Groundhog Day: How House members and senators exploit procedure to get their way
The Hill
by Don Wolfensberger, opinion contributorFebruary 19, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
The House and Senate have found themselves at odds over the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with both chambers employing procedural tactics to advance their agendas. The House recently passed a resolution aimed at terminating the president's tariff actions, signaling its intent to address trade policies alongside DHS funding. Meanwhile, the Senate has struggled to move its own DHS funding bill forward, failing to pass a cloture motion—a procedure used to end filibusters and bring legislation to a vote. This impasse highlights the ongoing tensions between the two chambers over how to allocate resources and set policy priorities.
The conflict stems from differing approaches to DHS funding and related issues. The House resolution not only targeted tariffs but also sought to tie additional funding for DHS to broader policy changes, including restrictions on asylum seekers at the southern border. Senate leaders, however, have prioritized bipartisan cooperation, aiming to pass a more moderate funding package that avoids controversial riders. The failure of the cloture motion in the Senate suggests divisions within the chamber over how far to go in aligning with the White House's immigration policies.
This procedural standoff underscores the challenges of governing under political polarization and differing legislative priorities. For readers interested in politics, this situation illustrates how Congress uses procedural tactics to gain leverage, whether through direct resolutions or filibuster strategies. The outcome of this clash will determine not only DHS funding but also the broader direction of U.S. immigration policy and trade negotiations. As the debate continues, it remains a key focus for those tracking Capitol Hill's dynamics.
Verticals
politicsnews
Originally published on The Hill on 2/19/2026