How did presidential and congressional actions (orders, riders) influence ICE funding in FY2017–FY2025?
Executive summary
Presidential directives and congressional appropriations choices from FY2017 through FY2025 together pushed ICE’s budget into new territory by reorganizing funding lines, enabling sustained increases under Republican administrations, and by allowing supplemental and off‑budget flows that the agency has relied on beyond annual appropriations [1] [2] [3]. Congress repeatedly shaped the practical scope of ICE’s activities through riders, omnibus bills and occasional trims or constraints, producing a tug‑of‑war between lawmakers seeking to expand enforcement and those pushing limits, with public controversy and watchdog scrutiny accompanying those choices [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. The structural starting point: CAS and appropriations reorganization set the stage
Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security in FY2017 to implement a Common Appropriations Structure that reorganized DHS discretionary accounts into clearer categories, a change that re‑framed how ICE’s budget is presented and managed going forward and therefore influenced how later presidential and legislative actions were channeled into ICE funding lines [1] [8].
2. Presidential policy translated into budget pressure and requests
Presidential priorities—especially under the Trump administrations—sought expanded immigration enforcement and the budget requests and policy rhetoric that accompanied those priorities pressured Congress to provide higher and more flexible funding for ICE, a dynamic covered by reporting that describes Trump-era measures as taking ICE funding to “unprecedented levels” and “supercharging” the agency through tax and spending legislation and administration actions [2] [9].
3. Congressional appropriations, riders and omnibus deals produced both increases and occasional trims
Congressional action was not monolithic: large spending packages and omnibus bills often included substantial funding boosts for ICE and limited restrictions that some Democrats demanded were left out, while other bipartisan negotiations at times trimmed specific enforcement and removal budgets or added modest reforms in response to incidents and political pressure [4] [10] [11] [5]. These competing moves show Congress functioning as both funder and brake—enabling enforcement through major appropriations while occasionally imposing narrower cuts or riders aimed at oversight.
4. Supplemental funding, outside-the-box mechanisms, and the “additional funding” problem
Watchdogs and auditors report that ICE has frequently relied on funding beyond its annual appropriations—through supplemental mechanisms or transfers—which means presidential initiatives or crisis responses could be financed outside regular budget caps and glidepaths, effectively amplifying the practical resources available to ICE regardless of headline appropriations totals [3].
5. Political maneuvers, riders and votes: leverage and symbolic wins matter
Votes on homeland bills have been politically consequential: narrow margins, defections and partisan messaging—such as seven Democrats joining Republicans on contested DHS or ICE measures—affected whether restrictions accompanied funding or whether large packages passed without the limits some advocates demanded, illustrating how legislative arithmetic and riders determine real-world enforcement capacity [10] [6] [7].
6. Advocacy, critique and the narrative battle over funding increases
Civil liberties groups and immigrant advocates frame congressional and presidential funding choices as dramatic expansions that fuel agency violence or misconduct, while appropriators and some lawmakers argue funding is necessary for national security and border control; both narratives have influenced riders, proposed reforms and the political willingness to add or withhold constraints in appropriations text [12] [7].
7. Net effect by FY2025: higher nominal resources and more flexible pathways
By FY2025 the combined effect of presidential priorities, major Republican-led spending actions, and congressional appropriations practice produced significantly higher and more flexible resources for ICE than in prior years, with watchdogs warning that reliance on additional funding channels and the absence of binding restraints in large packages have increased the agency’s operational scope even as episodic legislative trims or rider disputes demonstrated the potential for congressional limits [2] [9] [3] [5].
Conclusion: policy levers remain split between White House direction and congressional purse strings
Across FY2017–FY2025 the presidency set enforcement priorities and budget requests that expanded demand for ICE resources while Congress—through reorganized appropriations, omnibus bills, riders, occasional trims and the use or omission of restrictions—translated those demands into funding outcomes, with supplemental funding mechanisms and partisan bargaining often determining whether money came with constraints or without them [1] [4] [3].