DHS appropriations stalemate heightens partial shutdown risk for immigration functions (as of Feb. 13, 2026)
As of Friday, February 13, 2026, US Congress has not cleared a final FY2026 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding measure, and the House-passed bill remains pending in the Senate. The immediate change is procedural but consequential: absent enactment of a DHS appropriations law or a continuing resolution (CR) before the current funding authority expires, DHS could face a partial shutdown affecting “non-excepted” activities.
Source: Public reporting and the appropriations posture described in the House-passed DHS funding bill awaiting Senate action; for background on shutdown mechanics, see OMB shutdown guidance and agency contingency planning materials typically posted on official sites. Readers can also track legislative status on Congress.gov (official legislative portal).
Deadline Watch (Appropriations): A partial shutdown risk is triggered if DHS appropriations lapse. Watch for a CR or an enacted DHS appropriations bill before the applicable funding deadline announced by congressional leaders.
What “partial shutdown” generally means
In a funding lapse, federal agencies typically distinguish between excepted (essential) functions and non-excepted functions. Essential functions may continue, while other work may slow, pause, or run on reduced staffing. The exact contours vary by agency plan and legal constraints.
For immigration, the stakes are high because DHS components touch both benefits and enforcement, including USCIS, CBP, and ICE.
Key sticking points: enforcement funding vs. accountability conditions
The present impasse centers on whether DHS immigration enforcement resources should expand without stronger oversight requirements. The dispute is not only about top-line dollars. It also turns on conditions tied to how money is spent and what safeguards accompany enforcement activity.
Democratic lawmakers have sought added guardrails after recent enforcement controversies, including proposals tied to ICE training, limits on certain practices, and broader oversight. Republicans, by contrast, have prioritized a tougher enforcement posture and expanded border security capacity.
Importantly, funding level and operational authority are different legal levers. Appropriations can increase or decrease resources. Authorizing statutes and binding policy rules shape the legal authority and constraints for programs.
Warning (Practical reality): A partial shutdown does not automatically halt all immigration activity. It can, however, change staffing, timelines, and availability of certain services with little notice.
Funding and enforcement details: how “more money” can still mean targeted cuts
Even where a bill reflects increased totals for certain components, line items can still reduce specific enforcement tools. In the reporting summarized here, ICE funding is described as roughly steady near prior totals, while enforcement/removal operations and detention capacity face targeted reductions.
Those details matter. A reduction in detention beds may affect how DHS sequences custody decisions under INA § 236 (arrest and detention authority). It does not eliminate detention authority. It can shape capacity and prioritization.
Oversight measures such as body cameras, de-escalation training, and detention oversight are politically central because they can be written as funding conditions. Operationally, they may influence day-to-day enforcement practices and documentation.
Where advocates cite harm linked to enforcement actions, those claims often feed demands for oversight and reporting requirements. Congress can respond through funding directives, audits, and mandated training.
Related immigration legislation in play (separate from appropriations, but linked politically)
Several authorizing bills are being discussed alongside the DHS funding fight:
- H.R. 57 (Ending Catch and Release Act of 2025) would conceptually push toward mandatory detention or return for certain asylum seekers, expand expedited removal, and raise the credible fear threshold. Credible fear screening is tied to INA § 235(b)(1) and is a gateway to pursuing asylum under INA § 208.
- H.R. 1 (“One Big Beautiful Bill”) is described as a large package that would allocate substantial sums toward detention expansion, removals, staffing, and grants. Large packages can drive negotiations because they bundle multiple enforcement and support streams.
- H.R. 7233 would add an accountability concept by amending the INA to require body-worn cameras or similar tools for certain ICE/CBP officers.
Authorizing bills change legal authority and program rules. Appropriations bills primarily change funding and can attach spending conditions.
For readers tracking litigation risk, detention and credible fear rules have also been shaped by precedent and policy shifts over time, including Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) (addressing detention of certain asylum applicants), though outcomes often depend on later guidance and circuit law.
Broader context fueling the impasse: enforcement narratives and a visa processing disruption
Outside events are amplifying pressure on lawmakers. High-profile enforcement actions can intensify calls for oversight, while also hardening demands for additional enforcement resources.
Separately, visa processing has become part of the political backdrop. Reporting describes a State Department immigrant-visa pause or slowdown affecting 93 countries, beginning January 21, 2026, and touching an estimated 48% share of 2024 legal immigrants, including roughly 100,000 spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Practically, such pauses can mean delayed intake, slower scheduling, or added screening steps at consular posts.
Deadline Watch (Travel/Visas): If a consular post slows or pauses processing, appointment availability can change quickly. Monitor the consulate’s public notices and your case portal.
Implications and next steps: what to monitor and how to plan
DHS appropriations are often negotiated in larger year-end or multi-agency packages, and CRs are commonly used to prevent a lapse. A CR typically extends prior funding levels for a limited time, which can preserve operations but keep uncertainty high.
What may be disrupted in a lapse (general):
- Slower response times for non-emergency requests.
- Reduced customer support capacity.
- Delays in back-office processing and procurement.
What to do now (general risk-reduction):
- Track votes and CR announcements on Congress.gov and official leadership statements.
- Watch for agency alerts on USCIS.gov (benefits): USCIS and DHS/CBP/ICE postings as applicable.
- Keep copies of filings, delivery confirmations, and notices. Preserve proof of status and deadlines.
Warning (Deadlines): Court and filing deadlines may still apply even during operational slowdowns. If you are in removal proceedings, check EOIR updates and consult counsel promptly: EOIR.
Recommended timeline: Monitor developments daily until Congress passes either a DHS appropriations law or a CR covering DHS. If you have a filing or travel plan in the next 30–60 days, consider speaking with an immigration attorney about contingency planning.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
