Lead

Senate Republicans passed a bill early Friday authorizing nearly $70 billion in new funds for immigration enforcement, after an 18-hour "vote-a-rama" that forced the party to publicly contend with a series of controversial amendments, including one targeting President Donald Trump's proposed $1.8 billion "anti-weaponisation" fund. The marathon session, a procedural tool used for reconciliation bills, saw Democrats use the amendment process to spotlight issues ranging from the fund to Trump's policies.

Coverage comparison

Reports from Al Jazeera and The Guardian describe the Senate's late-night proceedings and the political maneuvering around the fund. The Guardian reported that Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, vowed to force votes on the "MAGA slush fund," while Al Jazeera noted that the bill faced hurdles as Democrats introduced amendments "highlighted controversies related to the Trump presidency."

One report from The Guardian said the bill passed "early Friday" after a more than 18-hour session, while an Al Jazeera article indicated that the vote had been delayed before the Memorial Day recess, with a planned vote on a $72bn bill. The discrepancy suggests a change in the bill's size or timing between reports.

Key Claims

  • Immigration enforcement funding: Senate Republicans passed a bill providing the Department of Homeland Security with nearly $70 billion in new funds for immigration enforcement, according to a Guardian report. The bill is part of Trump's mass deportation campaign.
  • The 'anti-weaponisation' fund: The fund, proposed at $1.776bn, was created as part of a settlement in a lawsuit Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The settlement was announced last month, and the fund is designed to award payouts to alleged victims of politically motivated prosecution, as reported by Al Jazeera and The Guardian.
  • Democratic opposition: Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, have called the fund a "slush fund" and "one of the most corrupt schemes ever launched by a president," according to a Guardian report. Schumer proposed an amendment to block the fund permanently.
  • Republican dissent: The fund has caused a rare show of dissent within Trump's own party. Three Republican senators, described as vulnerable in upcoming elections, joined all Democrats in supporting the amendment to block the fund, but it failed in a 49-50 vote, as reported by one Guardian article.
  • Other details: The fund is administered by the Justice Department and does not require disclosure of amounts paid. Reports noted that payees could include pardoned January 6 rioters. Additionally, a request to spend $1bn on a White House ballroom was dropped during the proceedings, according to The Guardian.

Perspectives

Democratic perspective: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer strongly criticized the fund and the overall bill, calling the bill "a rotten bill" and the fund "a slush fund for Trump," adding that the Republican agenda is "more money for Donald Trump, more power for Donald Trump, and nothing to lower costs for working families."

Republican perspective: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham praised the party's unity, saying he was "very proud of my Republican colleagues for sticking together" to ensure Border Patrol and ICE are fully funded. However, other Republicans, such as Senator Don Bacon of Nebraska, acknowledged that the lawsuit and fund have cost Trump support, saying, "He's lost some support in the Senate."

Critics and outside figures: Former Vice President Mike Pence called the possibility of January 6 rioters receiving compensation "deeply offensive," and California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a 100% income tax on any fund distributions to California taxpayers. Similar proposals have emerged in Illinois, New York, and Connecticut.

Legal context: The fund was announced as part of a settlement in Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, which was criticized as a conflict of interest because the agency is under Trump's control. A US district judge temporarily blocked the transfer of funds from the fund after a lawsuit from Democracy Forward.

Administration's stance: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers the administration would not proceed with the fund, but Democrats insisted on a legislative block. The fund's future remains uncertain.