None of the Democrats named below are anywhere near as bad as the best Republican on immigration or civil rights. Not even close. I will still support Democrats in general elections. I will still vote blue. I will still oppose Republicans who openly embrace cruelty, dehumanization, and lawless enforcement.

This is not a call to abandon these members. This is not a call to sit out elections. This is not a “both sides” argument. This is about accountability inside our own house.

This is not about holding Democrats to some mythical higher standard. It is about follow through. It is about doing what we said we would do and protecting the people we said we would protect. If we say we stand with immigrant communities, civil rights, and basic human dignity, then our votes have to reflect that. Representation is not a branding exercise. It is a responsibility to our neighbors.

What I keep seeing right now is people saying “Democrats are funding ICE!”

That reaction makes sense. But accountability only works when it is specific. Who voted, how many did, and what they said afterward all matter.

Last week, the House passed the FY 2026 Department of Homeland Security funding bill. It includes roughly ten billion dollars for ICE. The bill passed 220 to 207. Almost every Republican voted yes. Seven Democrats did too.

Here are their names and what they actually said about their votes, with sources you can read yourself.

Tom Suozzi of New York was the most direct after the backlash.

“I failed to view the DHS funding vote as a referendum on the illegal and immoral conduct of ICE in Minneapolis. I hear the anger from many of my constituents, and I take responsibility for that.” https://www.commondreams.org/news/dhs-funding

Suozzi is the only one who openly acknowledged the core problem. When ICE has killed people and the country is watching, funding DHS cannot realistically be separated from funding ICE. His regret confirms that reality instead of avoiding it.

Henry Cuellar of Texas defended his vote as normal governance.

“This is what governing looks like. Passing this bipartisan compromise ensures these investments and oversight measures take effect. The alternative would have delivered none of them.” https://www.lmtonline.com/local/article/south-texas-district-dhs-funding-vote-congress-21314250.php

“This is what governing looks like” is a procedural defense, not a moral one. It treats ICE funding as an unfortunate side effect instead of a conscious choice with real human consequences.

Vicente Gonzalez of Texas tried to separate intent from outcome.

“What I was voting for was to ensure our federal agencies here in South Texas were funded.” https://newrepublic.com/post/205693/democratic-lawmakers-apologize-vote-funding-ice

You cannot say you were not voting to fund ICE when the bill explicitly funds ICE. Intent does not override where the money actually goes.

Don Davis of North Carolina condemned ICE violence while still supporting the bill.

“Our immigration laws can and must be enforced with respect for life and dignity. A thorough, independent investigation into this fatal shooting is essential.” https://www.commondreams.org/news/dhs-funding

Calling for investigations after voting to fund the agency involved is backwards. In Congress, accountability is exercised through budgets, not statements.

Laura Gillen of New York called for impeachment after the vote.

Gillen publicly called for the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem following the shooting, while not retracting her vote. https://newrepublic.com/post/205693/democratic-lawmakers-apologize-vote-funding-ice

Impeachment talk without using funding as leverage is symbolic. If leadership is unfit, continuing to fund the department without conditions undermines the claim.

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington framed her vote as preventing a shutdown.

Perez said she could not vote to shut down DHS because of the harm a shutdown would cause to disaster response and essential services. https://www.columbian.com/news/2026/jan/22/rep-marie-gluesenkamp-perez-votes-to-fund-department-of-homeland-security/

Shutdowns are real and harmful. But when every must pass bill includes ICE money, avoiding shutdowns becomes a permanent excuse rather than a temporary dilemma.

Jared Golden of Maine voted yes and defended immigration enforcement broadly.

Vote confirmation and reporting: https://time.com/7358105/dhs-funding-house-vote-ice-immigration-democrats-suozzi-cuellar-davis-gillen-golden-gonzalez-mgp/

General statements about law enforcement do not address ICE’s specific record or why its funding continues without enforceable limits.

Here is the reality we need to sit with.

This bill included roughly ten billion dollars for ICE. That is not disputed.

https://time.com/7357264/ice-funding-bill-dhs-congress/

You can believe shutdowns are bad. You can believe DHS does important work. You can believe governing is complicated. And you still have to acknowledge that funding ICE is a choice.

Supporting Democrats does not mean pretending mistakes did not happen. Holding people accountable does not mean helping Republicans. And protecting our neighbors means following through, even when it is uncomfortable.

Stating facts for the record and then expressing your opinion on said facts is not betrayal, it’s accountability.