much money agencies get, but what they’re allowed to do with it.

Appropriations Riders as Policy Tools

Appropriations riders are rules attached to spending bills that restrict how money can be used. Why do riders work better than legislation? First, appropriations bills must pass or government shuts down, creating political pressure that doesn’t exist for regular bills. Presidents usually can’t afford to veto spending bills over riders they dislike, even if they believe those riders are unconstitutional.

Second, appropriations bills aren’t subject to the same debate rules as legislation. Appropriations bills move under special budget rules that make them harder to block.

Third, riders get re-enacted annually, creating recurring leverage. Once a rider appears in this year’s appropriations bill and the agency accepts it, that rider tends to reappear in future years’ bills, eventually becoming institutionalized policy without ever passing through normal legislative channels.

The ICE Operational Restrictions

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a detailed letter to Republican leadership outlining their requirements. On warrants: ICE agents must obtain judicial warrants before entering private property, moving beyond existing legal standards that permit warrantless entry in some immigration enforcement circumstances. On identification: agents must display visible badges showing their agency, unique identification number, and last name. On accountability: agents must carry and use body-worn cameras when interacting with the public, with footage subject to specific retention and access requirements.

The use-of-force provisions went further. “Reasonable” use-of-force standards would be written into law. Officers involved in incidents would be removed from field duty pending investigation. State and local jurisdictions would maintain authority to investigate and prosecute excessive force by federal agents. Enforcement activities would be prohibited near medical facilities, schools, childcare facilities, churches, polling places, and courts. Stops, questioning, and searches based on presence at certain locations, job, spoken language or accent, or race and ethnicity would be explicitly forbidden.

The Trump administration and Senate Republicans resisted. They argued that operational decisions about warrant requirements, identification procedures, and use-of-force policies should remain within executive discretion, not be dictated by Congress through appropriations conditions. This invoked the system where Congress, the President, and courts each have different authorities: Congress controls the purse, but the President controls execution of the laws, including decisions about law enforcement tactics.

Democratic Leverage in the Senate

Senate Democrats were the minority party. They held approximately 48-49 seats out of 100. A coalition of forty-one senators can prevent action if they maintain unity. With forty-eight or forty-nine Democratic votes, they couldn’t pass legislation. But they could block Republican legislation.

Without any senator from either party breaking unity, no DHS appropriations bill could pass the Senate on simple majority. It would need sixty votes to overcome a filibuster. Republicans held approximately fifty-one to fifty-two seats (with the remainder held by independents)—insufficient to reach sixty. This made Democratic leverage real. They could prevent passage of any bill they collectively opposed, forcing Republicans to either negotiate or accept a DHS shutdown.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune recognized this reality and pursued negotiations rather than advancing Republican-preferred legislation that would fail. Jeffries and Schumer jointly sent their demands letter. This public posturing served two functions: preventing Democratic defections by making clear that party leadership was committed, and signaling to Republicans that this wasn’t a negotiating position that would shift with political pressure.

By the evening of the 12th, Senate Democrats blocked a second two-week extension, guaranteeing that DHS would lapse at 12:01 a.m. on the 14th. Congress adjourned for a scheduled one-week recess, leaving both chambers on twenty-four to forty-eight hour notice to return if a deal was reached. The midnight deadline passed without resolution.

The Partial Shutdown’s Limited Immediate Impact

The partial shutdown that began on the 14th wasn’t immediately catastrophic. ICE and Customs and Border Protection would continue operations through separate funding that didn’t require annual appropriations. The Coast Guard could continue for several months using separate appropriated funds from previous years. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency would continue operations. FEMA could operate for at least one to two months using approximately $7 billion in disaster relief funds already appropriated. The Transportation Security Administration would continue screening passengers, though TSA officers would work without pay until government reopened. Immigration benefits processing would continue through USCIS, which is fee-funded and doesn’t depend on DHS appropriations.

Some services would be disrupted—the Immigration Detention Ombudsman office would close, investigations by Homeland Security Investigations would pause for non-urgent matters, federal protective service operations would be limited. But these effects would accumulate over weeks and months rather than immediately.

If the shutdown persisted for weeks, the invisible damage would become visible. Federal employees would eventually miss paychecks. Airline security lines would lengthen as TSA officers called in sick. Agency operations would degrade.

With agencies already shut down and no immediate crisis forcing resolution, political pressure came primarily from affected constituencies and the internal political cost of appearing unreasonable. Senate Republicans hoped the inability to immediately see shutdown effects would reduce political pressure and allow the crisis to persist until Democrats lost nerve. Senate Democrats hoped the principle of preventing ICE’s behavior would keep their members unified despite shutdown pressure.

The Constitutional Question: Congress’s Control Over Executive Operations

Underlying the practical leverage question was a more fundamental question: To what extent can Congress use its power of the purse to constrain how the President exercises executive powers?

Congress’s power is substantial. Without money, executive agencies cannot function. The Constitution creates an asymmetry: the President depends entirely on Congress for funds. But if Congress can condition appropriations on any requirement, Congress effectively controls executive action. And if Congress cannot condition appropriations at all, the President’s dependence on appropriations means nothing.

James Madison articulated the principle: “The power to control and direct the appropriations constitutes a most useful and salutary check upon profusion and extravagance, as well as upon corrupt influence and public speculation.”

Executive branch lawyers have long resisted the proposition that Congress can use appropriations to constrain powers that don’t require funding for their exercise. The Justice Department’s legal advisors have argued that Congress cannot use appropriations restrictions to prevent the President from exercising constitutional duties like veto power, pardon authority, or Commander-in-Chief authority over military operations. A restriction prohibiting the President from issuing particular pardons by conditioning funds on the President not doing so would violate the system of separate powers.

For ICE restrictions: Congress wasn’t preventing ICE from existing or completely forbidding immigration enforcement. Congress was specifying operational procedures that ICE must follow when using appropriated federal funds. The Trump administration’s counterargument: law enforcement tactics constitute core executive authority over how laws are executed, and Congress cannot control exactly how the President’s agencies do their jobs through appropriations restrictions without violating the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Courts have never definitively ruled on whether appropriations restrictions that dictate specific operational tactics rather than levels or general policy are constitutional. In Train v. City of New York (1975), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Nixon had no authority to refuse to spend appropriated funds. But the decision was narrowly based on how courts read and apply laws, not broad principles.

Executive branch officials couldn’t be entirely confident that appropriations restrictions on ICE operations were constitutional—but they also couldn’t be confident they were unconstitutional. This created a negotiating dynamic where both sides had some legal ground to stand on, but neither side was certain enough to push the matter to court and risk an adverse precedent. A court challenge would take years, and a shutdown couldn’t be maintained indefinitely.

Appropriations Deadlines as the Primary Governance Mechanism

The 2026 DHS shutdown revealed something broader about how American governance has evolved. Congress no longer relies primarily on authorizing legislation to establish what federal agencies can do. Instead, Congress uses the annual appropriations process itself as the primary mechanism for controlling executive agencies.

Rather than passing substantive legislation that establishes policy, Congress passes short-term budget extensions for weeks or months rather than full fiscal years. This creates recurring leverage points where Congress can renegotiate the terms under which agencies operate.

The distinction between committees that decide what agencies can do and committees that decide how much money agencies get has effectively collapsed. Appropriations bills now contain the most important policy restrictions, and those restrictions are constantly subject to renegotiation through the annual cycle.

The 2026 DHS standoff wasn’t an anomaly. It was the natural evolution of this system. When Congress can only maintain leverage through recurring crises, Congress has strong incentive to create those crises repeatedly. When Democratic leadership could extend DHS only through the 13th while extending all other agencies through September 30, they were deliberately engineering a crisis that would give them leverage to force negotiations on immigration policy.

Precedent and Future Implications

Congress can impose operational restrictions on ICE through appropriations riders. The same mechanism could apply to other federal law enforcement agencies. Could a future Republican Congress condition FBI appropriations on restrictions against pursuing certain investigations? Could Democrats condition DEA appropriations on operational constraints against investigating particular drugs? Could either party condition IRS enforcement appropriations on restrictions against auditing particular groups or requiring audits of others?

During the Carter administration, Congress used rules that limit how agencies can spend money to restrict the IRS’s efforts to deny tax-exempt status to private schools with inadequate racial diversity. Following the Reagan administration’s FCC decision to reexamine affirmative action guidelines, Congress enacted limitation riders to prevent the FCC from finalizing those regulations. Congress has repeatedly used appropriations riders to restrict law enforcement agencies from particular programs or types of enforcement activity.

The question is whether the ICE restrictions represent normalization of a new model where Congress routinely imposes detailed operational tactics on law enforcement through appropriations. Congress could begin conditioning law enforcement appropriations on use-of-force standards, body camera requirements, warrant standards, and operational procedures across multiple agencies.

What starts as Democrats conditioning ICE appropriations on procedural protections could become Republicans conditioning FBI appropriations on investigative restrictions, or either party conditioning law enforcement appropriations on operational constraints designed to prevent investigation of politically significant figures.

If Congress can condition law enforcement appropriations on specific operational tactics, the scope of Congress’s power effectively extends to controlling exactly how the President’s agencies do their jobs. The executive branch’s counter-argument—that detailed control of law enforcement tactics violates the President’s duty to execute the laws—would need to be worked out through legislative-executive negotiation and, potentially, court challenges if either branch pushed the boundaries.

As the clock approached midnight on the 13th, the DHS appropriations impasse remained unresolved. The partial shutdown that began on the 14th would establish precedent for future appropriations showdowns. Democrats successfully forcing substantive operational restrictions on ICE would signal to future Republican-controlled Congresses that similar leverage could be applied to other agencies they opposed. Republicans holding firm and Democrats eventually accepting a deal without their full operational restrictions would teach future Democratic Congresses that threats of shutdown might not be sufficient to force executive concessions on agency operations.

Congress had evolved into a system of recurring crises, with appropriations deadlines serving as leverage points for policy negotiations. Rather than committees that decide what agencies can do establishing policy through legislation and committees that decide funding levels supporting those authorized policies, Congress now used the appropriations process itself as the primary mechanism for controlling executive agency operations.

The deadline wasn’t the end of the appropriations process but one moment in an ongoing cycle that would repeat itself in June, in September, and in every future fiscal year. Unless Congress fundamentally changed how it approached budgeting—moving back toward regular authorizations and full-year appropriations—this pattern would continue. Congress would continue using appropriations deadlines as leverage points, executive agencies would continue operating under uncertainty about their authority, and the question of exactly how detailed Congress’s control over agency operations could constitutionally be would remain an unsettled legal question to be negotiated anew with each crisis.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.