The recent standoff over Department of Homeland Security funding has laid bare a troubling trend: Congress is increasingly turning to budget reconciliation to bypass the Senate filibuster, a move that critics say threatens the core constitutional function of the appropriations process.
The impasse, which left immigration enforcement agencies like ICE and Customs and Border Protection without funding for 76 days, was ultimately resolved by shifting funding decisions into a reconciliation bill. But Leslie Belcher, managing director of Government Affairs and Public Policy at Steptoe and former chief of staff to Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), argues that this approach risks breaking something far more fundamental than the stalemate itself.
“If the Senate cannot pass appropriations bills under its current rules, the answer is to address the rules, not to bypass the appropriations process altogether,” Belcher writes in a new analysis. She emphasizes that the appropriations process—rooted in the Constitution and refined over two centuries—forces tradeoffs into the open through hearings, markups, and bipartisan negotiation, ensuring ongoing oversight of federal spending.
The Senate filibuster, in contrast, is a chamber rule that has evolved over time and been modified when priorities warranted it. “Whatever one’s view of the 60-vote threshold, it should not take precedence over the appropriations process itself,” Belcher argues.
Budget reconciliation was designed to align taxing and spending with a budget resolution, not to fund discretionary programs in detail. It is constrained by the Byrd Rule, limited to provisions with direct budgetary impact, and ill-suited to the operational realities of agencies like ICE, where funding decisions involve personnel levels, detention capacity, and rapidly changing enforcement demands. Appropriations provides the structure to manage those complexities through line-by-line funding, oversight, and the ability to adjust as conditions change.
Congress has used reconciliation before for major spending packages, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. But those bills layered new spending on top of regular appropriations; annual appropriations bills still set baseline funding and preserved oversight. The current move to fund DHS through reconciliation is different: it substitutes for regular appropriations entirely, using a fast-track process to fund core discretionary functions that have always been handled through regular order.
This shift would sideline the jurisdiction of appropriations committees and concentrate decisions in leadership-driven negotiations, compressing the legislative process and reducing transparency. It also sets a dangerous precedent that extends far beyond immigration policy. “If Congress starts making a habit of funding controversial programs through reconciliation whenever it cannot reach 60 votes, this will become the new model for both parties,” Belcher warns.
Belcher proposes a more straightforward path: the Senate should adopt a narrow exception to the filibuster for appropriations bills necessary to reopen the government during shutdowns. That would preserve the appropriations process, resolve shutdowns, and deter them going forward. “What Congress should not do is allow a procedural impasse to hollow out one of Congress’s core constitutional functions,” she concludes.
For more on the fallout from the DHS funding crisis, read our coverage of the Trump Signs Bill Ending 76-Day DHS Shutdown and the House GOP's uphill battle to fund ICE and Border Patrol via reconciliation.
