Here is the professional news article, written in the requested style and format.

---

How Democrats want to reform DHS – and why some Republicans are open to their demands

A fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal immigration officers has thrown Washington into a high-stakes standoff, forcing a last-minute scramble to avoid a partial government shutdown and creating an unusual political dynamic where Democrats' demands for reform are finding a degree of Republican support. The crisis has isolated the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the primary point of conflict, setting the stage for two weeks of intense negotiations over the future of immigration enforcement.

The immediate path forward hinges on a fragile agreement to temporarily fund DHS while lawmakers debate significant policy changes, a direct result of bipartisan alarm over the agency's tactics.

The Big Picture: A Shutdown Averted, A Confrontation Delayed

Congress is on the verge of passing a massive, nearly $1.3 trillion spending package to fund most of the federal government through the end of the fiscal year. However, the controversy surrounding DHS has forced lawmakers to split its funding from the main bill.

• The Agreement: An agreement endorsed by President Trump will fund defense, health, transportation, and other key government functions through September.
• The Exception: The Department of Homeland Security will receive a separate, two-week funding extension to allow time for negotiations on enforcement reforms.
• The Timeline: While a broader shutdown has been avoided, a short-term, partial shutdown of DHS appears likely. The Senate must first pass the plan, and the House, currently in recess, will not be able to vote until Monday, after the Friday midnight funding deadline.

The Catalyst: A Fatal Shooting in Minneapolis

The legislative standoff was triggered by the deadly shooting of 37-year-old Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen, during an encounter with federal immigration officers in Minneapolis. The incident, the second of its kind in the city, galvanized Democrats and rattled a number of prominent Republicans.

The fallout intensified after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other officials quickly labeled Pretti a "domestic terrorist," a characterization that drew sharp criticism for being a rush to judgment. For many lawmakers, the events in Minneapolis became an inflection point that could not be ignored, transforming a standard funding debate into a referendum on DHS conduct.

Unlike previous partisan battles over immigration, the public and political reaction to the Pretti shooting created a new sense of urgency for congressional oversight and accountability.

An Unexpected GOP Response

While congressional Republicans have been overwhelmingly hesitant to criticize the Trump administration, the Minneapolis shooting prompted public expressions of unease and calls for investigation from several members of the party. This has created a critical opening for Democrats' demands.

Voices of Concern

A segment of the Republican caucus has signaled that the status quo at DHS is politically and ethically untenable.

• Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.): Criticized the administration's immediate response, stating on social media that "initial rushes to judgment did not meet the standard that Americans should expect from their government officials."
• Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.): Argued for balancing enforcement with constitutional principles. "Enforcing our immigration laws makes our streets safer," he wrote in a statement. "But we must also maintain our core values as a nation, including the right to protest and assemble."
• Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): A frequent Trump critic, Tillis told reporters the images from Minneapolis were damaging the party's credibility on immigration. "It is regrettable that the issue that Republicans always lead on, we're losing on," he told NPR. Tillis, along with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), has called for Secretary Noem's resignation.
• Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.): An appropriator who initially resisted splitting the DHS funding bill, she later softened her stance, acknowledging the need for more time. "If the pathway exists that we get these five bills done and then we have time to continue to review Homeland [Security], I'm here for it," Britt said.

The Hardline Stance

Despite these openings, a significant portion of the Republican party remains firmly opposed to imposing new restrictions on immigration enforcement, reflecting a deep internal division.

• Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.): Voiced strong support for current enforcement operations. "We're not going to keep ICE from doing their job," Mullin stated. "The American people wanted the president to enforce law and order and ICE is doing their job."
• Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.): A member of the homeland security committee, Lankford argued that new policy changes are unnecessary. He noted that the pending DHS funding bill already includes more money for body cameras and oversight, stating, "I don't see one that's needed above and beyond what's already there."

The Democratic Agenda for Reform

In the wake of Pretti's death, Senate Democrats have outlined a clear set of policy changes they are demanding in exchange for their support for full-year DHS funding. Having already secured reductions in funding for immigration enforcement and detention capacity in the current bill, they are now pushing for structural reforms focused on conduct and accountability.

Their demands fall into three main categories:

• Warrant and Arrest Protocols: Democrats are pushing for strict new rules requiring immigration officers to obtain judicial warrants before entering private residences. This aims to end the use of administrative warrants, which do not require a judge's approval.
• Patrol Tactics: A key demand is an end to so-called "roving patrols," a controversial practice where officers conduct broad searches and stop individuals they suspect of being in the country illegally, often far from the border.
• Transparency and Oversight: This includes several major reforms to increase accountability, including a federal mandate for all immigration enforcement officers to wear and use body cameras, and new protocols for how shooting incidents and other uses of force are investigated.

The Bottom Line: What Comes Next

The two-week negotiating window forces a difficult conversation on Capitol Hill. Democrats, feeling they have leverage, are unlikely to back down from their core demands for reform. Meanwhile, Republicans are caught between a faction alarmed by DHS overreach and a base that expects unwavering immigration enforcement.

The path to any long-term agreement is arduous. Any reforms will need to attract enough Republican support to pass the Senate and then be approved by the House.

All eyes will be on the upcoming oversight hearings next month, where DHS leadership is expected to testify. Secretary Noem is scheduled to appear in March, where she will face intense questioning from both sides of the aisle. The outcome of the next two weeks will not only determine the budget for DHS but could also fundamentally reshape the rules governing immigration enforcement in the United States.