Senate Democrats say they want to end the government shutdown but have repeatedly blocked GOP attempts to reopen the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as they push for immigration enforcement reforms.

On Friday, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said at a news conference following an antisemitic attack on the Temple Israel synagogue in her state that “certainly” Congress must fund DHS. 

However, Slotkin and most Senate Democrats have voted four times to block DHS funding, including several attempts to temporarily reopen the agency while negotiations continue.

Slotkin is just one of several Senate Democrats calling for an end to the shutdown. Republicans argue the votes are part of a broader Democratic strategy to blame them for blocking efforts to reopen DHS.

DEMS VOTE TO KEEP DHS CLOSED DESPITE AIRPORT CHAOS, IRANIAN SLEEPER CELL THREAT

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., accused Democrats of trying to shift blame for the shutdown. 

“Well, that’s what they do, right? And they’re good at it. They’re really good at it,” he told Fox News Digital. “And the big difference is they have 90% of the legacy media backing them up.”

“So it’s hard, but again, four times this afternoon, the Democrats voted against funding DHS,” he continued.  

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., accused Republicans of using the federal workers of a variety of agencies under DHS, like the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as “hostages.”

“I remind my Republican colleagues, we’re going to be back here again and again, winning this debate and eventually winning the American people,” Schumer said.

But Slotkin and others are now signaling an openness to funding Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which many Democrats have sought to deny federal funding to, in addition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“We need, in my view, to cut away all the conversation on ICE, which is its own conversation,” Slotkin said at the news conference.

VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS DIG IN ON DHS FUNDING LINE DESPITE ISIS-LINKED SHOOTING AT ODU, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT MURDER

Republicans have sharply criticized Democrats for denying funding to DHS despite a series of terror-related attacks across the country and a heightened threat environment amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict involving Iran.

An alleged ISIS-inspired bomb plot in New York City and a deadly shooting involving a convicted Islamic State supporter at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, rocked the country last week.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said he supports funding DHS after voting against full-year appropriations for the department Thursday.

“I think we should,” Warner replied when asked if Democrats should break the deadlock by CBS News’ Margaret Brennan on Sunday.

“What we have offered is let’s pay TSA, let’s pay FEMA, let’s pay … the Coast Guard, let’s pay CISA. I’d even say let’s pay Customs and Border Patrol,” Warner said. “If we can’t agree on ICE reforms, let’s pay everybody else.”

KATIE BRITT BLASTS DEMOCRAT FOR PLAYING ‘POLITICAL GAMES’ WITH SHUTDOWN AMID AIRPORT CHAOS

However, it is not clear that enough Democrats would be willing to fund CBP while still negotiating reforms to ICE to end the shutdown. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., has been the lone Democrat so far to cross-party lines and support a full-year DHS appropriations bill.

“Democrats’ position is simple: we want reforms to rein in ICE and Border Patrol,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said on the Senate floor Thursday. “We also want TSA and FEMA funded — but we are not going to be blackmailed into cutting a blank check for ICE to get it done.”

Senate Republicans have rejected Democrats’ attempts to fund every agency under DHS except for those handling immigration enforcement.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., last week blocked an effort by Murray to fund the non-immigration portions of DHS.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Republicans’ resistance to efforts to partially reopen the agency comes as negotiations between the White House and Democrats have stalled.

“Members need to get in a room, have tough conversations, and figure out a pathway for the American people,” Britt told Fox News Digital. “Their safety and security should matter more than politics in November, and unfortunately, Democrats continue to try to take hostages.”

EXCLUSIVE: Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow has been wasting no time shaking up the path to American citizenship. And two terrorist attacks in the United States this past week have renewed scrutiny of immigration vetting and national security safeguards.

A gunman rammed a vehicle into Temple Israel Thursday, a synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, Thursday. One security guard was injured in what officials described as a targeted act of violence against the Jewish community. 

In a separate Thursday incident, authorities say a terrorist attack by a military veteran and ISIS supporter at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, left two people injured and two dead, including the shooter, after the suspect allegedly opened fire inside an ROTC classroom. 

Just weeks into the job in August 2025, Edlow called for a major overhaul of the U.S. naturalization test — blasting the current version as too soft and out of step with what Congress envisioned.

DOJ DIRECTS US ATTORNEYS TO SEEK TO REVOKE CITIZENSHIP OF NATURALIZED AMERICANS OVER CRIME

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Edlow said the civics and English exam, which forms the backbone of the naturalization process, fails to reflect the knowledge and assimilation he believes should be required to become an American.

“The test needs to reflect the letter and the spirit of what Congress intended,” Edlow said. “It’s important for people to understand English, our history, our government … and the way the test is written and executed right now doesn’t meet that bar.”

Under the current format, naturalization applicants must correctly answer six out of 10 civics questions randomly selected from a list of 100, covering topics like the Constitution, U.S. history, geography and civic responsibilities. They must also read one sentence aloud and write one simple sentence correctly in English.

Edlow says that’s not enough. He wants the test to probe deeper — presenting a broader cross-section of U.S. principles — and for English skills to be evaluated throughout the entire naturalization interview, not just in isolated reading and writing exercises.

“I want adjudicators to really be listening and talking throughout the interview,” he said. “Switch up some of the wording … and see if the individuals are still able to comprehend the questions. That’s a better gauge of readiness.”

Edlow said the test must preserve the integrity of the process and reflect assimilation expectations. He also pointed to a recent executive order declaring English the national language, calling language fluency “an imperative part” of the American dream.

The director also took aim at long-standing flaws in the H-1B visa system, which permits U.S. companies to hire high-skilled foreign workers in specialty fields.

KEY IMMIGRATION PROPOSAL VOWS TO END ‘BACKDOOR HIRING PRACTICES’ IN AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

“Companies are going for the highest-skilled workers but paying them at the lowest wage level,” he said. “That’s undercutting U.S. graduates, especially in STEM fields.”

He cited cases when third-party contracting firms helped employers lay off American workers — sometimes even requiring them to train their own foreign replacements — as evidence of a program being exploited to suppress wages.

Vice President JD Vance has echoed a similar sentiment. In July 2025, he called out Microsoft for laying off around 9,000 American workers while applying for 4,700 H1-B visas. 

“I don’t want companies to fire 9,000 American workers and then to go and say, ‘We can’t find workers here in America.’ That’s a bulls— story.”

The visa program has emerged as a political flashpoint within the GOP, creating a rift between MAGA populists and pro-business conservatives. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said he’d “go to war” in support of the H1-B visa program and branded its Republican opponents “hateful, unrepentant racists.” 

To tighten oversight of the program, Edlow said USCIS will work with the Department of Labor to expand worksite enforcement and ensure that wages and job functions match what’s on paper.

“We want to make sure those brought over are truly commensurate with the roles they’re filling — and not part of a cost-cutting scheme,” he added.

On the issue of welfare-related immigration policy, Edlow said USCIS is preparing to revisit the public charge rule — a legal standard that bars green cards for applicants likely to become reliant on public assistance.

The rule has existed in some form for over a century but was more strictly interpreted during the Trump administration to include certain non-cash benefits like Medicaid or housing aid. The Biden administration returned to guidance that did not take non-cash benefits into account. 

Edlow said changes would take time. 

“It’s something we’ve got to study and get right,” he said. “We need to look at the means-tested benefits being offered and ensure our adjudicators know what to look for to determine if someone would be a burden on U.S. taxpayers.”

Beyond policy changes, Edlow flagged the growing USCIS case backlog as a top operational threat — one he says now carries national security implications.

“Backlogs that continue to grow are nothing short of a national security threat to this country,” he said, blaming the Biden administration for shifting agency resources away from legal immigration priorities in response to record-breaking illegal border crossings.

While he pledged to reduce adjudication times, Edlow warned that shortcuts won’t be part of the strategy.

“There may be short-term pain,” he said. “But we will decrease the backlog at a steady clip while protecting the integrity and security of the system.”

In one of his latest missives on social media, President Trump complained that he wasn’t getting enough credit for “totally destroying the terrorist regime of Iran, militarily, economically, and otherwise.”

“We have unparalleled firepower, unlimited ammunition, and plenty of time,” he wrote of a war that has crippled the global supply of oil, sharply increased gas prices, cost U.S. taxpayers billions, left thousands dead and wounded, and so far defied Trump’s own “short term” timetable.

“Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today,” Trump added. “They’ve been killing innocent people all over the world for 47 years, and now I, as the 47th President of the United States of America, am killing them. What a great honor it is to do so!”

Again and again in recent days, Trump and other top officials in his administration — notably Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth — have projected confidence and power in Iran in a coarse and triumphant tone that is unprecedented for U.S. wartime presidents and their Cabinet members, according to experts in presidential rhetoric and propaganda.

They have consistently described the war in terms of how hard the U.S. is hitting Iran, rather than why it must do so. They’ve talked of destroying the Iranian navy and air force, wiping out its leadership and making the U.S. “more respected” globally than it has ever been, including by showing no mercy.

“This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be,” Hegseth said.

Missing is the solemnity of past wartime leaders facing dead U.S. soldiers, a recalcitrant enemy and a precarious tactical position, replaced by a message of U.S. mercilessness — of contempt for Iran rather than concern for its civilians or a focus on the American ideals that U.S. presidents have long tried to rally the world around, especially in times of war.

“At a time when people can see the effects of the war when they fill up their gas tank, and when there have been American casualties, the triumphalist tone is just not something a president normally does,” said Robert C. Rowland, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Kansas and author of the book “The Rhetoric of Donald Trump: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy.”

“Many presidents wouldn’t have that tone for personal moral reasons,” Rowland said, “but they also know that it can backfire when things don’t go well.”

James J. Kimble, a communication professor and propaganda historian at Seton Hall University, said U.S. presidents have “by and large” struck a respectful tone in wartime, though there are some exceptions. President Truman, justifying dropping atomic bombs on Japan, wrote that “when you have to deal with a beast, you have to treat him as a beast,” while the U.S. produced World War II posters designed to “demonize and dehumanize the German enemy,” he noted.

Still, Trump’s messaging — including his “expressing glee at the death of foreign combatants” — has been “much coarser,” Kimble said.

“It’s moving beyond the idea of defeating the enemy on the field of battle, and more into a kind of defeat as humiliation — intentional humiliation,” he said. “It’s schoolyard bullying, along with the physical violence.”

Asked about Trump’s rhetoric, Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, said Trump “will always be proud to recognize the incredible accomplishments of our brave service members.”

“Under the decisive leadership of President Trump, America’s heroic war fighters are meeting or surpassing all of their goals under Operation Epic Fury,” she said. “The legacy media wants us to apologize for highlighting the United States military’s incredible success, but the White House will continue showcasing the many examples of Iran’s ballistic missiles, production facilities, and dreams of owning a nuclear weapon being destroyed in real time.”

Trump has built his political career around blunt rhetoric, and his messaging on Iran has drawn applause from his supporters. Polling has shown the public is heavily divided on the war — drawing far less public support than past wars, but broad support from Republicans.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has accused the media of ignoring “clear” objectives that the president and others have set for the war effort, including wiping out Iran’s missile systems, preventing it from developing a nuclear weapon and stopping what Trump had a “feeling” was a coming attack on the U.S.

However, Trump and Hegseth have themselves strayed from that framework with their brash rhetoric, and their focus on the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other Iranian leaders.

Trump has dismissed reports that the U.S. bombed an Iranian school full of children by suggesting that Iran may actually have been responsible, despite reported findings by U.S. intelligence that it was an American attack.

Hegseth has added to concerns about careless U.S. bombing by expressing disdain for wartime rules designed to limit civilian casualties, calling them “stupid rules of engagement.”

“Our war fighters have maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly,” Hegseth said. “Our rules of engagement are bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it.”

The White House has also pushed out a wave of wartime propaganda on social media, often striking the same irreverent, bullish tone, experts noted.

One video interspersed movie clips of superheroes and soldiers with real footage of Iranian targets getting blown up, under the words, “JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY.” The clip drew condemnation, including from the actor Ben Stiller, who objected to the inclusion of footage from his film “Tropic Thunder,” saying, “War is not a movie.”

Hegseth’s bravado has also been caricatured on “Saturday Night Live,” which opened two weeks in a row with a satirical portrayal of him as angry, dimwitted and hyped up on the violence of war.

All of it has come against a backdrop of Islamophobic remarks from members of Congress on X, with Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) writing that “Muslims don’t belong in American society” and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) posting a picture of the 9/11 terrorist attack next to an image of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is Muslim, and writing “the enemy is inside the gates.”

Certainly Iranian leaders have expressed similar contempt for the U.S. for years. Khamenei, killed at the start of the war, was known for stoking anti-American sentiment, speaking to crowds amid chants of “death to America.”

However, U.S. presidents have traditionally spoken with more reserve. They have slammed U.S. enemies, but often by drawing a contrast between them, the U.S. and the values the U.S. purports to defend globally. They have expressed confidence in past U.S. missions, but been wary of taking a celebratory or triumphant tone — especially at the start of a war, amid intense fighting, as American troops are still dying.

Not so with Trump, who on Wednesday said, “You never like to say too early you won. We won. We won … . In the first hour, it was over.”

He also said, “Over the past 11 days, our military has virtually destroyed Iran,” and “they don’t have anything.”

On Thursday, six U.S. service members were killed when a refueling aircraft crashed in Iraq. On Friday, the U.S. military announced it was sending 2,500 Marines and an additional U.S. warship to the conflict.

Kimble said there are several ways to view Trump’s war rhetoric. One is “through the lens of PSYOPS, or psychological operations” — or intentional messaging aimed at discouraging the enemy, akin to the U.S. dropping leaflets in World War II telling foreign combatants that they must surrender or die. In that view, Trump is speaking directly to the Iranians, trying to get them to “perceive victory as impossible.”

Another is to view Trump and Hegseth as projecting a tough image for their MAGA base, their Democratic rivals and any other nations they might be preparing to challenge, such as Cuba.

Rowland said Trump “always has to be the big dog in the room,” and his war messaging should be viewed in that context.

“A lot of the rhetoric is performative cruelty,” Rowland said. “It’s more about him coming across as dominant than it is about making a case that the war has been good for the U.S. and the region and the West and the world.”