As February 5 primary looms, Analilia Mejia slams Democrats in Congress for funding ICE

In a vote that laid bare the deepening fissures within the Democratic Party, a contender in the special February 5 primary slammed the House of Representatives for passing a $64.4 billion funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, directly financing the very immigration agency currently at the center of national outrage over fatal shootings and brutal arrests.

The measure passed 220-207, propelled by near-unanimous Republican support and the critical votes of seven Democrats who broke with their party’s leadership.

The passage comes as federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents face scorching allegations of state violence, including the recent killings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis and the widely condemned arrest of an elderly man paraded naked through the snow.

For progressive challengers and a growing segment of the Democratic base, the vote was not a compromise but a capitulation. This betrayal funds what they call a lawless paramilitary force.

“Action speaks louder than words. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ personal opposition rings hollow given his failure to hold his caucus accountable and prevent the passage of this bill,” said Analilia Mejia, a longtime labor organizer and progressive candidate in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, who is backed by allies of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, in the face of state-sanctioned violence and government overreach, plain old blue just won’t do. Failure to act while our neighbors are being gunned down is complicity,” said Mejia.

Mejia, in a statement that underscores the primary elections heating up across the country, drew a stark line.

“We are supposed to be the party of justice and freedom,” she said. “If people in power aren’t acting accordingly, it is because inaction is in their best interest, not yours… ICE doesn’t need more funding. It needs to be abolished.”

The Democrats who voted for the bill—Representatives Henry Cuellar of Texas, Tom Suozzi of New York, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Laura Gillen of New York, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Jared Golden of Maine, and Don Davis of North Carolina—framed their support as a reluctant necessity to fund essential agencies like FEMA, the Coast Guard, and TSA, and to avoid a government shutdown.

They pointed to modest provisions within the bill, such as $20 million for ICE body cameras and a reduction in detention beds, as hard-won concessions.

“I am voting for the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, not to expand ICE enforcement or add more agents, but to fund the core operations Americans rely on every day,” Suozzi posted online.

Gillen cited funding for disaster relief and anti-fentanyl efforts.

But to their colleagues in the progressive wing, these justifications crumble against the reality of ICE’s recent actions.

The image of agents beating a man on a Minneapolis sidewalk before shooting him, following the killing of a mother in her car and the use of a child as bait in an arrest, has transformed the agency in the eyes of critics from a law enforcement body into an instrument of terror.

Funding it, they argue, is an endorsement of its conduct.

“You can’t out-Republican Republicans, because you’re going to lose your base and you’re not going to get any of the Republicans to come over to you,” said Representative Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, highlighting the political peril for Democrats in swing districts.

The lone Republican dissenter, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voted against the bill for an entirely different reason, objecting to funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which he called a “censorship agency.”

The vote arrives at a moment of profound democratic stress, where the machinery of government is seen by many as not just broken but actively weaponized.

It presents a raw political choice: is governance the art of funding necessary services within a flawed system, or is it a moral imperative to dismantle that system when it turns violent against the people it purports to serve?

For seven Democrats, the calculation led to a “yea.” For challengers like Analilia Mejia, and for protesters facing tear gas in Minneapolis, it is a “nay” that echoes as a fundamental question of allegiance. The primary electorate will soon decide which answer stands.