House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said Sunday that he is open to a number of federal immigration enforcement reforms that have also drawn support from Democrats, even as negotiations over government funding and border policy remain tense. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Johnson explained that while some Democratic demands related to immigration enforcement are reasonable and worth pursuing, others would require far more extensive discussion and compromise. He noted that a House vote aimed at ending the partial government shutdown would begin Monday afternoon with a series of procedural steps. Johnson emphasized that productive negotiations would depend on both parties engaging constructively, warning that progress would stall if proposals were framed as ultimatums rather than starting points. His remarks came as Congress faced mounting pressure to restore funding for key federal agencies and resolve deep divisions over how immigration laws should be enforced.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have put forward several proposals focused on reshaping the way Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection operate. These discussions follow the Senate’s passage on Friday of a sweeping $1.2 trillion funding package that combines five regular appropriations bills with a two-week continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees both ICE and CBP. While the Senate moved ahead, the House was in recess on Friday, allowing funding for roughly 78 percent of the federal government to expire at midnight on Saturday. As a result, many agencies entered a partial shutdown, and the impasse is expected to persist at least into Tuesday. House Democrats have so far declined to fast-track consideration of the Senate package, citing unresolved policy disputes and procedural concerns.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer outlined a slate of immigration-related reforms that Democrats argue would bring greater accountability and transparency to federal enforcement efforts. His proposals include banning roving immigration patrols, expanding requirements for judicial warrants, creating a universal code of conduct for federal officers, and prohibiting immigration agents from wearing masks during operations. Schumer characterized these ideas as practical and necessary steps to restore public trust, arguing that rejecting them would amount to choosing disorder over stability. At the same time, he did not address criticism that some Democratic lawmakers and activists have used inflammatory language toward ICE and Border Patrol agents, at times comparing them to historical authoritarian forces or portraying them as a form of secret police. Nor did he respond directly to accusations that such rhetoric has fueled opposition to immigration enforcement in communities across the country.

Johnson indicated that he agrees with parts of Schumer’s agenda, particularly the idea of banning roving patrols and requiring federal immigration officers to wear body cameras. However, he pushed back strongly against other proposals. He defended officers’ use of masks, arguing that concealing their identities can be necessary to protect both the agents themselves and their families from harassment or retaliation. Johnson also expressed concern that broadening warrant requirements could bog down enforcement operations with additional layers of bureaucracy, making it harder for officers to carry out their duties effectively. While acknowledging the need for oversight and reform, he cautioned against measures that could, in his view, undermine operational efficiency. Johnson said he hoped negotiators from both parties would approach discussions over DHS funding and enforcement reforms in good faith, stressing that compromise would be essential to resolving the standoff.

The debate over federal immigration enforcement intensified further over the weekend after a federal judge declined Minnesota’s request to temporarily halt a major enforcement initiative known as Operation Metro Surge. The Trump administration launched the operation by deploying thousands of immigration agents to the Minneapolis–St. Paul area, prompting sharp backlash from state and local officials. Minnesota, along with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, filed a lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the operation while the case proceeds. State leaders argued that the surge represented an overreach of federal authority and infringed on state sovereignty, particularly in light of two controversial deaths that occurred during enforcement actions and sparked widespread public outrage. They contended that the scale and tactics of the operation went beyond established precedent.

U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez, a Biden appointee, ruled on Saturday that the plaintiffs had not met the demanding legal standard required to justify an immediate pause in the operation. In her written decision, Menendez said the state and city failed to demonstrate that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims. She noted that the plaintiffs were asking the court to extend existing legal precedent into an unfamiliar context involving an unprecedented deployment of armed federal immigration officers. According to the judge, none of the cases cited by Minnesota closely matched the circumstances at hand. While acknowledging that the surge had significant and visible impacts on local communities, Menendez emphasized that her ruling was not a final judgment on the legality of the operation itself. Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith Ellison and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, expressed disappointment with the decision and said they plan to continue pressing their case as the lawsuit moves forward.