Democrats now stand at one of those rare junctures in politics where things can move quickly and public opinion is pretty solidly on their side. They have leverage, and even more importantly they have a deadline which makes this leverage immediate and potent. Rather than some dragged-out debate that goes on for months, change can be enacted within days (or at the most, weeks). And the opposition is already crumbling. As I said, that is a rare confluence in politics.

The ingredients for this opportunity include the fact that the last government shutdown didn't really solve anything other than punting the deadline out to the end of January. It also includes the negative shift in public opinion over Donald Trump's immigration roundup tactics, which had been slowly building up but then accelerated in a big way after two American citizens were shot and killed on the streets of Minneapolis -- with both of their deaths filmed by other citizens from multiple angles. This spurred bombastic overreactions from government officials, who in both cases immediately called the dead people "domestic terrorists," while taking no blame whatsoever for causing their deaths. The stories they told about the encounter were immediately shown to be nothing more than a pack of lies when the videos appeared, because all the videos so plainly contradicted just about every statement the government had been making.

The outrage felt by most Americans at these incidents was so widespread that even some Republican politicians started criticizing ICE and Border Patrol tactics, and a few even called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign. That would be notable during any Republican president's time in office, but in the Trump presidency such pushback has so far been almost non-existent. Even Trump himself finally realized he was losing the battle for public opinion on television and he started pulling back -- getting rid of the worst leader of the Minneapolis immigration operation and putting someone else in charge on the ground. Trump even had a civil conversation with both the city's mayor and the state's governor, both of which he had been trying to blame for everything up to that point.

So the Democrats have the wind at their backs, heading into this shutdown fight. What will likely happen at some point before midnight Friday is that the Senate will hold a vote to separate out ICE funding from the budget bill that was already under consideration, which would fund everything else in the government. This bill (or set of bills) will then have to return to the House, which is off on vacation this week and won't reconvene until next week. So the government will partially shut down over the weekend, and then quickly reopen again after the House hustles the bills through and sends them to Trump to sign. That's the plan, at any rate, although it could get derailed along the way. [Editorial note: While writing this, the Democrats and the White House did agree on a deal to separate the bills, with only a two-week extension for the ICE funding. This will all assumably be passed by the Senate before tomorrow night.]

This would leave the big contentious bit of government funding still up for debate. Right now Democrats and Republicans are haggling over a short-term bridge that would allow this debate to play out without cutting off funding in the meantime. Democrats want this interim period to be short (two weeks or less), while Republicans want it to be longer (four to six weeks, at least).

If all of this passes, then the real debate will begin over reforming ICE and other Homeland Security agencies. Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer has apparently settled on three big demands for change in these negotiations:

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) said the party has agreed upon three main goals he called "common sense reforms": End "roving patrols" by requiring warrants in some cases and requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to coordinate with state and local law enforcement; create a uniform code of conduct for agents, and use independent investigations to enforce it; and require agents to wear body cameras and not to wear masks.

The legislation under consideration already had some minor reforms included in it, which will assumably remain: "a decrease in detention beds, reduced funding for Border Patrol and for ICE's enforcement and removal operations, and $20 million for body cameras for ICE and Border Patrol agents."

Democrats have other ideas that weren't included in Schumer's big three, though. Some of these may wind up being included in any final agreement as well. These include: "prohibitions on ICE agents from shooting at moving vehicles or detaining U.S. citizens... mandate that ICE agents... wear identification and wear body cameras... an explicit ban on agents racially profiling during stops and arrests or a prohibition on ICE raids at "sensitive locations" such as schools and churches... ending arrest quotas, eliminating a directive that allows agents to enter people's homes without a warrant, and requiring the consent of state and local officials to conduct raids... require the DHS inspector general to deploy teams of criminal investigators and other personnel to investigate all use of force incidents that have occurred since January 20, 2025." Some Democrats are also demanding the resignations of Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, and Border Patrol "commander at large" Greg Bovino (the guy who has already been essentially demoted and sent packing from Minneapolis).

As always, Democrats aren't going to achieve all of these demands. But some might make it into the final package, depending on how Republicans react. Spending $20 million on body cameras is a good step, but without mandating that these cameras actually be turned on and used it may prove to be pointless, for instance.

So far, Republicans are showing that they are aware of how serious a political problem this has become for their party. Two GOP senators have joined the Democratic calls for Noem to step down, for instance. And in the first vote the Senate held on the budget bill, a whopping eight Republicans voted with all of the Democrats to kill the bill. This is the first step in the process of peeling out the ICE funding from the rest of the bill, so to have the vote wind up at 45-55 this early in the process is impressive.

If they're smart, Democrats won't just strike a deal and then forget about it. Tina Smith, Democratic senator from Minnesota, wrote a piece for the New York Times today which not only lays out her personal list of demands (the piece is titled: "I Won't Vote To Fund ICE Until It Gets Out Of My State"), but also has some good advice for the rest of her party:

I agree with my colleagues who want ICE agents to wear body cameras and undergo better training -- but we are well beyond that now. Democrats should make clear that this invasion [of Minneapolis], Operation Metro Surge, must end immediately. There must be independent and transparent investigations into the killings of Ms. [Renee] Good and Mr. [Alex] Pretti, led by Minnesota's law enforcement agencies. The era of unaccountable secret police occupying our streets has to end. And the architects of this project, including Mr. [Gregory] Bovino; the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem; and the White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller must resign.

Next, Democrats must help our country recover from this crisis.

We should make clear that when we regain control of Congress that we will hold everyone responsible for this mess accountable and that we will claw back every dollar of the ICE slush fund included in Mr. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

We need to rip ICE down to the studs and start over. The Department of Homeland Security is barely more than two decades old; in the wake of this catastrophe, there is no reason we can't come up with a way of enforcing our laws that doesn't trample on our values and our Constitution. Democrats should produce this plan now so we can present it to the American people come election time -- the midterms are just months away.

This is excellent advice indeed. Republicans made a whole lot of political hay out of the earlier Democratic slogan "defund the police," and Democrats should learn from this. Rather than just "breaking the ICE," they should also have a solid plan in place to rip it "down to the studs and start over." Just demanding "abolish ICE" isn't good enough. The nation will always have some sort of immigration enforcement agency, and while the current one may be so filled with bad apples it needs dismantling, something else is going to need to be built in its place.

Democrats should indeed come up with a plan for doing so. Even if Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress this November, completely reforming and rebuilding ICE (probably under a new name) may not actually be possible with Donald Trump still in the White House. What Democrat, after all, is going to be willing to trust Trump and his minions with doing so? To completely reform a big federal agency will take the determination to do it right -- which is most likely beyond anything Trump would be willing to do.

This means reforming ICE and other Homeland Security agencies is by necessity likely to be more of a longterm plan for Democrats than a quick fix. Using budget leverage to force the most important reforms is crucial, of course, and if Democrats do win big in the midterms then they can continue to institute such reforms next year as well. But the issue is likely going to remain a problem until Trump leaves office. Democrats should come up with a solid plan for how they would abolish ICE and rebuild something far better in its place afterwards, and Senator Smith is right -- they should do so right away and present it to the voters before the midterm elections. "This is how we would do it, and this is what we envision it to be after we are done" is an excellent political talking point (just in general). Democrats currently have public opinion squarely on their side, which is why Republicans are now so frightened they are willing to cross the aisle and vote for Democratic proposals. But this won't be just one legislative fight. Even after the shutdown crisis ends (hopefully with some very solid ICE reforms in place), the issue will remain. Democrats should continue to press the issue afterwards, both in the upcoming midterms and beyond.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant