Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a sweeping amendment that would dramatically reshape federal spending priorities by rescinding $75 billion in additional funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and redirecting that money to Medicaid. According to Sanders’ office, the move could prevent an estimated 700,000 Americans from losing health coverage in the wake of what he describes as unprecedented Republican-backed cuts to the program.
The proposal draws a sharp contrast between two competing visions of government: one that emphasizes expanded immigration enforcement and another that prioritizes access to health care for low-income Americans, seniors, and people with disabilities. Sanders has framed the amendment as a moral and economic choice, arguing that federal dollars should be used to keep people healthy rather than expand what he calls an already overfunded enforcement apparatus.
“At a time when working families are struggling to afford basic medical care,” Sanders said in a statement, “it is unconscionable to pour tens of billions more into immigration enforcement while hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of losing their health insurance.” His office claims the reallocation would help stabilize Medicaid rolls and protect vulnerable populations from coverage losses triggered by recent policy changes.
Medicaid, which provides health coverage to more than 70 million Americans, has been under pressure as states reassess eligibility following the end of pandemic-era protections. Many beneficiaries have lost coverage during this “unwinding” process, often due to administrative hurdles rather than changes in income. Sanders and his allies argue that additional federal funding could help states maintain coverage, streamline enrollment, and avoid disruptions in care.
Supporters of the amendment say the proposal addresses both human and fiscal concerns. By investing in preventive care and treatment through Medicaid, they argue, the government can reduce long-term health costs, emergency room overcrowding, and avoidable hospitalizations. “Health care is not just a social good—it’s a cost-saving measure in the long run,” said one Democratic aide familiar with the amendment. “When people lose coverage, everyone pays.”
The amendment has also reignited a long-running debate over the role and funding of ICE. Critics of the agency argue that its budget has ballooned over the years, often see-sawing between administrations but trending upward overall. They contend that additional funding has not translated into more humane or effective immigration outcomes and has instead fueled detention expansion and controversial enforcement practices.
Sanders has been one of the most vocal critics of ICE in Congress, previously calling for its abolition and, more recently, for significant reductions in its funding. In this proposal, he stops short of dismantling the agency but argues that the $75 billion in additional funding is excessive and unnecessary. “This is about priorities,” Sanders said. “We cannot afford everything, so we must decide what matters most.”
Republicans and some centrist Democrats have pushed back strongly. They argue that ICE funding is essential for border security, interior enforcement, and the functioning of the immigration system. In their view, cutting tens of billions from ICE would undermine law enforcement, encourage illegal immigration, and weaken national security.
“Medicaid and border security are both important, but this amendment creates a false choice,” said one Republican senator. “We can protect health care access without gutting immigration enforcement.” Critics also question Sanders’ estimate that 700,000 people would lose coverage without the reallocation, calling it speculative and politically motivated.
The amendment is expected to face an uphill battle in Congress, where immigration policy and health care funding are among the most divisive issues. Even within the Democratic Party, there is disagreement over how aggressively to challenge ICE funding and how best to shore up Medicaid. Some lawmakers prefer more targeted fixes, such as administrative reforms or narrower funding increases, rather than a sweeping reallocation.
Still, the proposal has succeeded in forcing a broader conversation about federal priorities. By tying immigration enforcement funding directly to health care access, Sanders has framed the debate in stark terms that resonate with progressive voters. Advocacy groups focused on health care access have praised the amendment, saying it highlights the real-world consequences of budget decisions.
“This isn’t abstract,” said a spokesperson for a national health advocacy organization. “When Medicaid funding is cut, people skip medications, delay care, and end up sicker. Redirecting funds to keep people covered saves lives.”
Immigration advocates, meanwhile, are divided. Some support the amendment as a step toward reducing what they see as an overreliance on enforcement. Others worry that the proposal could harden opposition to broader immigration reforms by framing ICE funding cuts as zero-sum.
As the amendment moves through the legislative process, it is unlikely to pass in its current form. But even opponents acknowledge its symbolic power. It underscores the tension between enforcement-heavy approaches to immigration and investments in social safety nets—a tension that has defined much of recent congressional debate.
For Sanders, the amendment is consistent with his long-standing message that government should work for ordinary people rather than expand punitive systems. Whether or not it becomes law, it puts lawmakers on record and forces a choice: where should scarce federal dollars go?
As Congress prepares for intense budget negotiations, the fate of the amendment remains uncertain. What is clear is that the proposal has sharpened the debate over health care, immigration, and the values that guide federal spending—setting the stage for a fight that will extend well beyond this single vote.
Leave a Reply