lawmakers

WASHINGTON — A budget impasse in Congress is poised to halt large swaths of federal operations early Saturday as lawmakers in Capitol Hill turn to the next flashpoint in negotiations to reopen the government: whether to impose new limits on federal immigration authorities carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Over the next two weeks, Democrats and Republicans will weigh competing demands on how the Department of Homeland Security should carry out arrests, detention and deportations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents this month in Minnesota.

Seeking to rein in the federal agency, Senate Democrats late on Thursday were able to strike a deal with the White House that would temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security but fund the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation agencies through Sept. 30.

The agreement is intended to give lawmakers more time to address Democratic demands to curb ICE tactics while averting a partial government shutdown.

The Senate finalized the deal Friday evening on a 71-29 vote, hours before a midnight deadline to avert a government shutdown. Passage of the deal was delayed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who objected to parts of the package.

The House expected to take up the legislation as early as Monday. The partial government shutdown will occur until the measure clears the House and Trump signs it into law.

The president supports the deal, which came after Senate Democrats said they would not vote to fund Homeland Security unless reforms for the agency were approved. Among the demands: banning federal agents from wearing masks, requiring use of body cameras and requiring use of judicial warrants prior to searching homes and making arrests.

Democrats have also demanded that local and state law enforcement officials be given the ability to conduct independent investigations in cases where federal agents are accused of wrongdoing.

The deal, however, does not include any of those reforms; it includes only the promise of more time to negotiate with no guarantee that the new restrictions will be agreed to.

Both of California’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, voted against the Senate deal. They both opposed giving more funding to Homeland Security without reforms in a vote Thursday.

Schiff voted no because he said he promised to not “give another dime for ICE until we saw real reforms — and not just promised reforms but statutory requirements.”

“I want to see those reforms before I am prepared to support any more funding for these agencies,” Schiff said in a video message posted on X, and added that he did not see the White House acting in “good faith. “I want it in writing and statute.”

After voting against the measure, Padilla said in a statement: “I’ve been clear from the beginning: No more money for ICE and CBP without real oversight and accountability.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday morning that Democrats will find out whether two weeks is enough time to reach a compromise.

“We will evaluate whether that is sufficient time,” Jeffries said. “But there is urgency to dealing with this issue because ICE as we have seen is out of control.”

Meanwhile, the absence of reforms in the Senate deal has already drawn concerns from some progressives, who argue the deal falls short of what is needed to rein in federal immigration enforcement.

“First of all, I’m actually disappointed that Senate leadership is not right now demanding more,” Rep. Robert Garcia, a top-ranking House Democrat from Long Beach, told reporters Friday. “This idea that we’re somehow going to continue to fund this agency and somehow just extend the pain, I think is absolutely wrong.”

Garcia said it was “outrageous” that the Senate deal would extend funding for Homeland Security for two weeks without any new requirements.

“This idea that we’re somehow not demanding immediately the removal of masks and body cameras and all the other reforms while eliminating this agency that’s causing harm, I think, is outrageous,” Garcia said.

Democratic Rep. Judy Chu of Pasadena said in a statement that she had not yet decided whether to support the Senate deal once it reaches the House floor.

But, Chu added: “I cannot support legislation that increases funding to this agency while delivering no accountability measures.”

Rep. Kevin Calvert (R-Corona) said in a statement that it is “critical” for lawmakers to pass the bipartisan spending package, in part because it included funding for the U.S. military.

“As Chairman of the [House] Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, I’m especially concerned about the negative impacts of a shutdown at a time when we have a buildup of American military assets in the Middle East,” Calvert said.

Calvert added that Homeland Security operations will continue even in the shutdown because lawmakers provided an influx of funding for the agency in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But he said he worried that any lapse in funding would affect other operations by the agency, including disaster funding and security assistance for major events, such as the upcoming World Cup.

“We need to get these priorities funded,” he said.

Other Republican lawmakers have already signaled the possible hurdles Democrats will face as they try to rein in ICE.

Graham held up consideration of the Senate deal, in part because he wanted the Senate to vote to criminalize local and state officials in sanctuary cities — a term that has no strict definition but that generally describes local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“You can convince me that ICE can be better, but I don’t think I will ever convince you to abandon sanctuary cities because you’re wedded to it on the Democratic side,” Graham said.

Graham also delayed passage of the deal because it included a repeal of a law that would have allowed senators — including himself — to sue the government if federal investigators gained access to their phones without notifying them. The law required senators to be notified if that were to happen and sue for up to $50,000 in damages per incident.

“We’ll fix the $500,000 — count me in — but you took the notification out,” Graham said. “I am demanding a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Other Senate Republicans also expressed concern with Democrats’ demands, even as Trump seemed to try appease them.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said the demand for federal agents to remove their masks during operations was a “clear and obvious attempt to intimidate and put our federal agents in harm’s way.”

“When enforcement becomes dangerous for enforcers, enforcement does not survive,” Schmitt said in a Senate floor speech. “What emerges is not reform, it is amnesty by default.”

Despite the GOP opposition, most Senate Republicans were poised to join Democrats on Friday and vote for the deal. But there is no certainty that they will join the minority party when negotiations resume in the coming weeks.

Recent history suggests that bipartisan support at the outset does not guarantee a lasting deal, particularly when unresolved policy disputes remain. The last government shutdown tied to a debate over healthcare exposed how quickly negotiations can collapse when no agreement is reached.

In November, a small group of Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history with the promise of negotiating an extension to healthcare tax credits that were set to expire in the new year.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a former House speaker, reminded the public on Friday that Democrats were unable to get Republican support for extending the tax credits, resulting in increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

“House Democrats passed a bipartisan fix, yet Senate Republicans continue to block this critical relief for millions of Americans,” Pelosi wrote in a post on X.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Jan. 30 (UPI) — Two Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers about why National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard was at an FBI raid at a Georgia election facility.

Gabbard was photographed outside the Fulton County Election Hub and Operations Center, just outside of Atlanta, when the FBI executed a “a court authorized law enforcement action” on Wednesday. FBI spokesperson Jenna Sellitto told The Hill that boxes loaded on trucks contained ballots.

Agents sought 2020 election records, Fulton County spokesperson Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez said.

“We don’t know why they took them, and we don’t know where they’re taking them to,” county board of commissioners Chair Robb Pitts told The Hill.

“Director Gabbard has a pivotal role in election security and protecting the integrity of our elections against interference, including operations targeting voting systems, databases, and election infrastructure,” a senior administration official told NBC News.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., released a statement about Gabbard’s presence at the raid.

“There are only two explanations for why the Director of National Intelligence would show up at a federal raid tied to Donald Trump‘s obsession with losing the 2020 election,” he said. “Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus — in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns — or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office that she holds by injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy.”

He said it shows she is unfit for the job.

“Either is a serious breach of trust that further underscores why she is totally unqualified to hold a position that demands sound judgment, apolitical independence, and a singular focus on keeping Americans safe,” he said.

Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., who both serve on their chambers’ intelligence committees, penned a letter to Gabbard expressing concern about her appearance in Georgia and demanding that she “appear before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence immediately.”

The letter said it is “deeply concerning that you participated in this domestic law enforcement action. The Intelligence Community should be focused on foreign threats and, as you yourself have testified, when those intelligence authorities are turned inwards the results can be devastating for Americans’ privacy and civil liberties.”

They said they want her to address her reasoning and role in attending the FBI operation in Fulton County, under what legal authority she or any other IC employee were involved, and an update on any intelligence she has concerning foreign interference in U.S. elections, including the 2020 election.

“Given the politically fraught nature of elections for federal office, any federal efforts associated with combatting foreign election threats necessitate public transparency, prompt updating of Congressional intelligence committees, and clear commitment to non-partisan conduct,” the letter said.

“Your recent actions raise foundational questions about the current mission of your office, and it is critical that you brief the Committees immediately as part of your obligation to keep Congress fully and currently informed.”

Two unnamed senior officials with knowledge of the matter told NBC that Gabbard’s presence in Fulton County was not requested by the Justice Department. They said Gabbard was only observing, and her presence wasn’t illegal.

“It seems to be an attempt to make herself relevant,” one official told NBC. “It’s so strange.”

On Thursday, Trump responded to a reporter’s question about her presence in Georgia.

“She’s working very hard on trying to keep the elections safe, and she’s done a very good job,” Trump said at the Kennedy Center. “You got a signed judge’s order in Georgia, and you’re going to see some interesting things happening. They’ve been trying to get there for a long time.”

If she took part in the search, her involvement would be “wrong and potentially even illegal,” said Kevin Carrol, a former CIA officer and national security lawyer, to NBC.

“It is also inappropriate for a Cabinet-level official to take part in a law enforcement operation. Among other things, the director is now potentially a fact witness in any suppression hearing or trial related to the evidence seized by the bureau,” Carroll said.

Jan. 28 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s opposition People Power Party and the ruling Democratic Party traded accusations Wednesday over U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks about restoring higher tariffs, with conservatives faulting the government’s diplomacy and liberals arguing Seoul must move quickly to pass pending legislation tied to a bilateral investment package.

The dispute unfolded at a National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee hearing, where Foreign Minister Cho Hyun faced questions about what the opposition described as a sudden reversal after the government promoted a tariff outcome that did not require a formal agreement document.

People Power Party floor leader Song Eon-seok said the public had been led to believe tariffs would remain lower once legislation related to U.S.-bound investment was introduced and processed. He said Trump’s renewed tariff warnings felt like a betrayal to many South Koreans and criticized the government for opposing parliamentary ratification procedures, arguing major commitments should be handled through proper legislative channels.

Several People Power Party lawmakers pressed the government over the effectiveness of its communication channel with Washington, mocking earlier claims that a high-level “hotline” had been established and questioning whether Seoul had meaningful leverage if tariff threats resurfaced so quickly.

Rep. Ahn Cheol-soo said the government’s claim that negotiations were so successful they did not require a joint statement was not credible. He argued that if talks had been truly successful, the two sides would have presented the outcome publicly through a joint briefing.

Ruling party lawmakers countered that Trump’s unpredictability is well known and that repeated focus on ratification could slow Seoul’s ability to respond diplomatically and economically. They urged swift deliberation and passage of a special bill tied to U.S. investment commitments, saying similar memorandums and fact sheets with partners are often handled without full treaty-style ratification.

The dispute comes as South Korea moves to implement a bilateral memorandum and related measures that had been linked to tariff levels, while Seoul says it has not received an official U.S. notice of any change.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260129010013250

Jan. 27 (UPI) — Legislators in France took the first step toward becoming the first European country to block children from social media with a ban that would take effect at the beginning of the new school year in September.

National Assembly members voted 116-23 for the ban for children younger than 15, which was introduced by a lawmaker representing France’s Champagne region in President Emmanuel Macron‘s Renaissance party, late Monday.

The MPs amended the bill to empower the country’s media regulator to decide which social media services will be included in the ban and not limited to just those most popular with teens such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.

The law would use an as-yet-undecided method of age-verification to block children from accessing those sites the regulator determines are most harmful to children’s mental and emotional health.

An existing smartphone ban for children in junior and middle schools would also be extended to high schools, under the legislation.

Children younger than 15 would be permitted to continue to use platforms on a second list deemed to pose less risk to them, but only if their parents give their consent.

Hailing the vote as a “major step,” Macron urged the Senate, the upper house, where it must also pass to become law, to follow suit and vowed to make sure it was implemented in time for the start of the fall semester.

“To ensure that this ban is effective from the start of the next academic year, I have asked the government to activate the accelerated procedure,” he posted on X.

“Because our children’s brains are not for sale. Not to American platforms, nor to Chinese networks. Because their dreams cannot be dictated by algorithms. Because we do not want an anxious generation,” Macron added.

Fastracking the law will enable it to leapfrog over a logjam in the assembly which has been unable to pass a budget for this year.

National Assembly Deputy Laure Miller, sponsor of the bill, complained afterward that opponents attempted to run the debate, which went on for almost seven hours, off the clock, knowing they would lose when it came to a vote.

“We explained everything to you, but you didn’t want to listen. Obstruction, off-topic remarks, conspiracy-laden speeches… above all, you tried everything to avoid having to vote on this text. Pathetic,” she wrote online.

Miller headed a committee probe into the psychological impact of social media on children that issued its report earlier this month.

MP Louis Boyard from the populist France Insoumise party said the bill had been rushed through.

By granting blanket verification powers to the government and the European Union to check the ages of all social media users, regardless of age, Macronist deputies were sleepwalking France into a surveillance state,” he said on X.

“The Macronists refused to respond or speak in order to have it voted on as quickly as possible. Under the pretext of banning social networks for those under 15, the Macronists seem to be preparing to have everyone monitored.”

He urged the Senate to send it back to the assembly to allow a “more enlightened” public debate to take place.

“The subject is too important to be rushed,” added Boyard, who represents a different district of the same region as Miller.

The development in France comes amid similar efforts being weighed across Europe, including in Greece, Spain, Denmark, Ireland, and Britain, where the House of Lords voted through a ban for children under 16 on Wednesday.

Lawmakers in the upper chamber of parliament passed the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by 261 votes to 150, however, the government signaled it intended to overturn the effort in the House of Commons, the lower house.

The move came two days after the government launched a consultation on a potential ban for under-16s in the wake of the lead taken by Australia, which last month became the first Western country to implement such a ban.