Jeffries Won't Whip Vote Against ICE Funding

[Celerity]

While the House Democratic leader announced personal opposition to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, he won’t pressure his colleagues to do the same.

https://prospect.org/2026/01/21/jeffries-wont-whip-vote-against-ice-funding/


Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) speaks during a press conference at the Capitol in Washington, January 8, 2026. Credit: Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto via AP

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) announced in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday that he would oppose the bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the rest of the fiscal year. But the Democratic caucus is not engaged in a formal whip operation to encourage all members to vote against the bill, which is likely to get a vote on Thursday. Two congressional sources told the Prospect that Jeffries and his leadership team were “recommending” a no vote, but that is different from a whip operation where Democratic Whip Rep. Katherine Clark and her deputies push members to support the leadership position on the bill. Several frontline Democrats in swing seats are expected to vote in favor of the appropriation.

“They’re terrified of being labeled anti–law enforcement,” said a Hill source tracking the legislation. “They want this to go away so they can talk about the cost of living more. Problem is, it’s not going away.” The DHS appropriation falls short of imposing true accountability on ICE in the wake of the murder of Renee Good in Minneapolis. It “flat-funds” ICE at current levels for the fiscal year, although in real terms it’s an increase to the budget, because the previous year included a one-time “anomaly” of additional spending. It restricts spending on detention that could theoretically lower capacity to 41,500 beds from a proposed 50,000. And there are some limitations on what DHS can shift from other agencies into ICE.

But because the bill includes no penalties or enforcing mechanisms to ensure that its funding directives are actually adhered to, these funding boundaries are not terribly meaningful. Democratic lawmakers forced other “guardrails” into the bill, like funding for oversight of detention facilities and mandatory body cameras for ICE agents. And additional training is mandated for agents who interact with the public. But other measures, like blocking the detention and deportation of U.S. citizens or borrowing enforcement personnel from other agencies, weren’t added to the bill. And the funding, once again, is not guaranteed, given that the Trump administration has routinely withheld or shifted around funding without pushback from Congress.

For this reason, much of the House Democratic caucus, including Jeffries and Clark, can be expected to vote no. But the Democratic leadership worked it so that the DHS appropriations bill will get a separate vote from the other three bills in the package released on Tuesday. While a full four-bill package may have needed support from House Democrats, the DHS appropriation alone, with its meager accountability measures and funding for immigration enforcement, can be expected to get full support from House Republicans. That makes it a free vote. But a large show of support against it from House Democrats could make it a heavier lift in the Senate, where Democrats would be needed for final passage to avert a filibuster.

snip

[sboatcar]

1. Maybe its time to pass the mantle

If you're not willing to stand up.

[newdeal2]

14. Exactly why focusing just on age isn't a good strategy

I want effective people regardless of their age.

[mr715]

28. I have been skeptical of Jeffries from the start

I had little doubt that Speaker Emerita Pelosi was operating the vote counting and whip apparatus of the party, and Jeffries was serving as the face of the party. Now that Pelosi is truly settling into retirement, he doesn't have gravitas that came with a Pelosi.

There are hundreds of Democratic representatives and Speaker is an awfully powerful position. Time to break some norms and give the gavel to someone who can (a) walk and chew gum at the same time and (b) advocate for moral policies in an unambiguous fashion. Full stop.

[helpisontheway]

111. He is such a weak minority leader! I miss Pelosi!! Nt

[Trueblue1968]

121. Maybe it is time to pass the mantle to someone Who Is Strong. I want someone strong like Iron Man.

I know I mentioned a fantasy person, but we need people who will take charge. Maybe a Joan of Arc or a Nancy Pelosi.

Stand up for our rights for Gods Sake !!!

[Jack Valentino]

148. Jeffries needs to hear from the nationwide Democratic rank-and-file voters---- like us!

now would be a good time to call his offices and let him know how you feel:


Washington, DC Office
2267 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: [phone]
Hours: M-F 9 – 5pm


Central Brooklyn District Office
55 Hanson Place
Suite 603
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Phone: (718) 237 – 2211
Hours: M-F 9 am – 5pm


South Brooklyn District Office
445 Neptune Avenue, 1st Floor
Community Room 2C
Brooklyn, NY 11224
Phone: (718) 373 – 0033
Hours: M-F 9 am – 5pm





When I went to his website, I first got this pop-up message:


"Know Your Immigration Rights

If you or a loved one encounter immigration enforcement officials, it is essential that you know your rights and have prepared your household for all possible outcomes.

Ask for a warrant: The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. You do not have to open your door until you see a valid warrant to enter your home or search your belongings.

Your right to remain silent: The Fifth Amendment protects your right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. You are not required to share any personal information such as your place of birth, immigration status or criminal history.

Always consult an attorney: You have a right to speak with an attorney. You do not have to sign anything or hand officials any documents without speaking to an attorney. Try to identify and consult one in advance.

The New York City Office of Civil Justice and the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs (MOIA) support a variety of free immigration legal services through local nonprofit legal organizations. To access these resources, dial 311 and say “Action NYC,” call the MOIA Immigration Legal Support Hotline at 800-354-0365 Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or visit MOIA’s website.

Learn more here: KNOW YOUR IMMIGRATION RIGHTS – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries"



Thought that was a great pop-up message, but he needs to know that he would
have the support of the party base to encourage our House caucus to oppose ICE funding!!

(I sense that he is following 'the Obama model: don't be the 'angry black man'---
but a hell of a lot of WHITE people are angry over this ICY-TRUMP over-reach,
so he should be encouraged to show some flames, and LEAD the party caucus!)



(( And technically, "whipping" the vote isn't in his job description,
that's the party whip's job--- but the weight of the caucus leader
IS called for, in our current situation! He needs to hear from
rank-and-file nationwide Democrats who want him to DO that!!))

[Jack Valentino]

152. Jeffries has publicly announced that he will vote against ICE funding--- not a small thing,

considering his position---- we must encourage him to go further !


(YES, a few days ago I was disappointed in him for refusing to take a public stand on THAT issue---
but he is moving in our direction, after consultation with the party caucus,
which I find to be encouraging!)

[JBTaurus83]

2. With friends like these....

Their own constituents are under extreme duress and they are still pissing their diapers about “law and order” being implemented by a 34 time felon. It’s so pathetic it would be laughable if it weren’t reality.

[leftstreet]

3. WTF?

[W_HAMILTON]

4. So those attacking Jeffries a few weeks ago for not wanting to cut ICE funding were full of shit.

[JBTaurus83]

7. There are some

Who always want to rush to defend politicians acting without a spine. You can usually tell they are not in one of the classes of people suffering the oppression.

[W_HAMILTON]

19. And the ones attacking good Democrats are usually those who are in a place of privilege and won't get hurt regardless.

"Bring on the revolution!" they exclaim, while the only revolution they have helped bring about is the fascist one that took out other good Democrats like Hillary, Kamala, etc. and it's now laying waste to our country.

PS - You think MAGA Republucans are on my side for defending Jeffries or are they on yours for wanting him ousted?

[mr715]

23. "Attacking good Democrats"

There is a difference between being a good Democrat and a good Democratic leader.

[W_HAMILTON]

128. And there is never anyone good enough -- funny how that works.

These same people did the same thing to Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably the greatest Speaker/Minority Leader of our time.

[mr715]

129. "These same people"

Who?

I agree that Speaker Pelosi was certainly the greatest minority leader in history, and perhaps the greatest Speaker.

And her incandescent hatred of Trump warms my soul.

[W_HAMILTON]

133. The people who think Jeffries isn't good enough, Pelosi wasn't good enough...

...Hillary wasn't good enough, Biden wasn't good enough, Kamala wasn't good enough, Newsom (now that he's getting some traction) won't be good enough......

[Melon]

153. Not all of those unfortunately...were good enough

Playing to win requires being self critical and making tough decisions. Running candidates that were not the best or appointing candidates that aren’t the strongest is a losing strategy. I’m tired of losing.

[W_HAMILTON]

179. For anyone that thinks they weren't good enough, I don't want to hear a goddamn word about the hell we find ourselves in

Because they are damn near every bit as responsible as the MAGA fascists themselves.

The MAGA fascists could not have done this without them.

[mr715]

183. Wow these purity tests. nt

[W_HAMILTON]

184. You think voting for the Democrat and the only person that could have stopped all this from happening is a purity test?

For anyone that actually thinks that, the Republicans thank you for your service.

Once again, I'm reminded of the quote, "the government you elect is the government you deserve."

[mr715]

187. No, I think your insistence

that we ignore failures of our leadership (in MANY elections) is the only way to be a good Democrat is a purity test.

Yes - we earned Trump. Especially in 2024 when we lost the popular vote. But let us never be critical of leadership because to be a good Democrat requires one to be a lemming and march lock step off the cliff.

[W_HAMILTON]

194. Except not marching in lockstep is what drove us off the cliff here.

And for what? Was it so hard to cast a vote for Kamala Harris? Do you think she and other Democratic leaders were just so terrible that it was worth inflicting another term of Donald Trump on our nation?

[mr715]

197. Do you think I didn't vote for Kamala Harris? nt

[W_HAMILTON]

199. Do you think your criticisms are in a vacuum?

Do you harshly criticize Democrats here -- on a website devoted specifically to supporting the Democratic Party -- but speak adoringly of them in real life among your friends and family and other potential voters?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see people flipping that switch so easily.

[Scrivener7]

172. I supported Pelosi, Hillary, Biden and Kamala. And my mind is open about Newsom.

But Jeffries's kneejerk selection of the weakest possible option in response to every outrage perpetrated by maga? Almost always in opposition to the position of the vast majority of Democratic reps?

Nope. I don't support that.

[W_HAMILTON]

180. What a bizarro world. Jeffries is almost always in lockstep with the vast majority of Democratic reps.

It's why Jeffries is their leader to begin with. You do realize he has to win their vote to become that, right?

He'll, even AOC and Mamdani discouraged others from trying to primary him. You don't do that to someone you think is doing a terrible job.

[betsuni]

143. Yes, Pelosi was accused of personally preventing an impeachment vote because of devious personal reasons.

That went on for a long time. Same old conspiracy theory that leadership ( COASTAL ELITES ) is personally controlling and rigging and plotting against nice innocent martyrs.

[JBTaurus83]

149. I was a huge Pelosi supporter

I don’t see it in Jeffries. I hope to be proven wrong.

[betsuni]

161. I forgot the constant hysteria that 10,000-year-old Pelosi was clinging to power, would never ever never retire

and had no replacement, the Democratic Party were all ancient and clinging to power with no pathway for succession and OMG help! help! we are powerless before the old guard and their status quos smelling of moth balls, where is new young leadership to tell me what to do, command me lord!

[JBTaurus83]

42. I was a big Hillary and Kamala

Supporter. I get what you are saying, there are people in all parts of the party who are not directly affected by the decisions our various leaders and representatives make.

I don’t have the luxury of that from either side. I am a working class gay guy with a Latino spouse. It seems to me that when citizens are having their constitutional rights stripped away; AND the public is on our side, we should be able to coalesce around deep cuts and control over ICE.

I feel the same about support and expansion of the ACA.

We are literally being handed a couple of big issues to run on and get grass roots traction, volunteering and donations.

[mr715]

44. A woman was shot in the face

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2026, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

in broad daylight by a man who is still free and, presumably not under investigation.

The woman had the indecency to be both White! and Christian! and apparently came from a Republican family.

Many years ago Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue -- well... via proxy, fulfilled.

He isn't owed the position in perpetuity by virtue of holding the office.

[JBTaurus83]

47. I agree with you

I was responding to the prior post. Apologies for the confusion. I’m all in favor of getting rid of stale leadership.

[mr715]

51. Oh I know, I'm just coming in hot.

I knew this would happen and now we're going to hear 'tactical' arguments as though Democratic tactics has ever worked.

We are shit at tactics. We are good at having the moral high ground and reality aligning with our values/beliefs. I'm just furious to have my suspicions, again, vindicated.

Sigh. Xanax.

[OldBaldy1701E]

167. Heh, I doubt even a Xanax would work on me.

But, I was never a fan of those anyway.

[W_HAMILTON]

136. And the problem is that to help them we have to hurt even more people.

Republicans don't give a damn. They hate government anyway and have the fascist friendly media to help them propagandize people into thinking Democrats are responsible for the harm that they, themselves, directly inflict.

Democrats aren't like that. They aren't going to cause families to starve because Republicans refuse to extend ACA subsidies (note: mine went up damn near 40%) or because Republicans won't defund ICE.

PS - Even if Republicans.DID defund ICE, do you think the Trump administration would obey? Hell no they wouldn't. They'd divert funds from elsewhere (which they've already done).

[iemanja]

138. If you won't stand up for the lives of your fellow citizens

What do you care about?

[W_HAMILTON]

140. Stand up for them before it gets to the point where standing up for them does nothing.

Everyone was warned that Trump was a fascist and would be much worse this time around and everyone is seeing it for themselves and their response is getting pissed at Democratic leadership for not waving a magic wand and making it all better.

There is no magic wand.

Start getting pissed at the people that pulled this same bullshit against Hillary, Kamala, etc., you know, back when we actually had a chance to stop this in its tracks.

They shit on Democrats so they don't win, then they shit on Democrats for not doing enough to stop all the bad things from happening even when they voted in ways that gave them absolutely no power to do. Quite the grift that's become for some.

[iemanja]

144. Hitler succeeded because good people failed to act.

[W_HAMILTON]

146. Yeah, and those """good people""" failed to act when they let Trump seize power....

...by tearing down Hillary, Kamala, and others, just like they are trying to tear down Democratic leadership now for not being able to do the impossible.

[Scrivener7]

174. Your pique about the past is blinding you to the urgency of the present. No one here voted for trump.

And no. Getting pissed at people who objected to Hillary and Kamala will do nothing to help in this current situation.

Rehashing old elections and venting your anger about those who didn't vote Democratic by railing at people here who ALWAYS vote Democratic is is just a tantrum. It does us no good whatsoever.

[W_HAMILTON]

181. My pique for the past was once the urgency of the present.

And the same people responded to my warnings about the lessons of the past back then the same way they are now.

And the past was repeated.

[Scrivener7]

185. And everyone here votes for the Democrats. But for some reason you insist on acting

like we don't.

[W_HAMILTON]

195. Sure could have fooled me, with how some incessantly criticize Democrats.

And if you think that criticism doesn't matter, "no single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood."

[Scrivener7]

196. Oh, FFS. So your issue is that you feel people didn't pay enough attention to you in the past, and

you want to control the things people who dependably vote for Democrats think and say. Got it.

[W_HAMILTON]

198. The issue is that people didn't heed the warnings from myself and others.

And judging from the constant complaints -- many of which are entirely disingenuous (see the thread about Jeffries and his """lack of press conferences""&quot -- people are doing the same thing that led directly.to all the problems we have now with fascist MAGA morons destroying our country.

[Scrivener7]

200. Blaming Democrats again, I see.

[EdmondDantes_]

27. Or he's feeling pressure from the base

Can't say for certain at this point.

[SergeStorms]

59. The base wouldn't want him to fight back?

[EdmondDantes_]

67. That's what I mean

I was responding to the claim that this proves people calling him out previously were wrong.

I think he is responding to the base telling him that we aren't in favor of ICE, especially operating like this.

[slightlv]

91. Depends on which "base"...

we are split and I fear the split is getting clearer. The moneyed New Democrats are not on our side, and they're all on the side of "impression." To say more would probably get me in trouble again... and my fibro is in full flare right now; not wanting to deal with that.

[W_HAMILTON]

130. Given how we've seen this play out before, I can.

Media outlets intent on bringing down Democratic leaders paint them in the worst light possible, and then when their reporting turns out to be completely wrong, what the Democratic leadership actually ended up doing is either still not good enough (see this article) or it's because the pressure from their reporting made them change their mind (what you are basically insinuating).

Meanwhile, there's been nothing to support any of this speculation all along. It's just editorialized reporting doing more editorialized reporting to cover up for their previous editorialized that has now been proven completely wrong.

[iemanja]

131. Thoughts don't matter

Actions do. if it were your friends and city under attack, you wouldn’t be so sanguine about the party’s inaction. You may not be aware, but your location could be next.

[W_HAMILTON]

137. And if people had supported good Democrats instead of nitpicking them from office, we wouldn't have that problem.

And actions that don't achieve the intended goal also don't matter.

ICE will not be defanged as long as Republicans control Congress and Trump is in the White House, regardless of what Democratic leadership does.

[iemanja]

139. Nor as long as Democrats don't act

and people like you defend their inaction. You're either part of the solution or you're the problem. Think carefully and choose. Call Jefferies' office tomorrow. 202-225-5936. Lives are at stake.

Excuses about the last presidential election don't cut it.

[W_HAMILTON]

141. Fuck that. A Democrat """not acting""" is still better than the best Republican.

And people not realizing that is how we ended up with this fascist dictatorship to begin with.

[iemanja]

142. So you won't bother making a phone call?

That's too much to ask of you?

[W_HAMILTON]

145. No, because I don't buy into the conspiracy that Democraric leadership fucking wants ICE ravaging our streets.

I trust the vast majority of Democrats will do the right thing regardless and I know that still won't be enough to stop what is happening with ICE.

That's why I wholeheartedly supported and voted for Hillary, then Biden, then Kamala, because I knew that there wasn't a damn thing that could be done to stop this once fascists seized power and Democrats were left in the minority.

There is no amount of """fighting""" that can be done by our Democrats in Congress that can prevent what is going on now -- do you understand that? I do, which is why I did my damndest to make sure this didn't happen, all the while having to fight against fascists AND those that claimed to be on the left even as they constantly stabbed our Democrats in the back.

[Celerity]

6. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay...............

[Scrivener7]

9. You sound like you should get out of your mother's basement and get a job.

To jury members: his name is "you sound vaccinated"

[Scrivener7]

11. Dear Jury: this guys' name is "you sound vaccinated." His schtick is - I think, because it' sounds pretty meth addled -

is that we're witches? Or something like that.

[leftstreet]

15. DU has support forums

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1315

addiction
mental health
etc

[sheshe2]

55. 🤣🤣🤣

Good one!

[sheshe2]

56. 🤣🤣🤣

Good one!

[Emile]

24. Pretty sure it's Library Girl

[Scrivener7]

25. Ah! Of course. Such a pitiful creature.

[Emile]

29. She gone for now

Earl just now nuked her.

[mr715]

32. That happened quickly.

I was wondering what the turn around would be.

[Emile]

49. LG you back so soon?

[sheshe2]

52. Three times a charm?!

I hope she takes a long winters nap.

[Emile]

54. LOL , she is a Weirdo.

[sheshe2]

58. She sure took a sprint through this thread. 🤪

[niyad]

81. Darn, I missed all the fun. Was our old friend lg on a tear again?

[niyad]

83. hmmm, I have seen that user name several other places on youtube.

Completely unhinged ranting.

[Scrivener7]

8. Jesus. It's because "they're terrified of being labeled anti law enforcement." While a rogue militia

is violating the most basic rights of American citizens on a daily basis.

I just can't.

[mr715]

20. If he were to be elected Speaker, he'd control the agenda.

He has demonstrated absolutely no capacity or willingness to lead. I anticipate the next Congress' agenda to be very, shall we say, measured in response to every fucking thing.

[Bread and Circuses]

38. I advise to have ZERO expectations if he becomes speaker. More foot dragging

[mr715]

41. We can't get much without Trump...

Admittedly.

BUT this sort of "Hey I'm opposed to ICE but I don't reaaallly care, not enough to whip, not enough to lead" tells us exactly what to expect.

We will have hearings. Blue ribbon panels. There shall be reports, oh will there be reports. We will be told how lucky we are that investigations are happening and the results are just around the corner!

And then we'll lose the House again.

[Ars Longa]

45. Why can't another Rep, (AOC, Crow, Frost. or?) challenge Jeffries'

Office? At least to show that there is pushback over this
timidity..

[mr715]

48. They can.

I'd like to see then-former Rep. Crockett get the gavel. It'll never happen.

[RockRaven]

12. And people lament that the party's approval rating is poor...

Gee, why could that be?

[mr715]

50. Oo! Oo! I know!!

Is it leadership that looks like it doesn't lead?

[mr715]

16. Wait-a-sec...

He's... against it but won't whip votes. Huh.

Isn't he the minority leader? His big ol' caucus meeting was kabuki to allow him to take both sides of a position simultaneously.

Will there be a statement when another person is shot dead on the streets? Will [we] condemn it in harshest terms? How many condemnations equal moral clarity? Or for that matter, a person's life.

So... uh... he's gotta go. We have better options in our caucus.

[EdmondDantes_]

17. While I'd much prefer they be more forceful I understand the hesitation

We collectively have had a love affair with law enforcement/military and we did see those shoplifting groups rise after the effective decriminalization of some levels of shoplifting (not nearly the rise that was reported, but it was played up).

But I suspect the public anger and video evidence will prompt elected officials in the right direction.

It's also a bit weird that we're afraid to point out that ICE has only been around for 20ish years. It can't be that vital an organization in the same way police and the military are.

[H2O Man]

18. That's terrible.

Hopefully there are real leaders who will.

Recommended.

[Nanjeanne]

26. Without strong leadership we are sunk.

[mr715]

30. Uh huh.

This is not an unexpected move by our Congressional leader and one that does not bode well. It speaks to a devastating lack of awareness of Democrats on the ground, and its utter cravenness disrespects the memory of Renee Good.

[Bread and Circuses]

35. He doesn't care. These are bench warmers , at best

[mr715]

39. He could be a competent back bencher

He isn't cut out for leadership. He lacks vision.

[Bread and Circuses]

37. We've fallen through the Ice. No one to help us

[SocialDemocrat61]

31. My guess is

there are already enough democratic reps. in swing districts who don’t want to get labeled anti-law enforcement. And since it’s likely to pass away due to the republican majority, there is no reason to ask those members to fall on their swords for a lost cause.

[Quiet Em]

53. That's exactly it.

Sadly there are a handful of Democratic Reps. with that stance. My Rep. is on the correct side of this, but if he/she wasn't I'd be calling him/her.

[SocialDemocrat61]

57. If you're a democratic rep

in a district that Trump won in 24, they are not going to vote against funding that will pass anyway just to make a statement.

[mr715]

60. So let 'em!

Let them vote however they want to vote. But the Democratic LEADER should not be the one providing that permission structure.

Do you think people in R+24 districts have a favorable opinion of Rep. Jeffries? Do you think they need political cover from him?

The answer is no.

All this does is establish the fact that Democratic leadership tries at every opportunity to take multiple sides of an issue that has only one side.

[SocialDemocrat61]

61. Most people in R+24 districts

probably don't know who the minority leaders is or care. Same as people in D+24 districts.

A lot of people are not political or news junkies. Most probably don't even know the name of their own Representative.

And part of Jeffries job is to protect the members of his caucus and help them get re-elected in November. Why force them to take a vote that will hurt them on a bill that will pass even if every Democrat votes against it?

[mr715]

63. Why broadcast it!?

We had this discussion a couple of days ago. This is exactly what I expected. This is the measured, triangulated, torturous response of leadership to a public murder.

A murder.

A murder.

A murder.

If Rep. Jeffries is going to be a leader, I'd submit he'd frame it as such. I would whip my votes on this issue. And I would let my caucus vote their conscience and let the chip falls where they may.

Be willing to lose your seat because you aren't willing to sell your soul, we might find ourselves winning for once.

[SocialDemocrat61]

71. He probably already knows that a number of Democrats

won’t oppose the bill. If he didn’t say this now the corporate media will attack him as a weak leader who can’t control his caucus. And why hand republicans a weapon to use against democrats in the midterms? This could be Defund the Police all over again. Many felt that lost democrats seats in 24. And even several democratic reps like Abigail Spanberger said that it made their re-election harder.

[mr715]

73. 100% Wrong

Let Democrats vote how they want to vote. If they are in tight districts, let them hem and haw about whether to vote for murder or not.

Let the sun in and see where people stand.

Die on the same hill that KILLED Renee Good.

[SocialDemocrat61]

74. He is letting Democrats vote how they want

So I don’t see what the problem is.

[mr715]

75. No.

He is providing a permission structure to allow Democrats to vote how they want.

He, as leader, should not be doing this. if he were in fact a strong leader, he'd have held this position publically from the day of the murder of Renee Good. He didn't. He waited and led from behind.

When ICE murders another person, because they will, is that enough incentive for Leader Jeffries to whip votes?

[SocialDemocrat61]

76. If you want to see ICE held accountable

then democrats need to win control of congress in the midterms with as big a majority as possible. Sometimes you need to take a short term loss to achieve long-term goals.

The funding bill is going to pass even if every democrat votes against it. And some democrats will vote for it whether Jeffries gives them permission or not. So there is no point in drawing a line in the sand over it.

[mr715]

84. Yes, there is.

There is a point in drawing a line -- because this is not okay.

Would it be okay for House leadership to say they are supporting a bill guaranteeing abortion rights, but they are unwilling to whip for it?

Would it be okay for House leadership to say they are supporting a bill funding healthcare, but they are unwilling to whip for it?

It isn't leadership if you are literally not leading. Literally saying I'm not going to twist arms here. It isn't like people are dying. Getting shot in the face, in front of their wife, in cold blood.

I completely agree we need to win to exercise power. However, projecting leadership this way is why we lose. It is feckless. It is tone deaf. Inauthentic. Tired.

[SocialDemocrat61]

87. No there isn't

It’s irrelevant and has the potential to hurt democrats in November. It’s just performance art.

[mr715]

90. We very much disagree. nt

[SocialDemocrat61]

98. Yes we do

But that’s one of the good things left about this country.

[crimycarny]

106. But I don't think you improve your chances of winning control of congress by not fighting such an important issue

This is just my opinion, but I think Jeffries and some of the other hesitant Dems are miscalculating how many are enraged by what ICE is doing, including Independents and some on the right. They aren't reading the room.

Especially with the ICE whistleblower leaked a memo where ICE is telling their agents to break into homes without a warrant. People on all ends of the political spectrum are enraged.

This is exactly the political miscalculation that helped the Nazi Party gain power. There is a great documentary, "The Rise of the Nazi Party," and it parallels the same sort of hesitancy by the majority party (at the time) to take strong action against the atrocities the Nazi brownshirts were engaging in. They lost their majority.

[SocialDemocrat61]

112. Rather than read a room

They could read a poll instead: https://civiqs.com/results/abolish_ice?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true

And what aided the Nazis was the refusal of German Communists to ally with Social Democrats because Social Democrats didn’t pass their purity tests.

[crimycarny]

114. We can disagree without disparaging either other, can't we?

To hold strong opinions on something, and state it as an opinion (as I clearly did), is not holding Jeffries or other Dems to some sort of "purity test", which I feel you were implying (perhaps you were not).

Let's debate without tearing each other down.

The poll you linked to asked if people supported abolishing ICE. I don't think that's the same as not funding ICE unless they change their tactics. ICE already has funding; this bill increases the funding, which I think voters will see as approval of the current tactics. I guess we'll see.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/21/public-opinion-shifts-on-ice-as-advocates-warn-of-us-inflection-point

[SocialDemocrat61]

116. I was implying nothing personal

But I don't think insisting that democrats essentially fighting against a bill that will pass anyway on an issue that is not supported by a majority of voters is a good idea.

[crimycarny]

118. Abolishing ICE versus not extra funding

The poll asked voters if they supported completely abolishing ICE. I find that different than asking voters if they approve of ICE's tactics, which by an increasingly large margin they don't.

I feel--and again it's just my opinion--that voting to increase ICE's funding will be seen as an acceptance of their current tactics, which is becoming hugely unpopular.

[SocialDemocrat61]

147. Funding ICE is not the same as

approving of their tactics. Defund the Police was seen by many as an attack on law enforcement. Defunding ICE could be seen as the same thing.

[crimycarny]

154. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

And time will tell. It just seems the Dems often worry too much about how the GOP will "frame" what they do, and the GOP always wins the messaging war regardless. If the Dems vote for the funding, the GOP will claim it's proof they agree with what ICE is doing. If the Dems vote against the funding bill, the GOP will try to use 'defund the police'.

If enough Dems plan to vote with the GOP to approve the funding, then come up with some talking points ahead of time that explain why and keep hammering those talking points. The GOP does this all the time. Instead, the Dems will rail against something, only to turn around and vote with the GOP. The GOP doesn't have to do anything; the Dems do it to themselves with crappy messaging.

[SocialDemocrat61]

155. Either way it's irrelevant

The funding bill will pass even if every Democrat votes against. For some Dems it will be a positive and some it will be a negative. With control of the House at stake in November, it’s not a good time to hand republicans an issue to attack democrats in swing districts with. Especially if there is no chance of success. Asking swing district democrats to fall on their swords just to make a statement it crappy messaging.

[crimycarny]

157. I don't think for those in Minnesota see a yes vote for the ICE funding as irrelevant

And I don't think that for many across the country who saw Jonathan Ross murder Renee Good, see the funding bill as irrelevant. I think this vote is going to be far more relevant to people than business as usual.

If swing vote Dems are going to vote for it to "avoid bad messaging", then get a frickin' "good message" to explain their yes vote. Not just a "well, hopefully the base will ignore this, and we'll make our swing voters happy".

Personally, I don't think swing voters like what they see ICE doing either.

[SocialDemocrat61]

158. It's irrelevant because it will pass anyway

it's just making a useless statement that will lose votes in November.

[crimycarny]

159. Certainly worked great in 2024

When Dems didn’t come up a cohesive message regarding Palestine.

[SocialDemocrat61]

160. Why not stick to the issue at hand

The funding bill is going to pass whatever democrats do. For democrats in swing districts voting against will lose them votes. It’s unreasonable to ask them to vote for a lost cause just to make a statement.

[mr715]

168. Then let us resign ourselves

We are subjects of GOP leadership. They will whip our votes.

[SocialDemocrat61]

169. I'm not a member of Congress

So I'm a subject of any party's leadership. But as far as both houses of Congress is concerned, the GOP is in charge. That's why Dems need to win the Midterms.

[LearnedHand]

115. Too bad they can't learn from the Repukes when they were out of power

They fought Every Single Thing, no matter how small. And they blasted Dems for having the stance. We look like field mice.

[SocialDemocrat61]

117. Yet democrats are leading in the polls

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/state-of-the-union/generic-congressional-vote

[Bread and Circuses]

33. Talk about NOT meeting the moment.

For every elected officials D and R :

I’m sick of the mediocrity . This is the TIME for Bold and Courageous Action!

There’s no time to wait for the midterms … and squander these 10 months.
Shake things up, stand in the speaker’s office and protest.
Call your own hearings and rent a conference room if needed to bring forth testimony. I don’t care that it’s NOT Official.
The republican Fascist crime syndicate isn’t Following the law or procedures …

Push Back Hard.

If you can’t do that, resign Now,

[Maru Kitteh]

34. Not leading? Not following? Choose option C.

GET OUT OF THE WAY.

[mr715]

43. Lets get real zen about our position on murder.

Or do a quantum superposition of probabilities. Try to juggle all sides of an issue because the media loves that. This shit makes me so angry.

How dare he be allowed the luxury of voting his conscience without being the conscience of our caucus. If he is willing to allow himself believe in something, maybe buy in. God doth hate neutralities.

[LuvLoogie]

36. Our masked racist militia needs better training

in how to more acceptibly enforce white supremacy, AKA law and order.

We are in a deep, deep hole.

[themaguffin]

40. I know that we are all experts & understand politics & Congress more than him, but what if...

... he and Democrats in office don't see this as the tactical fight to the end needed?

I mean, I get it. For him to do so is weak weak weak and there's no broader picture or fight or strategy in mind.

Carry on.

[Scrivener7]

89. Whatever that larger strategy is, it's painfully clear it's not working.

[themaguffin]

165. Not every strategy is an action in the moment. Look, I would love for them to...

just obstruct and be able to truly stop this, but they can't unless enough Republicans get on board.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that it's not simple and I do know that all of us here know less than they do on possible ways forward.

[Scrivener7]

171. I think all of us can look at the results of his continuous selection of the weakest possible response to a given

situation - often against the wishes of the vast majority of Democratic reps who, I think we can agree, also know stuff - and we can see this isn't working.

I'm often castigated for "not standing with Democrats" when I criticize him. But in fact, I stand with the vast majority of Democratic reps in opposing this kneejerk appeasement of a madman and his cult.

In what possible scenario is it a good thing for Democrats not to be unanimous in opposing a rogue militia who is invading citizens' homes and murdering Americans in the street?

It's no wonder our approval is in the toilet.

[themaguffin]

173. Again, they to do whatever is that they actually can do. I'm referring to more than words

[Scrivener7]

175. What does it hurt if we stand united for the obvious right and moral thing, even if we don't win?

And what does it say about us when we don't stand united for the obvious right and moral thing?

The stand itself is something they "actually can do."

[themaguffin]

176. I didn't say otherwise. That wasn't my point

[MorbidButterflyTat]

62. So how does this "whip" work?

"Several frontline Democrats in swing seats are expected to vote in favor of the appropriation.
'They’re terrified of being labeled anti–law enforcement,' said a Hill source tracking the legislation."

How is Jeffries expected to whip Dems who are considering themselves into what DUers want? I mean, this week?

Intimidation? Threats? Arm twisting? Toilet bowl swirlies? Trashing reputations online?

Good job, OP.

[tritsofme]

79. For some folks, performative outage is the entire show.

[Scrivener7]

93. Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)

A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline (that members of the party vote according to the party platform rather than their constituents, individual conscience or donors) in a legislature.

The whip is the official whose job is to ensure a united front.

That's how important things have always gotten done. Seems like stopping a rogue militia from murdering more Americans is an important thing.

[mr715]

99. When impeachment rolls around...

we'll be hearing how important the whip is.

But only then.

[Timewas]

64. Gotta be some stupid bug

Going around there, if they won't fight for what's right what will they fight for.. Getting tiresome, looks like go along to get along to me....

[KT2000]

65. I consider this a litmus test

for the party.
If he can't take a stand against gestapo nazis abusing people, he should step aside.

[mr715]

68. It has been (at least) one public murder.

Does the calculation change when it is 10? 100? 10,000?

Would Jeffries whip votes if ICE had killed 1,000,000?

If he isn't willing to lead on this singularly clear moral issue, he doesn't have it in him. Step aside.

[hatrack]

66. Are there issues for which he will whip votes?

A non-binding expression of support for the ASPCA?

A bill to ban the use of guillotines to execute federal prisoners?

A resolution in support of National Orchid Day?

Just wondering . . .

[mr715]

69. On bills denouncing the horrors of socialism... nt

[Scrivener7]

94. Seriously. If this isn't important enough to him, I truly wonder what is.

[hatrack]

97. Precisely. If you won't oppose this, why have an "Opposition"?

[Autumn]

166. "Presidents come presidents go. And through it all God is still on his throne"

That belief is what is important to Jefferies. His god has this. Sooner or later.

[Renew Deal]

70. WEAK

[fujiyamasan]

72. This is why the country's political system is a failure

It’s not just because a madman wants absolute control (and has seemingly got it). At any point in time there are nutcases like Trump, but what’s worse now is one party has decided to roll over and rubber stamp everything (not surprising the republicans have been pretty much fascists for over a quarter century), while the other party has completely feckless, incompetent and cowardly leadership like this. Pick your battles, sure… this is the battle to pick!

They keep chipping away… little by little at first, then soon it’s chunks of the WH, then it’s big chunks of the constitution. The courts have basically invalidated the fourth amendment. The first isn’t too far behind. That one will be a lot harder, but they’re getting there.

[AllyCat]

77. What??? Why???!!

Jeez, it’s bad out there Jeffries? WTF?

ICE is not law enforcement. They could actually lead on that and cut funding at the same time.

Two for one…

[usonian]

78. HERE is a house leader.

no further comment.

[Ars Longa]

86. I wonder if Nancy is going along with this, or if behind the scenes,

shes objecting to this!!
I think she, (as leader) would have been way more bold!

[mr715]

92. Watch how she votes. But we know how she'll vote.

And no, she isn't behind this. If she were, we wouldn't know about it because she is a scalpel.

[Ars Longa]

104. I hope H.Jeffries is listening to Nancy behind the scenes..

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2026, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I seems not. (At this time).

[BlueKota]

80. When did it get to the point that it's acceptable

for our representatives not to stand against funding for an agency that has committed cold blooded murder, and violated multiple civil rights, and have basically shit on the Constitution? The Constitution is supposed to be the ultimate source of the laws of our nation.

There will never be a more defining moment for our elected officials than now. Do they stand up against those who would unjustly harm their constituents, or surrender for appearances sake, and just let the violation of human rights continue unimpeded?

Hopefully European Leaders will be more courageous than our own in standing up against tsf. I don't see us over coming this crisis unless more people put standing up for basic human decency, over what they perceive may happen if they don't surrender hook, line, and sinker to what the bullies want.

[Scrivener7]

96. Great post.

[BlueKota]

124. Thank you!

[usonian]

113. Maybe European leaders learned from Neville Chamnerlain.

We are intent upon imitating him.

And just beginning to pay the price.

I plan on abandoning this red district in California (which got redder in order to make other districts bluer) for a safer location. All Gods Chillun got heavy weaponry up here, not knowing that "it can happen to them":

Morans

[BlueKota]

125. It's sad how many people in this country

are still in denial that what happened in Germany can and already is starting to happen here.

Like you pointed out appeasing and outright surrendering didn't work against Hitler, and I doubt it will work against tsf.

[usonian]

135. It only "proves" to them their "rightness" of their cause, and the gullibility of others.

Let me interject Wilhoit's Law here:

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” That line—written by Frank Wilhoit—has become a popular aphorism to sum up the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the modern Republican Party

a.k.a. Nazi party.

https://pylimitics.net/wilhoits-law/

[Bayard]

127. Well said, and I agree

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. (and women!)

[Cirsium]

82. There it is..

"They’re terrified...”

“They want this to go away..."

[patphil]

85. Is he daring any Democrats to vote for the DHS bill?

That'd be a good way to see who should be primaried; a litmus test for the extent the Democrats in the House are willing to support their party's agenda.
You shouldn't need to whip the Democrats in the House to stand against ICE.

[Mr. Sparkle]

88. "They're terrified of being labeled anti-law enforcement," rather than doing the right thing

and doing what the vast majority of people want. How unpopular does ice have to get before they go after them ? I despair. If we were running against middle of the road republicans in the next election, we'd get our asses kicked.

[mr715]

95. We will be a perpetual minority

unless we start running unafraid of losing.

[Scubamatt]

123. Well stated!!!!!

People need to know what we stand for as a party.

[BarbD]

103. This is not law enforcement.

These are lawless goons stepping all over the Constitution and violating people's rights.

[Sympthsical]

100. Come on down to Crazy Atacama's!

Where our powder is so dry, Ben Shapiro once tried to fuck it!

I am just so over *gestures* all of this. I can't even muster disappointment. It's just an inexorable motion of the universe that our leadership will take the most uninspired course possible and defenders will be sent out with talking points to explain why surrender is the truest path to victory.

Quintus Fabius Maximus is off in Tartarus somewhere thinking, "I feel like I've been misunderstood."

[mr715]

102. "Defeat from the jaws of victory" nt

[La Coliniere]

101. We need a House leader who walks the walk.

Jeffries certainly know how to talk the talk(on occasion), but those new shoes need some breaking in. He’s a huge disappointed who is not equipped to take on the dangerous challenges our country faces.

[mysteryowl]

105. He is afraid to whip votes against the DHS funding bill because it would look like dems are anti-ICE.

Oh for f**k sake. We are anti ICE!

We need Dem leadership on the side of the people.

(Don't flag me for speaking truth.)

[mr715]

108. Any Democrat who isn't anti-ICE

needs an opportunity to present their case to their constituents.

But the position of our party LEADERSHIP should be anti-ICE.

[SheltieLover]

107. I hope he is primaried

[mr715]

110. Primaries are good and healthy

They allow us to hold our representatives accountable to their principles.

I too hope he endures a primary and learns from it should he ever want to be a successful Speaker of the House.

[W_HAMILTON]

182. Even AOC and Mamdani discouraged primarying him.

But I'm fine with it because Jeffries will crush those that stated their intentions to primary him. It won't even be close.

When Jeffries wins his primary and then wins yet another vote to become leader of the House Democrats, will you accept him then? Because it's giving...

[mr715]

186. Primaries are good and healthy.

I have every expectation that Jeffries will win his primary and be elected to leadership.

If I were in his district, when he wins his primary, I would vote for him.

I shall repeat, in case it is unclear: primaries are good and healthy.

[lapucelle]

188. DSA acolyte Chi Osse filed the paperwork, but then he got the memo from both AOC and Mamdani

and dropped out. Hakeem Jeffries is running unopposed.

Mamdani Urges D.S.A. Not to Endorse a Challenger to Jeffries

Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani argued that an endorsement of a left-leaning ally, Chi Ossé, would hurt his efforts to secure mainstream Democratic support for his proposals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/nyregion/mamdani-osse-dsa-endorsement.html

Exclusive: AOC says Jeffries primary challenge not a "good idea"

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) signaled in an interview with Axios on Monday that she would not support New York City Council member Chi Ossé in a primary challenge against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

snip-------------------------------

What she's saying: Ocasio-Cortez told Axios during a brief interview at the U.S. Capitol that she was "not aware" that Ossé was challenging Jeffries. "But," she added, "I certainly don't think a primary challenge to the leader is a good idea right now.'

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/18/aoc-jeffries-chi-osse-new-york-democrats

[lapucelle]

189. As for Jeffries, he says "Bring it on".

Link to tweet

[mr715]

190. This is the right posture, no?

Politicians should be held accountable to their constituents as often as possible.

[lapucelle]

191. Ask AOC and Mamdani. They're the ones clearly against primarying Jeffries.

[mr715]

192. They're wrong? nt

[lapucelle]

193. nt?

[Warpy]

119. Defunding isn't just for ICE, it's for DHS as a whole

with funding for specific and useful agencies--like FEMA--being restored as soon as Dubya's Orwellian agency is gone. We alwways knew it was going to be open to abuse from Day One over 20 years ago and we were right about that.

Still, one things th job would be a lot easier to do once the GOP is not the majority and Marshmallow Mike Johnson is back to probating wills in Podunk, LA.

[littlemissmartypants]

120. From another source:

One of the few House Democrats openly defending the bill is Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, who helped negotiate the legislation as the lead Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee.

He told reporters he understands his colleagues’ concerns about reported ICE abuses but cautioned that the alternative was worse — a continuing resolution for the department that he characterized as a “blank check.” The negotiated bill includes $20 million for body cameras and guardrails to prevent the transfer of funds between agencies, among other modest restrictions.

“I’d rather have some provisions and no provisions at all,” he said, noting that the agency separately received billions of dollars under the GOP megabill last year. “The alternative would be a blank check, and I don’t want to give them a blank check.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/21/congress/house-democrats-dhs-funding-00738894

Also,
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), said he is leaning no...

Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.) said he was undecided...

And... Republicans have an attendance problem. That could be a good thing and may explain Jeffries' stance.

I wish it was possible to read it for ourselves. I don't feel comfortable criticizing, not having walked in his moccasins. Superficially, it doesn't look reasonable.

I hope he offers up a detailed explanation and not just a canned response with a lot of hand gestures that only serve as distractions and add little to the logic.

Thanks for the discussion, Celerity. ❤️

[Scubamatt]

122. Pathetic . . .

More of the same "we don't want to make the bully angry at us" crap. Why not figure out how to respond to the fact that we have an army of thugs terrorizing people and operating outside of the law? I'm unfortunately old enough how the right wing was able to seize the framing in the lead up to and follow on of the Waco disaster, and how quickly our side got defensive and apologetic. We could do the same here, and actual have truth and justice on our side. Effective messaging and being on the right side of an issue are NOT mutually exclusive. As Bartcop used to say, if only Democrats would just ell the facts. If only . . . .

[betsuni]

132. Oh heck, the headline doesn't get me worked up in a frothy hate at Democrats -- not sure why I should despise Jeffries.

I know, I'll read the comments! This is really the place to go for that, besides the media.

[iemanja]

134. Trump has unleashed a Gestapo that is killing us

and they still won’t act. I can’t describe my anger, it is so intense. This cannot stand.

[JBTaurus83]

150. Don't worry just let the rich leadership fix it

We are all ungrateful according to some tone deaf postings.

[The Roux Comes First]

151. Sorry, I'm Through with Him and All the Rest of the D Leadership

This is no longer business as usual.
Anyone not willing to get off their ass, get out of the way.

[Sewa]

162. Hakeem goes the Schumer playbook

Same shit Shumer pulled to kill the ACA. They are trying to have it both ways. No blood on their hands. 😏💀

[returnee]

163. It's the job of elected officials....

….first and foremost to defend the Constitution. This is fundamental patriotic behavior which all elected officials are sworn to do and should exemplify.
Secondly, it is their job to find a way to clearly explain to their constituents what is actually going on, and what should be done about it without alienating them.
If they can’t do both those things and chew gum they don’t belong there. This especially true of officials in leadership positions. Given the stakes in this moment, I see many not being up to their responsibilities.

[Autumn]

164. Of course he won't. nt

[gulliver]

170. Maybe because he wants to win the House

He's going to be the next Speaker, and I'm really looking forward to it.

The constant snapping at plastic worms in the form of emotion-first politics is what got us Trump in the first place. If Jeffries stays cool, we might finally be able to make some progress against MAGA.

[iemanja]

178. "Emotion first"!?

That's what you call murdering and maiming people? If they don't stand up to the Gestapo, what is the point?
Additionally, polls show that ICE is unpopular. Your sanguine attitude toward the takeover of my state is shocking.

[Scrivener7]

177. usonian has a thread of action items, including a phone # to call Jeffries and tell him to whip this damn thing.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20959033

I'm sure some here will see that as "bashing Democrats" but if the rest of us call, it might do something.

[Jilly_in_VA]

201. If that's the case

then Jeffries must be replace ASAP.