Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) called for Congress to fund the Department of Homeland Security during a press conference following a terror attack at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, one day after joining Senate Democrats in blocking legislation to fund the department.
The attack occurred Thursday when authorities say Ayman Mohamad Ghazali rammed his truck into the synagogue and opened fire with a rifle before being shot and killed by security personnel. Ghazali was born in Lebanon and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2016.
During the press conference alongside Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Slotkin said she supports funding DHS but wants to separate ICE funding from the department's core missions. 'We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and we need, in my view, to cut away all the conversation on ICE, which is its own conversation, from all the core missions of the Department of Homeland Security,' Slotkin said.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive supporters of Slotkin's position argue that separating ICE from DHS funding negotiations is a matter of protecting civil liberties and ensuring that core homeland security functions are not held hostage to immigration politics. They note that the senator's call for funding comes amid a genuine security crisis and reflects pragmatic leadership.
Democratic allies argue that Slotkin is simply asking for a clean DHS funding bill without policy riders on immigration, which they say Republicans have used as leverage. They point out that the senator has consistently supported counterterrorism efforts and is not opposed to DHS funding in principle.
Some progressive activists have acknowledged the tension in the senator's position but argue that the attack demonstrates why functional government agencies are essential. They note that Slotkin is not alone among Democrats in seeking to decouple ICE funding from broader DHS appropriations.
What the Right Is Saying
Republicans and conservative critics say Slotkin's position is inconsistent, noting that she called for DHS funding one day after voting against precisely that. They argue that political convenience should not determine support for national security funding, especially in a heightened threat environment.
Conservative commentators have noted that the Senate bill would have funded DHS without the policy provisions Democrats objected to, and that blocking the legislation puts security operations at risk. They argue that using budget negotiations as leverage for immigration policy goals endangers Americans.
Senate Republican leaders have emphasized that the DHS funding bill was a clean continuing resolution with no controversial ICE provisions, and that Democrats blocked it purely for political messaging. They say this episode proves Democrats prioritize politics over security.
What the Numbers Show
DHS has been operating under a funding lapse since February 14, when the department's appropriations expired. The partial shutdown affects thousands of DHS employees, though essential personnel continue working.
Sen. Slotkin joined all Senate Democrats except Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) in blocking the DHS funding legislation. The vote split along party lines, with Republicans supporting the bill and Democrats opposing it.
DHS agencies affected by the funding lapse include the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), FEMA, Customs and Border Protection, and the Coast Guard. The department employs hundreds of thousands of workers nationwide.
Former Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS Nathan Sales warned that the shutdown is hampering counterterrorism capabilities. 'We're dealing with a heightened threat environment right now, and we need the federal government security capabilities to be firing on all cylinders,' Sales said.
The Bottom Line
The tension between Slotkin's vote and her subsequent call for DHS funding highlights the broader political standoff over immigration policy and government funding. Democrats have sought to condition DHS funding on ICE reforms, while Republicans have insisted on clean funding bills.
The synagogue attack has intensified scrutiny of the funding lapse's impact on security operations. While DHS personnel remain on the job, analysts warn that prolonged uncertainty could affect recruitment, training, and coordination across counterterrorism functions.
Negotiations continue as both sides dig in on their positions. What remains clear is that the attack has raised the stakes for a funding agreement, with both parties facing political pressure to appear tough on terrorism while advancing their respective policy priorities.