Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, the House passed a bill to fund DHS, with the vote falling along party lines. This was the third time the House managed to pass such a bill, which is not actually intended to end the (partial) shutdown. It's just a messaging bill, so Republicans can claim that they want to re-open TSA and fix the nation's airports, while the Democrats do not.
The real key, of course, is the Senate. Barring a reconciliation bill or a change to the filibuster, a bill will need at least seven non-Republican votes (and probably more like eight or nine). Obviously, a bill that can't get seven or eight or nine Democrats in the House, not even Jared Golden (D-ME) or Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), isn't going to get the necessary votes in the Senate.
And the problem in the Senate is that negotiations appear to have completely broken down. The folks who are trying to hammer out a bill not only have no compromise measure that 60 members can agree on, they are losing hope that such a measure can be worked out, particularly before Congress adjourns for another of its many recesses (this one for Easter). The fundamental problem is that most Republican voters want strong border enforcement, most Democratic voters want ICE reined in, and neither side feels it can compromise without risking the wrath of its own voters.
With the Senate apparently having failed, House Republicans are trying to ride to the rescue. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and his conference have absolutely no interest in actually talking to their Democratic colleagues, so their Plan B is a reconciliation bill, something that the Speaker and numerous key (well, loud) House Republicans spent several hours working on yesterday afternoon. The problem here, as we've pointed out many times already, is that the things the fringe Republicans want, and the things the moderate Republicans want, are very different, and often mutually contradictory. On top of that, the things that House Republicans (especially fringy House Republicans) want are very different from what Senate Republicans want. And, as the icing on the cake, there are things that Republicans want that Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is never going to allow in a reconciliation bill. So while Johnson & Co. might be right that a reconciliation bill is their most viable option, that doesn't mean it's a good option or an easy one.
The White House is also trying to ride to the rescue. Yesterday, his patience apparently having run out, Donald Trump got on his the-Constitution-is-for-suckers social media platform and announced that he was going to order DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin to start paying TSA staffers, in order "to quickly stop the Democrat Chaos at the Airports." We would suggest Trump's general anxiety here, and his desperate efforts to pin the blame on Democrats, are influenced by the fact that TSA agents will miss their second paycheck of the shutdown this weekend. And that's with spring break around the corner for most schools (and for all members of Congress).
It's not clear if the promised executive order has even been drafted, as yet, though that's probably not a problem because AI can whip one of those things up in a manner of seconds. It definitely hasn't been posted to the White House's website, or otherwise made available to the public. So, it's not entirely clear where this money is going to come from (other than "BBB funds"). Even White House staffers don't seem to know, though they are "confident" they can figure it out.
It is probable that this financial trickery is illegal. After all, if Congress has not funded a department, or part of a department, well, they are the ones with the power of the purse. However, there is zero chance that Congressional Republicans will challenge Trump, of course. It's not likely that Congressional Democrats will, either, since, even if they were successful, they don't want to be the meanies who shut the airports down. Plus, they're in the minority, and it takes a majority vote to file suit on behalf of the legislature.
Politically, Trump's goal here is to be the hero, and to make Democrats the villain. We think that this is probably another "miss" for his political instincts, which seem to be atrophying with age. First, people tend to blame the party that holds the White House when bad stuff happens. Polls suggest that is what is happening with the TSA shutdown. Second, if Trump really had the power to end this with a stroke of his pen, then it raises the question: "Why did he make everyone go through this for a month before he took action?" Third, bad experiences at airports affect a fairly small minority of the population. High gas prices (and overall inflation) affect a much larger number of people. And Trump is absolutely taking ownership of gas/inflation right now, no matter how much he doesn't like it.
Oh, and that minority that is affected by bad experiences at the airport? They are ALSO going to be affected by the gas prices. Already, airlines are cutting flights because the cost of fuel would make them unprofitable. That phenomenon is only going to get worse, and it's going to linger, even if the Strait of Hormuz opens immediately, because airlines buy their fuel months in advance to lock in prices.
Assuming Trump's "just pay them, Markwayne" gambit works, it removes the biggest pressure point in terms of reopening DHS. At that point, it's fair to wonder how long this might actually last. Maybe until the primaries are over, and members are not at risk from a challenger who might try to weaponize the situation. Maybe until the general election is over. Maybe until next year. We haven't the faintest idea, at this point.
This raises another set of questions. ICE is not currently funded; it's being paid out of those same, magical "BBB funds." So, how long will that work? Will that slush fund eventually run out? And what will happen then? We haven't the faintest idea about that, either, though we do know that if ICE actually shuts down, that would be fine and dandy as far as the Democrats are concerned.
One last thing while we're on the subject. There are some airports, most obviously the one in San Francisco, that use
private (though TSA-approved) security. Most travelers presumably know that TSA is mostly security theater, and that
they are not actually very good at stopping bad stuff from getting through the checkpoints (one study found that 95% of
attempts to sneak illegal items past TSA are successful). The private security
is much more effective
and, as a bonus, it's not subject to temper tantrums from Congress and/or the president. So, it's possible that "end
TSA" could emerge as an issue in 2026 or 2028. If that did happen, it would be the unusual circumstance where the
lefties are in favor of privatization, while the righties are opposed. Usually (e.g., with prisons) it's the opposite.
Of course, TSA was created when private security failed, which led to 9/11. If security is privatized, the next time there is a major security incident
in aviation, there will be a demand to get rid of the private security companies, which care only about their profits, and have
the government take over. The wheels of the bus airplane go round and round.
(Z)