Michael Barbaro

It would really mean that Democrats have to agree to fund DHS—

while not funding ICE.

And while that might seem like a concession to them, it doesn't get them the really specific reforms they've demanded from ICE.

And maybe they're worth repeating here.

For example, ICE agents must show a warrant where they show up.

They must no longer wear masks.

They must identify themselves.

And

It doesn't seem like the Republican plan to fund everything in DHS, but ICE would really delineate any of those reforms.

So it would ask Democrats to kind of give up the entire purpose of this agency shutdown and the leverage that they have to ever get these reforms.

Karin mentioned that ICE is reasonably well-funded from that domestic spending bill as it is.

But on the other hand, Michael, and I'm curious what you would say to this and what Democrats in Congress would say to this, a case can be made that in the period since the Department of Homeland Security shutdown started, a lot has changed inside DHS and inside ICE.

Tom Homan, who you just mentioned, he drew down a lot of the agents from Minneapolis.

And the overall intensity of street enforcement around the country by ICE agents has really abated.

And we saw the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, who was really the face of ICE's most aggressive tactics, got ousted.

And her replacement...

Mark Wayne Mullen seems more open to reforms, at least according to what he said in his confirmation hearings.

So you could argue, and I wonder if some Democrats do, that the shutdown did do a fair bit of what Democrats wanted.

overall want to see in the direction of immigration enforcement?

So if you had to crystal ball this for the next week or so, as lines at airports get even longer because the TSA workers aren't being paid, as perhaps more TSA workers than the 480 who have already left quit their job, and as...