U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) released a statement on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026, explaining her vote for legislation that would fund the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2026—a decision she framed as necessary to keep critical services like the Coast Guard and FEMA running for Southwest Washington.

In the statement, Gluesenkamp Perez said she “could not in good conscience vote to shut it down,” arguing that a DHS shutdown would harm disaster response and maritime safety in coastal and river communities that depend on federal resources. She pointed to the Coast Guard’s role when “fishermen in Pacific County get in trouble out on the water” and FEMA’s role after flooding and landslides.

At the same time, the congresswoman acknowledged growing concern about federal law enforcement tactics, writing that “it now appears to many of us that in pursuit of politically motivated removal goals and rushed timelines, federal law enforcement is being pressured to exercise overly aggressive tactics that endanger law enforcement and civilians.” She said the country should not be forced into “a false choice between having no border security and arresting US citizens.”

Gluesenkamp Perez also argued that, in her view, an actual DHS shutdown would not meaningfully stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She said ICE would continue operating “with limited oversight” due to separate funding she described as contained in the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a measure she said she voted against. Meanwhile, she argued, other DHS components—like FEMA and the Coast Guard—would be the ones to “take the hit.”

The statement arrives amid escalating national debate over immigration enforcement, executive power, and civil liberties—including allegations from advocacy groups and some local residents that immigration enforcement is increasingly aggressive, and that communities are being put at risk by raids and detentions. While those claims extend far beyond Southwest Washington, the political consequences are local: WA-03 residents are represented in Congress by Gluesenkamp Perez, and DHS agencies directly affect the Lower Columbia region through disaster response, maritime operations, and law enforcement.

Why this matters in Cowlitz County and Southwest Washington

For Longview, Kelso, and the surrounding area, DHS can be both a safety net and a source of anxiety. FEMA and the Coast Guard are obvious examples of federal capacity that can save lives and stabilize communities during emergencies. But DHS also oversees ICE, a politically charged agency whose work can reverberate locally through workplace enforcement actions, detention operations, and cooperation (or non-cooperation) with local law enforcement.

Gluesenkamp Perez’s statement attempts to thread that needle: defending continuity of government services while distancing herself from what she characterized as “overly aggressive tactics.” The core tension is structural. DHS is a consolidated department that includes agencies with very different missions—from rescue to disaster response to immigration enforcement—and Congress frequently funds them as a package. That makes “keep the lights on” votes inseparable from broader questions about surveillance, detention, and state power.

The oversight question

One of the congresswoman’s central claims is that a shutdown could reduce oversight even as parts of DHS continue operating under separate funding streams. Whether that is accurate depends on the details of the legislation, appropriations timelines, and the extent to which specific DHS functions are treated as “essential” during a lapse in appropriations. But her broader point is political: she is arguing that shutdown brinkmanship is not a viable tool to constrain enforcement agencies, and that it risks collateral damage to public-safety and disaster-response operations.

Her statement also rejects “indiscriminate” slogans like “Defund ICE,” suggesting she favors targeted reforms rather than broad funding cuts. That position will likely land differently across the district: some voters will view it as pragmatic; others will view it as failing to confront an agency they consider dangerous and unaccountable.

What comes next

In the coming weeks, the practical impact for WA-03 will hinge on what Congress ultimately passes for FY2026 and what guardrails—if any—are attached to DHS funding. That includes questions about internal accountability, transparency requirements, and constraints on how enforcement priorities are carried out.

For residents of Cowlitz County watching federal power expand in real time, the stakes are not abstract: it’s about who gets protected, who gets targeted, and whether constitutional rights are treated as a baseline—or as a barrier to be routed around. If DHS is “extremely important” to our community, then so is democratic oversight—and that means the debate shouldn’t stop at whether the department stays funded, but what it is permitted to do in our name.

Sources