U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, the Democrat representing Washington’s 3rd Congressional District, voted Thursday, Jan. 22, to pass a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill that included billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — one of just seven Democrats to side with Republicans on the measure.

The vote matters locally because DHS funding covers the U.S. Coast Guard and FEMA, two agencies that play an outsized role in Southwest Washington during coastal emergencies, river flooding, landslides, and major disasters. But for many residents, the same bill also represents another major infusion of funding into ICE at a time when the agency is facing intense scrutiny over aggressive enforcement tactics nationwide.

What happened

The U.S. House passed H.R. 7147, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026, by a 220–207 vote on Jan. 22. Most Democrats voted “no,” while nearly all Republicans voted “yes.” Gluesenkamp Perez voted “yes.”

National reporting on the bill describes roughly $64.4 billion for DHS and about $10 billion for ICE, with Democrats arguing the measure lacked meaningful guardrails on ICE conduct and accountability.

Gluesenkamp Perez: DHS matters here, and a shutdown wouldn’t stop ICE

In a statement released the same day as the vote, Gluesenkamp Perez said she could not “in good conscience vote to shut it down,” pointing specifically to the Coast Guard’s role for Pacific County fishers and FEMA’s role during Southwest Washington disasters. She also argued that a DHS shutdown would not actually stop ICE operations, because ICE would continue operating “with limited oversight” due to other funding — while agencies like the Coast Guard and FEMA “would take the hit.”

Gluesenkamp Perez criticized what she called a “false choice” between border security and arresting U.S. citizens, and said aggressive federal law-enforcement tactics being driven by “politically motivated removal goals” are “corrosive” to long-term security and stability.

Why it’s contentious

Democratic opposition to the DHS funding bill has intensified in recent weeks as lawmakers and civil-rights advocates have raised alarm about ICE conduct, including reports of U.S. citizens being detained and allegations of overly aggressive tactics during enforcement actions. Multiple national outlets tied the Democratic revolt to the killing of a woman in Minneapolis earlier this month and broader questions about ICE accountability and oversight.

While some Democrats argued that blocking DHS funding could risk a government shutdown, others said Congress should not approve DHS and ICE funding without strong, enforceable limits on the agency’s operations and use of force.

Local stakes: disaster response vs. federal policing power

For communities across Cowlitz County and the wider WA-03 district, the vote highlights an ongoing political tradeoff: how Congress bundles essential public-safety and disaster-response functions with an immigration enforcement apparatus that many residents view as increasingly unaccountable.

That bundling can make a clean moral or policy line difficult for lawmakers — and it also can make it harder for constituents to organize for change. If the Coast Guard and FEMA are kept in the same funding lane as ICE, communities worried about civil liberties may find themselves repeatedly told that opposing ICE funding means risking emergency response capabilities.

What happens next

The DHS funding bill now heads to the U.S. Senate, where it faces additional procedural hurdles. House action came amid end-of-month shutdown pressure, with a Jan. 30 deadline frequently cited in coverage of the funding fight.

In the meantime, Gluesenkamp Perez’s vote is likely to sharpen local debate heading into 2026: whether “keeping the government open” should require voting to fund agencies that many Democrats — and many left-leaning and civil-liberties-minded residents — say are operating beyond constitutional bounds.

Sources