ICE in Minneapolis: How Alex Pretti’s death has changed Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Federal agents’ killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday has strengthened Senate Democrats’ resolve to force changes to Trump’s immigration forces — even at the risk of shutting down the government.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a statement after Pretti’s death saying that Senate Democrats would not support a key government funding bill without changes to the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, both of which are currently deployed in Minneapolis. Without Democratic votes, the government will partially shut down at the end of the week.

Today, Explained co-host Noel King spoke with Leigh Ann Caldwell, chief congressional correspondent for Puck News, about how Pretti’s killing has changed Senate Democrats’ political calculus, growing divisions within the Republican Party over the immigration crackdown, and whether President Donald Trump is feeling the heat.

Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.

The Senate is back in session this week and will vote on a package to fund transportation, health and human services, and the Department of Homeland Security. It passed the House last week — and then what happened?

There was another tragic shooting of a US citizen in Minneapolis. What’s interesting is that this bill, including DHS funding, was expected to pass. It only got a little more than a handful of Democratic votes in the House, but the Senate was most likely going to move forward. It only needed about eight Democratic senators, and it looked like it was going to get that. Then the shooting happened — the second in a matter of weeks — and Democrats in the Senate nearly unanimously came out adamantly opposed to giving the Department of Homeland Security, especially ICE, more money on the heels of this shooting.

Before the shooting this weekend, some Democrats in Congress had introduced a bill called the Melt ICE Act, which would defund ICE. Where does the conversation around defunding or abolishing ICE stand right now?

For the most part, the majority of Democrats do not want to go there. They think it’s counterproductive and plays into Republican talking points, especially since this was a big movement back in 2019 during Trump’s first term. What they would rather do is try to rein in the agency. There are also growing conversations about impeaching DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which has become overwhelmingly popular among House Democrats. Even a few Senate Democrats are saying the same. Democrats are obviously in the minority with little power to do this, but that’s where they would rather focus the conversation than on defunding or abolishing ICE.

Let me ask you about Republicans. Are any Republican lawmakers changing the way they talk about ICE in light of what happened this weekend?

Republicans have mostly been very publicly in lockstep with this administration. But after this weekend, we’re starting to see some signs of discomfort. You have Representative James Comer, who heads the Oversight Committee, essentially suggesting that ICE should leave Minnesota and that it should be up to local officials to decide how to address immigration. It wasn’t very graceful, but that’s the substance of what he was saying.

You also have senators like Dave McCormick saying this was a tragedy and calling for some sort of investigation. Andrew Garbarino of New York, who could face a difficult reelection, is the chair of the [House] Homeland Security Committee and has called for top DHS officials, including Kristi Noem, to testify. That’s the first time we’ve seen any real attempt at oversight from Republicans in this Congress. [Editor’s note: On Monday, Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, also called for the heads of ICE and CBP to testify.]

What does it mean that divisions are forming in the Republican Party?

“Many of those vulnerable Republicans are the ones growing most uneasy, because this issue is becoming a serious problem for them back home.”

It means this is becoming a significant political liability for Republicans. Speaker [Mike] Johnson has been in lockstep with the president and has defended him consistently, but he also wants to keep the speaker’s gavel, which means protecting vulnerable Republican colleagues. Many of those vulnerable Republicans are the ones growing most uneasy, because this issue is becoming a serious problem for them back home. These divisions are notable, and the question is how far Republicans are willing to go to address them, if at all.

President Trump said on Truth Social that he’s sending Tom Homan, his “border czar,” to Minnesota and that Homan will report directly to him. Is there any significance to that?

Yes, there is significance. Tom Homan has been at odds with Kristi Noem. He’s a longtime DHS veteran, and some of my sources inside DHS were initially pleased when he got the border czar job because they saw him as the right person and someone who was widely respected within the department. This could signal potential trouble for Kristi Noem and suggest that she’s being sidelined.

Ultimately, we’re talking about the potential of a partial government shutdown. We had one not so long ago. What were the lessons of the last shutdown for Democrats, and do any of them apply here?

The last government shutdown was over health care, and even though it proved to be politically beneficial for Democrats — because it shifted attention to health care — Democrats were still very nervous and unsure whether it was the right strategy. Many were uncomfortable but went along with it.

This time, Democrats are so outraged that even members who traditionally oppose shutdowns want to push this issue, even if it leads to one. They believe that masked federal law enforcement agents operating with what appears to be total immunity and no accountability is unacceptable and worth using whatever leverage they have. The internal dynamics within the Democratic Party are very different now. And unlike last time, when it was unclear whether public opinion was on their side, the level of public outrage now gives them confidence that they are.

If Democrats do shut the government down until they get what they want on ICE or Border Patrol, does that fix the situation? Does that mean the masked men leave the streets of Minneapolis?

No, it does not. Republicans already provided ICE and Border Patrol with three years of funding through a separate bill outside the normal appropriations process. So even if the government shuts down, ICE funding would not be halted. In that sense, this is largely symbolic when it comes to ICE. That said, the best possible outcome may be forcing some form of accountability or agreement from the administration. The politics and optics matter here — who has leverage and who can extract concessions. And at this point, it may not be politically advantageous for Republicans to defend a shutdown in order to justify ICE’s current tactics.