While Donald Trump’s push to expel illegal immigrants is popular, poll after poll in key districts and states suggests voters have lost confidence in ICE. Why try to push through an unpopular vote when Republicans are already facing headwinds, said a source working for the campaign of a member in a toss-up district in California.

“This is a vote you’d expect to happen if Democrats were in charge, a vote on something controversial that was difficult for Republicans to vote against or vote for, right?” the source said. “So they could use it going into the election against members in swing and toss-up districts.”

Congress ended the Department of Homeland Security shutdown last week, passing a bill to resume funding. But it carved out the politically tricky question of money for ICE and Border Patrol, kicking it into a separate budget framework.

READ MORE: TENSIONS BETWEEN JOHN THUNE AND MIKE JOHNSON LOOM OVER GOP IMMIGRATION PUSH

Democrats are refusing to fund it unless there are reforms to the way the agencies operate. That means more votes on an agency that has seen its approval plummet after two protesters were shot dead in Minneapolis this year, amid a sweeping deportation push.

That poses problems for the likes of Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who is seeking reelection in Maine, where a recent poll showed that 55% of voters disapproved of the way ICE is going about its business.

A consultant who worked on Collins’ previous campaigns said she had already won more support from the party base this year than she had managed in previous campaigns.

“That’s why this idea of a loyalty test, whether it’s this ICE money or anything else, is so counterproductive in what is already looking like a really terrible year,” he said.

Maine is one of the key battlegrounds this year. If Collins can hold her seat, it likely means Democrats will fall short of the four flips they need to take the upper chamber.

“If Trump wants to keep a Republican Senate and if Senate leadership wants to stay in Senate leadership, then they need to knock off the tests,” said the consultant.

GOP consultant Liz Mair said only Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) had a “too close to call” race where ICE was not expected to be a problem for the incumbent Republican. And that came in a state where Trump increased his margin from eight percentage points in 2020 to 11 percentage points in 2024.

“So we’re basically saying that only in a state that has gotten progressively redder might more funding, when DHS has something like $70 billion still in the bank, be a non-factor,” Mair said. (A recent analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute estimated that more than $70 billion remained from the cash injection into DHS under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.)

“Yet with that said, it’s worth noting that some Ohio Republicans still use words like ‘malaise’ to describe sentiment about giving ICE more money at this particular point in the year,” she said.

“Focusing on action to address high healthcare and gas prices seems like a much better use of legislative time if you want to position these candidates to hold these seats, which of course they must to best insulate Trump against being impeached a third, fourth, or even fifth time.”

A Republican Senate campaign source played down the impact, saying ICE funding was “not a dealbreaker.”

“Funding bills rarely have much impact in the polling booth,” he said. “It might mobilize the Democrats, but seats won’t be at risk because of this.”

Few Republicans will go public with their concerns for fear of attracting the president’s wrath.

“That’s the challenge facing congressional leadership,” said the Collins source. “Trump’s going to come to them and say, ‘I would like money for ICE’, and they’re going to go to members in toss-up and swing districts who are going to say, ‘We can’t vote for that.’

“And when those two things are at odds, the president usually wins.”

Correction of the weekend

This is from Saturday’s New York Times. We are all struggling with how to use AI. Even the Gray Lady…

An article on April 15 about the success that Mark Carney, the Liberal prime minister of Canada, has had in building cross-party alliances was updated after The Times learned that a remark attributed to Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader, was in fact an A.I.-generated summary of his views about Canadian politics that A.I. rendered as a quotation. The reporter should have checked the accuracy of what the A.I. tool returned. The article now accurately quotes from a speech delivered by Mr. Poilievre in April. He said, “My personal opinion is that when a member of Parliament goes back on the word they made to their constituents and switches parties, constituents should be able to petition to throw them out and have a byelection. That would put the people back in charge of our democracy rather than having dirty backroom Liberal deals by Mark Carney determine our destiny.” He did not refer to politicians who changed allegiances as turncoats in that speech.

Lunchtime reading

What does Tucker Carlson really believe? I went to Maine to find out: This is the interview that everyone is talking about. So does he think Trump is the Antichrist?

Ed Gallrein shows Northern Kentucky what he is made of: Salena Zito visits one of the most high-profile Republican primaries. “Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District is the tale of an interesting voter mindset. Many want Massie to lose, more than I think Massie understands. They feel as though they are Lucy holding the football and pulling it away just as Charlie Brown attempts to make the kick.”

You are reading Washington Secrets, a guide to power and politics in D.C. and beyond. It is written by Rob Crilly, who you can reach at [email protected] with your comments, story tips, and suggestions. If a friend sent you this and you’d like to sign up, click here.