this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
289 points (98.3% liked)

politics

29077 readers
1656 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Senate Democrats are cautiously optimistic about a potential agreement to fund the Department of Homeland Security. But it's far from a done deal.

As negotiations ramp up on Capitol Hill to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, Senate Democrats seem to be clinging to a particular word: reforms.

It was a term party leaders used in the context of Immigration and Customs Enforcement nearly two dozen times during a March 24 news conference.

The refrain threw cold water on a new GOP compromise to fund the critical agency — minus ICE's enforcement and removal operations — and end a crisis that has upended air travel across the country.

"Democrats are continuing to push for modest reforms," Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters. "The current Republican offer in front of us does not do that."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AlexSage@piefed.social 64 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't understand how requiring federal agents to show their face while working in an official capacity unless the situation requires to be covered for safety reasons is controversial. If they aren't doing anything illegal, why do they feel the need to cover up like robbers?

[–] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Their demands are just have ice follow the same rules as police, which they already have to do. Which is extra ironic as it's not like it's done anything to help with how much the police abuse citizens

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

They're trying to save ICE for use during a Democratic administration. This is how Senate Democrats are calculating their politics. They're approaching this from the angle that the current admin is ruining ICE.

Like, they fundamentally support Iran war and regime change, and only oppose that this guy is doing it so badly.

[–] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 2 points 16 hours ago

Exactly. But others in this thread are using it as examples of how hard the dems are fighting for the people. Not to actually help us mind you just to make optics better