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

> 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 bor

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Profile
- Published: 2026-06-29
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/portrait-secure-america-act-70-milliards-pour-l-agence-qui-a-tue-deux-citoyens-a

## 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.

*Seventy billion dollars for an agency that killed two **American citizens** six months ago. I'm not saying ICE should be abolished — I'm saying this sequence deserves to be looked at squarely, not swallowed under billions of dollars and a victory press release.*

## 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.

*Two **American citizens** dead, a DHS shut down for 76 days, and now $70 billion for the same agency. America has a particular way of responding to its institutional crises: with more funding for whatever caused the crisis in the first place. I'm not sure that's the only answer available.*

## 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.

*Two hundred fourteen votes to two hundred twelve. A single vote between $70 billion in ICE funding and a different outcome. In a functioning democracy, laws passed by one vote should remind us how much each vote counts. Those who don't vote are also making a choice.*

## 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.

*A billion dollars to renovate the White House ballroom slipped into an emergency immigration bill. The parliamentarian said no. But the fact that someone tried says a great deal about the culture of using legislation as a vehicle for anything and everything.*

## 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.

*Smith said it straight. Seventy billion dollars. For ICE. While Americans struggle to pay rent, medications, groceries. This is not a critique of **border security** — it is a question of priorities. And priorities, in a budget, are a statement of values.*

## 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.

*Four times the historical **annual budget** of ICE. This is a transformation in scale, not a marginal increase. When an agency receives this much money this fast, the question of oversight and **accountability** mechanisms becomes as important as the question of operational mission. Were those questions asked?*

## **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.

*The Democratic blockade of DHS funding produced the opposite of its intended effect: it gave Republicans the perfect justification to pass the largest immigration law in American history. That is a brutal lesson in real politics: obstruction without an exit strategy can become a weapon for the opponent.*

## 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.

*Seventy billion dollars to do more of what produced the problems. Without reform. Without strengthened oversight. Without an independent investigation mechanism. I want to believe the size of the check will come with the size of the accountability. But the history of American security agencies gives me few reasons to be optimistic.*

## 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.

*Seventy billion dollars. A one-vote margin in the House. Two **American citizens** dead. A DHS shuttered for 76 days. That is the context in which this law was signed. I don't claim to know whether it was inevitable. I only claim that you cannot write honestly about it without those figures in the same sentence.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [Inkl — Trump signs the Secure America Act into law — June 13, 2026](https://www.inkl.com/news/trump-signs-the-secure-america-act-into-law)

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

- [Congress.gov — Secure America Act, 119th Congress — June 2026](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/secure-america-act)

### Secondary sources

- [Washington Post — Trump signs $70B Secure America Act into law — June 10, 2026](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/10/secure-america-act-signed-ice-funding/)

- 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

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/portrait-secure-america-act-70-milliards-pour-l-agence-qui-a-tue-deux-citoyens-a