Jun. 9, 2026, 5:25 PM EDT

After House Republicans initially showed opposition to President Donald Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, the House passed the GOP’s immigration enforcement reconciliation bill on Tuesday without any legislative restrictions on the proposed $1.776 billion pot of money. 

The bill — which funds Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for three years — passed on a party-line 214-212 vote.

The outcome reflects both the political and procedural realities facing Republicans in Washington, as they navigate razor-thin majorities, unified control of government and the ever-present risk of Trump’s wrath.

Procedurally, House Republicans had virtually no opportunity to offer amendments restricting the fund, a consequence of the chamber’s leadership-driven process. In the Senate, meanwhile, the parliamentarian ruled that most fund-related amendments would require 60 votes — a threshold supporters just didn’t meet.

Ultimately, all but one Republican senator — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — voted for the bill, a remarkable reversal for several lawmakers who had previously said they couldn’t support the package without language blocking the fund. The White House had also signaled that Trump could veto the legislation if it included restrictions on the program.

Politically, many Republicans concluded that sinking the party’s signature immigration bill wasn’t a tenable outcome, particularly given Trump’s recent penchant for retribution against Republican naysayers.

In the end, GOP lawmakers opted to fight another day.

“A lot of us would like to see the weaponization fund be killed and buried forever,” a moderate House Republican told MS NOW, requesting anonymity to discuss the internal sentiments.

But, this lawmaker added, “not funding border patrol and ICE is, I think, unhelpful.”

“Holding something hostage for something on weaponization, I think, would be difficult to achieve, especially since the Senate’s already passed it,” this Republican said.

A number of Republicans toyed with opposing the reconciliation bill. 

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., caused some drama on the floor after he unexpectedly voted no. (After a lengthy discussion with House GOP leaders, he ultimately switched his vote.)

Of course, more moderate House Republicans could have withheld their support until GOP leaders added language prohibiting Trump’s compensation fund — as some Senate Republicans wanted. And about a dozen conservative Republicans initially held out on supporting a rule to set up debate of the bill on Tuesday, arguing that GOP leaders should add language from another hardline immigration bill — H.R. 2, a sweeping measure to install more restrictive asylum rules, require businesses to use the federal “E-verify” system for worker authorization, and remove certain protections unaccompanied children.

In the end, every Republican voted for the bill and every Democrat voted against it. The only lawmaker to technically cross party lines was Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — who was a Republican up until March and usually sides with the GOP.

Not every Republican was thrilled with that outcome. 

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who’s retiring at the end of this year, unleashed on his GOP colleagues in a lengthy email on Tuesday, slamming them for voting down his amendment that would have blocked the fund.

The result, he argued, will come back to bite Republicans during the November midterm elections.

“I’m sure most of you would prefer to move forward, but I believe we will look back at this experience as yet another reason why we will have historic headwinds against us in November,” Tillis wrote in the email, which was obtained by MS NOW.

“We missed an opportunity to remove a political albatross (the 1776 Fund) from around the necks of our colleagues who are in cycle,” Tillis said. “Instead, we added weight to that albatross by having 41 members vote to protect the program.”

Tillis’ amendment overwhelmingly failed in a 15-84 vote, with just 12 Republicans and three Democrats voting in support. Hours later, Tillis voted for the reconciliation bill after clearly saying he’d be a “no” without language pushing back on the anti-weaponization fund.

With the immigration enforcement package now in the rearview mirror, some House Republicans are setting their sights on a new strategy to block the anti-weaponization fund: A standalone bill sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., to prevent federal funds from being used to pay claims submitted to the fund.

The push for the bill comes after Trump over the weekend said he still thinks the weaponization fund is “a great idea.”

“And so do many other Republicans,” Trump said. 

“If they get it approved, that’s great,” he said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “If they don’t get it approved, I’d be disappointed.”

The comments flew in the face of remarks made by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who told lawmakers last week that the administration is “not moving forward with the fund. Period.”

Blanche’s comments seemed to calm the nerves of some lawmakers and clear the way for passage of the reconciliation bill without any legislative restrictions.

Fitzpatrick and Suozzi are planning to file a discharge petition to force a vote on the measure this week, a source familiar with the matter told MS NOW, a posture that is already prompting consternation in the Republican ranks.

During a closed-door House GOP conference meeting on Tuesday, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., urged members not to sign discharge petitions, according to a source in the room, as top lawmakers try to beat-back at a process that circumvents leadership’s wishes.

Fitzpatrick is firing back. 

In a post on X, he said discharge petitions wouldn’t be needed if the House floor “was managed properly.”

“A successful discharge petition is clear and direct evidence of a poorly managed House Floor—because it demonstrates that the will of the majority of the People is being thwarted by the privileged few,” he wrote. “Leadership of both parties have been guilty of this for years.”

He added that the rise of discharge petitions in this Congress was just “further evidence of the brokenness of the two-party system—and the rise of Independent voters is a direct manifestation of this.”

But the limits of that strategy are hard to ignore. As forcefully as Fitzpatrick opposed the anti-weaponization fund, he ultimately gave up his most powerful bargaining chip. By backing the reconciliation bill without restrictions on the program, he helped clear the path for legislation that is almost certain to become law, while pinning his hopes on a standalone measure that’s almost certain to never become law.

Passage of the ICE and border patrol bill puts a bookend on a months-long fight over the administration’s immigration crackdown. That battle began in January, following the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, which prompted Democrats to demand immigration reforms in exchange for additional funding and contributed to a shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security.

The dispute escalated in March, when Republicans agreed to separate ICE and Border Patrol funding from the broader DHS appropriations process.

But the disagreement reached its peak last month, when the administration blindsided many Republican lawmakers with the anti-weaponization fund — a proposal that exposed rare divisions within the GOP and continues to generate resistance even after Congress delivered Trump a major legislative victory.