Partial U.S. federal government shutdown: Budget stalemate triggered by immigration policy disputes.

At 1 minute past midnight Washington time on January 31, the U.S. federal government officially entered a partial shutdown as its budget funds were exhausted. The immediate trigger for this shutdown was the failure of the House of Representatives to vote on the temporary funding bill, which had just been passed by the Senate, before the deadline. Hours before the deadline, the Senate approved a compromise measure with bipartisan support, 71 to 29, providing full-year funding for nearly all federal agencies through the end of September, except for the Department of Homeland Security. The most contentious funding for the Department of Homeland Security was separated and extended for only two weeks until mid-February. Since the House was in recess until Monday, February 2, this timing gap led to a funding lapse over the weekend. This marks the second time in just three months that the U.S. government has been paralyzed, following the historic 43-day shutdown from October to November 2025. The core catalyst for this political deadlock was a series of incidents in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where federal immigration enforcement officers shot civilians.

The immediate trigger point for the shutdown was the gunfire in Minneapolis.

The current budget crisis does not stem from the traditional comprehensive confrontation between the two parties, but rather focuses on an extremely specific and emotionally charged issue: the enforcement methods of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The core location of the incident is Minneapolis, the largest city in Minnesota, located in the north-central United States. On January 24, Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse, was shot and killed in the city by law enforcement officers from the U.S. Border Patrol (under CBP). This was the second incident in that month where federal immigration enforcement officers shot and killed a U.S. citizen in the city, following the death of Renee Good, also 37 years old, under similar circumstances shortly before. Neither individual had a criminal record related to immigration law.

The video of the shooting incident spread widely, sparking nationwide public outrage and political upheaval. Democrats quickly linked the matter to longstanding criticisms of ICE and CBP enforcement actions. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer made a clear statement at a press conference after the vote: We need to control ICE and end the violence. This means ending roving patrols, it means needing rules, oversight, and judicial search warrants... Masks must be removed, cameras must be kept on at all times, and officers must wear visible identification. No secret police. The specific reform demands put forward by Democrats include: prohibiting law enforcement officers from wearing balaclavas during operations, mandating the use of body cameras, terminating roving patrols in cities, requiring search warrants from judges rather than relying solely on internal authorizations, and strengthening coordination with local law enforcement agencies.

It is precisely these specific requirements that Democrats have set as prerequisites for approving the budget of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS is the superior authority overseeing ICE and CBP, making its budget a focal point of bipartisan contention. When the previously smooth budget review process reached a deadlock due to this, Democrats threatened a filibuster in the Senate, forcing Republicans and the White House back to the negotiating table.

Trump's Swift Pivot and the Internal Rifts Within the Republican Party

In stark contrast to his firm stance and public criticism of Democratic leaders during the 43-day shutdown in 2025, former President Donald Trump has demonstrated unexpected flexibility in negotiations this time. After the crisis escalated, Trump quickly engaged directly with Senate Democratic Leader Schumer and called on members of both parties on social media to support the urgently needed bipartisan vote, clearly stating, "I do not want the government to shut down."

The White House's strategic shift has been interpreted by most analysts as a compromise with political reality. Republican Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana hit the nail on the head with his comment: I have never seen a party turn its most advantageous issue into its worst in such a short time. He was referring to how immigration, originally a core political asset for Trump and the Republicans, has now placed tough enforcement policies under immense moral and political pressure due to the Minneapolis shooting and the ensuing public opinion tsunami. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia pointed out: The world has seen those horrifying videos of Homeland Security abusing power and arresting innocent people, and it has disgusted everyone. He added that the White House is looking for a ladder to climb down from the cliff.

However, Trump's compromise has sparked dissatisfaction among conservatives within the Republican Party. Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, a close ally of Trump, has taken the lead in opposing the swift passage of the compromise. On Thursday evening, January 30, he utilized the Senate's unanimous consent fast-track procedure rules to block the bill's progress. Graham's condition for lifting the block was a commitment from the Senate leadership to hold a future vote on his proposed bill targeting sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities refer to local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies. Graham believes that the policies of these cities are the root cause of the problem. Ultimately, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (Republican, South Dakota) made concessions to secure Graham's approval for the bill's advancement.

Alabama Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville directly questioned on social media: The Republican Party controls the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Why should we concede an inch to the Democrats? These internal noises indicate that even if the House passes the current proposal after reconvening on Monday, negotiations surrounding the two-week temporary budget for the Department of Homeland Security will be exceptionally challenging.

The Practical Impact of a "Technical" Shutdown and Historical Comparisons

Although the legal shutdown began at midnight on January 31, its actual impact is widely assessed as limited and short-lived. This is mainly attributed to the expected duration of the shutdown likely being only a weekend, and the relatively small scope of those affected.

According to the agreement passed by the Senate, 5 out of the 12 annual appropriation bills have secured full-year funding, covering most federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The operations of these departments will remain unaffected. The funding gap primarily affects those departments for which full-year bills have not yet been passed, but less contentious portions have already been addressed through temporary appropriations. The real focus—the Department of Homeland Security—has received a two-week temporary funding extension. Therefore, this shutdown is characterized as a partial shutdown.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum to agencies on the evening of January 30, directing them to implement shutdown plans while expressing hope that this funding gap would be brief. The memorandum required relevant employees to report for their next scheduled shift to carry out orderly shutdown activities. Compared to the chaos of the 2025 shutdown, which forced 800,000 federal employees to work without pay or go on furlough, caused severe delays in airport security screenings, closed national parks, and disrupted numerous public services, the direct impact of this shutdown is minimal. According to data from the Congressional Research Service, since 1977, the United States has experienced 10 funding gaps lasting three days or less, most of which had little real-world impact.

However, this does not mean there is no cost. Even a brief shutdown creates uncertainty, disrupts the long-term planning of government agencies, and consumes significant political capital and administrative resources. More importantly, it signals the periodic recurrence of political dysfunction. The record 43-day shutdown in 2025, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), caused approximately 11 billion dollars in losses to the U.S. economy. Although most of these losses were recovered after the government resumed operations, the damage to government credibility and employee morale was lasting.

Next two weeks: the prelude to more difficult negotiations.

The plan passed by the Senate, rather than solving the problem, has postponed the decisive battle by two weeks. On Monday, February 2, the House of Representatives is expected to quickly pass the temporary funding bill upon resuming session, thereby formally ending this brief shutdown. However, the real challenge begins immediately: Democrats and Republicans have less than 14 days to negotiate a full-year funding bill covering the Department of Homeland Security until September 30 (the end of fiscal year 2026).

This is almost a Mission: Impossible. The positions of both sides are vastly different. Democrats will use the Minneapolis incident as leverage to insist on including substantial restrictions on ICE and CBP enforcement actions in the bill. Meanwhile, conservatives within the Republican Party hope to use the budget process to advance their own immigration policy priorities, such as Graham's anti-sanctuary city bill. Any attempt to satisfy one side may provoke strong opposition from the other, making it impossible for the bill to secure the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate (considering the filibuster rule) or to obtain a simple majority in the House of Representatives.

Senate Majority Leader Thune acknowledged the difficulty of future negotiations, stating there are some rather significant viewpoints and sentiments, and we will remain hopeful... but indeed, there are some quite notable differences of opinion. This division exists not only between the two parties but also within the Republican Party itself. Some Republicans believe it is necessary to address public concerns regarding law enforcement transparency and accountability, while others view any restrictions on ICE as a betrayal of Trump's core policies.

From a strategic perspective, the Trump administration's swift achievement of a temporary compromise was aimed at avoiding a prolonged shutdown that could have lasted for weeks and severely damaged the Republican Party's image during an election year. After the 2025 shutdown ended, a poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed that the Republican Party bore slightly more blame than the Democratic Party. Trump himself acknowledged to Republican senators in November last year that the shutdown was a significant factor and unfavorable to the Republican Party. Therefore, the White House's goal was likely to contain the damage, confine the political controversy to the specific area of immigration enforcement, and minimize its duration of escalation.

However, the explosive nature of the immigration issue itself, coupled with the public outrage sparked by the Minneapolis incident, has made control exceptionally difficult. The negotiations over the next two weeks will serve as a severe stress test for Washington's political mechanisms. Regardless of the outcome, this budget crisis triggered by gunfire clearly demonstrates that immigration policy is no longer just a law enforcement issue at the U.S.-Mexico border. It has penetrated deep into America's inland cities, becoming the sharpest political weapon that tears society apart and paralyzes government operations.

The brief shutdown in Washington may end as early as Monday, but the policy and political showdown it has kicked off is just beginning.