With a government shutdown deadline fast approaching on January 30, 2026, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is once again drawing headlines—not for seeking compromise, but for pledging to oppose a $1.2 trillion government funding package unless Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is completely defunded.
The far-left “Squad” member announced she will vote against the House appropriations bill because it includes funding for ICE within the Department of Homeland Security, declaring she would not support “a single cent” for the agency tasked with enforcing federal immigration law. Her stance comes as Republicans and many moderate Democrats argue that border security and immigration enforcement are essential national responsibilities, not ideological bargaining chips.
Omar doubled down on her position with a series of inflammatory public statements, labeling ICE a “rogue agency” and accusing it—without evidence—of operating above the law, escalating violence, and eroding civil liberties. The comments echo years of anti-law-enforcement rhetoric from the progressive left, particularly in the wake of Trump-era immigration enforcement that prioritized the removal of criminal illegal aliens.
The Minnesota congresswoman’s latest outburst follows unrest and controversy in her home state, where radical activists and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are now demanding sweeping changes to what they call “militarized policing” before they will support any DHS funding. In other words, the hard left is willing to risk a shutdown rather than fund basic enforcement of U.S. law.
In a social media post that quickly went viral, Omar wrote, “This week, the House votes on DHS funding. I will not vote to give ICE a single cent. No more blank checks for a rogue agency that operates above the law.” She went further, framing immigration enforcement as “political retribution” by President Trump and accusing his administration of waging unlawful attacks on Minnesota—claims that legal experts and conservatives alike have dismissed as political theater.
Omar also circulated a graphic urging colleagues to vote against the bill, arguing it would send “tens of billions” to ICE with “no meaningful checks,” despite the fact that ICE operates under congressional oversight and federal law. She specifically objected to increases of roughly $400 million for detention capacity and $370 million for enforcement—funding Republicans say is necessary after years of border chaos and record illegal crossings.
Perhaps most controversially, Omar reignited outrage over a recent Minneapolis incident involving ICE, presenting a version of events that critics say omits key facts, including reports that an officer was seriously injured during the encounter. She accused the administration of smearing the suspect and deploying senior officials to defend the officer involved—claims the White House has rejected.
As expected, conservatives fired back, accusing Omar of prioritizing ideology over public safety and showing open hostility toward the rule of law. Critics noted that while communities across the country are demanding safer streets and a secure border, Omar appears more interested in shielding illegal immigrants—criminals included—from enforcement.
Others pointed out the irony of a sitting member of Congress denouncing a federal agency while benefiting from the very system she claims is illegitimate. “This is what happens when radical activism replaces governing,” one conservative commentator noted. “Defunding ICE doesn’t make America safer—it makes criminals bolder.”
As the shutdown deadline nears, Omar’s refusal to compromise underscores a broader divide in Washington: one side pushing for border security and lawful governance, the other willing to burn the system down in service of a radical agenda. For voters watching closely, the contrast could not be clearer.
