PROFILE: Secure America Act — $70 Billion for the Agency That Killed Two American Citizens

PROFILE: Secure America Act — $70 Billion for the Agency That Killed Two American Citizens

Introduction: The Law That Crowned ICE

June 10, 2026: The Signing of a Law Born from Fear and Death

On June 10, 2026, Donald Trump signed the Secure America Act, a budget reconciliation law that allocates $70 billion to immigration enforcement and border security through the end of fiscal year 2029. It is the largest investment in immigration infrastructure in American history — by a considerable margin. $38.5 billion goes to ICE, $22.6 billion to the CBP, $3.5 billion to border technologies, and $5 billion in supplemental credits to the DHS.

This law was not born in a political vacuum. It is the product of an unprecedented institutional crisis: the DHS shutdown lasting 76 days — from February 14 to April 30, 2026 — the longest closure of an American government agency in history. And that crisis itself was born from a traumatic event: in January 2026, federal immigration agents shot and killed two American citizens in Minneapolis. America funded, with $70 billion, the agency responsible for those deaths.

The 76 Days: When the DHS Shut Down

The Longest Shutdown in the History of an American Agency

On February 14, 2026, funding for the Department of Homeland Security expired. The DHS closed its doors. That is not a rhetorical device — administrative operations were suspended, non-essential employees were sent on unpaid leave, and funding programs were frozen. This shutdown lasted 76 days — an absolute record in American administrative history.

The immediate cause: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had announced that Democrats would not vote for a funding package that included appropriations for the DHS. That decision came in the wake of the fatal shootings of January 2026 in Minneapolis, where federal immigration agents killed two American citizens. The Democratic refusal to fund DHS was a political response to that incident. The White House denounced what it called "the political games of the Democrats." Both sides used two dead citizens as pawns in a positioning war.

The Vote: Democracy by a Single Voice

52-47 in the Senate, 214-212 in the House

The legislative path of the Secure America Act illustrates American political fragmentation. In the Senate, the vote was 52 to 47 on June 5, 2026, following a vote-a-rama — that particular Senate procedure allowing a rapid-fire series of amendment votes, with 27 roll call votes in that session. Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican-Alaska) voted against the bill alongside all Democrats and both independents.

In the House of Representatives, the vote on June 9, 2026 was even tighter: 214 to 212. A one-vote margin. A single representative voting differently would have killed this bill. That razor-thin margin is revealing: even within a Republican Congress, this $70 billion bill did not command consensus. It is a law wrested from the majority, not carried by it.

The Byrd Rule and the Billion That Nearly Derailed Everything

The Glass Ceiling: $1 Billion for the Secret Service Removed

The legislative process for the Secure America Act nearly went off the rails over an unlikely sticking point. An early version of the text contained a provision that would have allocated $1 billion to the Secret Service — including security renovations for the White House ballroom project. On May 16, 2026, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that this provision violated the Byrd Rule — the mechanism that restricts the content of budget reconciliation bills to measures with a direct budgetary impact.

The provision was removed. The rest of the text moved forward. But this episode reveals something about how this law was built: opportunistic additions were attempted under the cover of an emergency procedure. Budget reconciliation — which allows bypassing the Senate filibuster by requiring only a simple majority — is being used for the second time under this administration since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025. It has become a routine tool, not an exceptional one.

Senator Smith: $70 Billion That Could Have Helped People

The Dissenting Voice That Says What Many Are Thinking

In the Senate debate, Senator Tina Smith (Democrat-Minnesota) framed the opposition's argument with a precision that cuts through the usual political formulas: "$70,000,000,000 is a tremendous amount of our budget that could be well spent, but instead of using it to help ordinary people who can't afford anything right now, we are pouring it into the coffers of an agency that killed two Minnesotans, sent hundreds of people to detention centers with horrific conditions, and routinely denies necessary medical care to legal immigrants while holding them unjustly."

This statement deserves to be read slowly. It does not say that borders should not be protected. It says that $70 billion could have served hundreds of other needs — healthcare, education, infrastructure, cost of living — in a country where a large fraction of the population says it cannot afford basic expenses. The choice to concentrate that sum in immigration enforcement is a political choice. Not a necessity.

What Does $38.5 Billion for ICE Actually Buy?

The Largest Expansion of a Law Enforcement Agency in American History

With $38.5 billion, Immigration and Customs Enforcement enters an unprecedented phase of expansion. This will fund thousands of new agent hires, increased detention capacity, accelerated deportation procedures, and strengthened domestic immigration operations. To put that figure in perspective: ICE's annual budget before the first Trump term was approximately $7 to $8 billion per year. This funding represents more than four times historical annual spending.

The White House framed this expansion as a necessity to "end the Democrats' political games by fully funding ICE and the Border Patrol," to combat human trafficking, stop the flow of deadly drugs, dismantle criminal cartels, and enforce American immigration laws. Those are real and legitimate objectives. The question is whether the scale of the investment and the methods deployed are proportionate — and whether the safeguards needed to prevent abuses of power were included in this funding.

Minneapolis: The Moment That Triggered Everything

January 2026 — Two American Citizens Killed by Federal Agents

In January 2026, federal immigration agents shot and killed two American citizens in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The exact circumstances of those shootings — whether the victims were intended targets, whether they were in the wrong place, whether procedures were violated — fueled a national controversy. Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, announced that Democrats would not vote to fund the DHS until that question was resolved.

The standoff that followed — 76 days of shutdown — created an operational void in the agency responsible for domestic security in the United States. Ironically, that void reinforced the Republican argument that DHS funding was a national priority. What was meant to be a political sanction against ICE became an argument for funding ICE with even more money. This is the paradox of institutional blockage: sometimes, obstruction strengthens exactly what it seeks to weaken.

What the Law Does Not Contain: The Missing Safeguards

$70 Billion Without Structural Reform of ICE

Funding Without Accountability: A Bigger Machine, No Better Calibrated

The Secure America Act is fundamentally a funding bill — not a reform bill. It allocates resources without fundamentally restructuring the operational practices of ICE. Critics calling for independent oversight of immigration operations, minimum standards for detention conditions, accessible complaint mechanisms for detainees, or transparent investigation procedures for deadly incidents like those in Minneapolis — these reforms are not in the law.

Funding without reform means the practices that led to the deaths of two American citizens, the conditions denounced in detention centers, and the denial of medical care documented by Senator Smith — all of that will now be funded with four times the resources. More agents, more operational capacity, more detention centers — but with the same oversight frameworks and same institutional cultures that produced the documented abuses.

Conclusion: The Bill for the Politics of Fear

An America That Pays for Its Idea of Itself

The Secure America Act is more than a budget law. It is a statement of values. With $70 billion, the United States is saying what matters most in its vision of itself right now: border security, immigration enforcement, the capacity to detain and deport unauthorized persons. That choice is not inherently wrong — states have the right to control their borders and enforce their laws.

But that choice is made in a context where the same agency killed two American citizens, where detention centers with inhumane conditions are documented, where a 76-day shutdown demonstrated that American immigration policy is first and foremost a partisan policy, not a governance policy. Massively funding an agency without reforming it means choosing size over quality. It means building a bigger machine — without making sure it is better calibrated. That will be this law's legacy, for better or for worse.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Sources and Method

This profile is based on data published by Inkl (Wikimedia compilation) dated June 13, 2026, which documents the amounts, votes, dates, and statements of the parties. All attributed quotes — from the White House, Senator Smith, Schumer, and others — come from documented sources. No quote is invented.

Positioning and Limits

This profile takes a critical view of the absence of structural reforms in the Secure America Act. This perspective is that of columnist Maxime Marquette, who believes in the rule of law, the protection of fundamental rights, and accountability from government agencies. This analysis does not claim to represent the official position of the American administration, which has legitimate arguments about the necessity of the funding. The limits of this analysis include the absence of access to full details of current detention conditions and the ongoing investigation procedures into the Minneapolis incidents.

Sources

Primary sources

Inkl — Trump signs the Secure America Act into law — June 13, 2026

DHS — Secure America Act: Official Statement — June 10, 2026

Congress.gov — Secure America Act, 119th Congress — June 2026

Secondary sources

Washington Post — Trump signs $70B Secure America Act into law — June 10, 2026

Foreign Policy — What the Secure America Act means for immigration enforcement — June 11, 2026

The Guardian — Trump signs $70 billion immigration bill after DHS shutdown — June 10, 2026