Trump’s ‘Mixed Messages’ on Iran Aren’t the Problem—Congress Keeping DHS Unfunded Is the Real National-Security Self-Own (and You’ll Feel It at Every Airport)
Washington isn’t “shut down”—but DHS is, and that’s enough to snarl TSA lines, drain staff, and weaken an always-on security system. The real fight isn’t Trump’s rhetoric; it’s Congress using homeland security funding as leverage over ICE/CBP after deadly enforcement operations.
By TheMurrow Editorial
March 31, 2026
Key Points
- 1Track the real crisis: a DHS funding lapse since mid-February is degrading TSA staffing, morale, and checkpoint throughput nationwide.
- 2Follow the numbers: nearly 11% TSA absences (3,200+ workers) and 458+ quits are already translating into lane closures and long lines.
- 3Understand the stalemate: Senate triage funds most DHS but isolates ICE/CBP; the House demands a full DHS CR, locking in airport pain.
Americans have a well-worn picture of a government shutdown: national parks shuttered, museum doors locked, federal websites frozen, and a slow drip of indignation that lasts until Congress blinks. What’s unfolding in Washington this spring is stranger—and in some ways, more revealing.
The federal government isn’t broadly shut down. Most agencies have money. The lights are on across much of Washington. Yet one department—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—has been left in a prolonged funding lapse that began in mid-February 2026 and has dragged into late March. TIME called it “among the narrowest shutdowns in modern history” because it’s essentially one stalled appropriations bill holding a single cabinet department hostage.
The practical consequence is not theoretical. It’s the line at the airport that suddenly snakes past the usual markers. It’s the closed screening lanes. It’s the quiet degradation of an “always-on” security system that depends on staffing, morale, and routine. As the shutdown entered its sixth week, the country began to experience what happens when Congress turns aviation security into a bargaining chip.
A shutdown that hits one department can still hit the entire country—because DHS is where the public meets federal capacity.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The unusual shutdown: how DHS got stranded while the rest of government moved on
DHS’s funding lapse stands out because it’s partial in a way shutdowns rarely are. Congress advanced other appropriations, but DHS remains stuck—an asymmetry that changes the politics and the pain. When most agencies are operating normally, the public doesn’t feel an immediate, across-the-board jolt. The pressure builds unevenly, concentrated in places where DHS is visible: airports, disaster preparedness, and the immigration system.
A narrow shutdown with a long tail
Multiple reports place the start of the funding halt in mid-February 2026, and by March 27, 2026, the lapse was widely described as roughly 42 days long. The duration matters. Short shutdown threats can be endured with gritted teeth and internal workarounds. A weeks-long lapse turns into a staffing problem, a planning problem, and eventually a performance problem.
The public’s intuition about DHS also complicates the politics. DHS isn’t an abstract bureaucracy. It’s TSA at the checkpoint, CBP at ports of entry, ICE in enforcement operations, and FEMA when disasters hit. Even when particular components remain active, the department’s capacity and cohesion become harder to sustain without stable funding.
The public’s intuition about DHS also complicates the politics. DHS isn’t an abstract bureaucracy. It’s TSA at the checkpoint, CBP at ports of entry, ICE in enforcement operations, and FEMA when disasters hit. Even when particular components remain active, the department’s capacity and cohesion become harder to sustain without stable funding.
Why “narrow” doesn’t mean “small”
One reason this shutdown is so consequential is that DHS contains systems that operate on throughput. Airport screening isn’t a switch you flip on and off; it’s a daily choreography of staffing, lanes, equipment, and timing. When the system strains, it doesn’t fail neatly. It frays in public—one delayed lane, one understaffed shift, one longer line at a time.
That slow fraying is easy for lawmakers to underestimate. It is also easy for travelers to misread as “airport mismanagement,” rather than a downstream effect of a political stalemate in Washington.
That slow fraying is easy for lawmakers to underestimate. It is also easy for travelers to misread as “airport mismanagement,” rather than a downstream effect of a political stalemate in Washington.
The choke point is immigration enforcement: the ICE/CBP funding fight at the center
The central dispute is not whether DHS should exist or whether aviation security matters. The impasse sits inside DHS, where Congress is fighting over immigration enforcement—and specifically how, and under what constraints, ICE and CBP should operate.
The Associated Press reports that Senate Democrats have refused to fund DHS without restraints following enforcement operations in which federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. That incident—deadly, politically radioactive, and morally clarifying for many—became the catalyst for tying dollars to operational change.
The Associated Press reports that Senate Democrats have refused to fund DHS without restraints following enforcement operations in which federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. That incident—deadly, politically radioactive, and morally clarifying for many—became the catalyst for tying dollars to operational change.
Democrats’ argument: fund DHS, but rein in “out-of-control” enforcement
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) laid out the logic plainly in Senate appropriations messaging: the Senate stripped the Homeland Security bill from a broader package in order to force negotiations aimed at “rein[ing] in ICE and CBP,” arguing DHS leadership had become “out-of-control.” That framing is designed to separate “fund the department” from “give immigration enforcement a blank check.”
From that perspective, the shutdown isn’t collateral damage—it’s leverage. If Congress funds DHS in full with no policy conditions, the argument goes, lawmakers will have surrendered their only meaningful tool to demand reforms after lethal outcomes.
From that perspective, the shutdown isn’t collateral damage—it’s leverage. If Congress funds DHS in full with no policy conditions, the argument goes, lawmakers will have surrendered their only meaningful tool to demand reforms after lethal outcomes.
Republicans’ counterargument: don’t carve up DHS to punish enforcement
Republicans have treated the idea of isolating ICE and parts of CBP as both operationally risky and politically cynical. Their critique is straightforward: immigration enforcement is part of DHS’s statutory mission. Defunding or partially defunding it, they argue, creates perverse incentives, confuses command structures, and invites uneven enforcement.
There’s also a tactical concern: once Congress establishes a precedent that it can keep a department running by selectively funding favored components while freezing others, it may normalize a new kind of budget brinkmanship—targeted shutdowns as routine governance.
There’s also a tactical concern: once Congress establishes a precedent that it can keep a department running by selectively funding favored components while freezing others, it may normalize a new kind of budget brinkmanship—targeted shutdowns as routine governance.
The fight isn’t just over money. It’s over whether Congress can—and should—use funding to dictate how force is used in domestic enforcement.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
A rare rupture at the top: Johnson vs. Thune and the collapse of a clean exit
Shutdowns typically end when leadership aligns around a face-saving compromise. This time, leadership alignment has been conspicuously absent.
The AP documented a rare rupture between House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune after the Senate advanced an overnight deal. Johnson publicly dismissed the Senate plan as a “joke” and refused to take it up—leaving no clean exit before recess. In shutdown politics, that kind of open, intra-party disagreement is gasoline.
The AP documented a rare rupture between House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune after the Senate advanced an overnight deal. Johnson publicly dismissed the Senate plan as a “joke” and refused to take it up—leaving no clean exit before recess. In shutdown politics, that kind of open, intra-party disagreement is gasoline.
The Senate’s move: fund most DHS, isolate ICE/CBP
By March 27, the Senate had passed by voice vote a bill to fund most DHS components but exclude ICE and at least parts of CBP. Axios described it as an attempt to end “most” of the operational chaos—especially at TSA—while keeping the immigration-enforcement dispute contained to the agencies at the center of the controversy.
For travelers and airport operators, this Senate approach reads as pragmatic triage: stop the bleeding where the public feels it, then continue negotiating over the most contentious part of DHS.
For travelers and airport operators, this Senate approach reads as pragmatic triage: stop the bleeding where the public feels it, then continue negotiating over the most contentious part of DHS.
The House approach: a short continuing resolution to fund everything
Axios reported that Johnson aligned with the House Freedom Caucus behind a 60-day continuing resolution (CR) to fund all of DHS, including ICE and CBP. The House’s case is that partial funding is a gimmick and that DHS needs predictable, comprehensive support.
The collision between these strategies matters more than partisan messaging. It creates a structural stalemate: the Senate offers a partial restart; the House insists on full funding. Meanwhile DHS employees live in uncertainty and the public pays in time, delays, and reduced system resilience.
The collision between these strategies matters more than partisan messaging. It creates a structural stalemate: the Senate offers a partial restart; the House insists on full funding. Meanwhile DHS employees live in uncertainty and the public pays in time, delays, and reduced system resilience.
“You’ll feel it at every airport”: TSA absenteeism, attrition, and the math of slower lines
The TSA is where this shutdown becomes a lived experience for millions. Airport security is built on staffing assumptions that don’t tolerate prolonged disruption. The longer the lapse lasts, the more those assumptions fail.
AP reporting captured the most measurable sign of erosion: on Monday, March 23, 2026 (reported March 24), nearly 11% of TSA workers scheduled to report—more than 3,200 people—missed work. In any large workforce, absenteeism happens. A spike of that size in a security checkpoint system is operationally loud.
AP reporting captured the most measurable sign of erosion: on Monday, March 23, 2026 (reported March 24), nearly 11% of TSA workers scheduled to report—more than 3,200 people—missed work. In any large workforce, absenteeism happens. A spike of that size in a security checkpoint system is operationally loud.
Nearly 11%
Unscheduled TSA absences on March 23, 2026—more than 3,200 workers missing shifts (AP).
Key statistic #1: Nearly 11% unscheduled absences at TSA on March 23—3,200+ workers missing shifts (AP).
Attrition: the problem that outlasts the shutdown
Absences slow you down today. Quits slow you down for months. AP reported at least 458 TSA employees have quit since the shutdown began.
Key statistic #2: 458+ TSA employees have quit since mid-February (AP).
That number is not just a human-resources detail. It’s a reminder that shutdowns don’t merely pause government—they change it. Hiring, training, and retention are slow processes. A prolonged lapse can create a talent drain that lingers long after lawmakers declare victory.
Key statistic #2: 458+ TSA employees have quit since mid-February (AP).
That number is not just a human-resources detail. It’s a reminder that shutdowns don’t merely pause government—they change it. Hiring, training, and retention are slow processes. A prolonged lapse can create a talent drain that lingers long after lawmakers declare victory.
458+
TSA employees who have quit since the shutdown began (AP)—a staffing loss that can persist for months after funding returns.
The 2019 warning sign is returning—on schedule
Senate appropriations leadership has pointed to the last major benchmark: during the 2019 shutdown, TSA officers’ unscheduled absences reached almost 10%. That historical comparison is being used as a warning that absenteeism isn’t mysterious; it’s predictable when pay and stability are threatened.
Key statistic #3: TSA unscheduled absences hit almost 10% during the 2019 shutdown (Senate Appropriations fact sheet).
The lesson is blunt. When Congress creates uncertainty, the TSA’s workforce responds like most workforces would. People protect their families and their finances. They call in. They leave. The system then asks fewer officers to process the same number of passengers—so lines grow.
Key statistic #3: TSA unscheduled absences hit almost 10% during the 2019 shutdown (Senate Appropriations fact sheet).
The lesson is blunt. When Congress creates uncertainty, the TSA’s workforce responds like most workforces would. People protect their families and their finances. They call in. They leave. The system then asks fewer officers to process the same number of passengers—so lines grow.
Almost 10%
TSA unscheduled absences during the 2019 shutdown (Senate Appropriations fact sheet), cited as a warning sign repeating now.
Aviation security doesn’t collapse in a single moment. It degrades in public, one closed lane at a time.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
Long lines aren’t just inconvenience: why checkpoint throughput is a national reliability issue
It’s tempting to treat longer TSA lines as a customer-service problem. That view is too narrow. Aviation security is a public-facing component of national security, and its performance depends on reliability.
AP reported that airports have been “snarled by long security lines,” with travelers told to arrive hours early at airports including Houston, Atlanta, and BWI. Those aren’t marginal airports. They are major nodes in the national travel network. When delays stack up there, ripple effects spread across the system.
Key statistic #4: Travelers were told to arrive hours early at airports including Houston, Atlanta, and BWI amid long security lines (AP).
AP reported that airports have been “snarled by long security lines,” with travelers told to arrive hours early at airports including Houston, Atlanta, and BWI. Those aren’t marginal airports. They are major nodes in the national travel network. When delays stack up there, ripple effects spread across the system.
Key statistic #4: Travelers were told to arrive hours early at airports including Houston, Atlanta, and BWI amid long security lines (AP).
Hours early
Arrival warnings at major airports—including Houston, Atlanta, and BWI—as long security lines snarled checkpoints (AP).
Lane closures and staffing: the immediate mechanical link
Senate Appropriations Chair messaging attributes longer waits to staffing shortages that prevent opening additional screening lanes. That’s the checkpoint in plain terms: fewer staff equals fewer open lanes equals longer waits, especially during rush windows.
The stress point is spring travel. Peak travel periods expose weak links. Even small shifts in staffing can create nonlinear increases in wait times when passenger volume surges.
The stress point is spring travel. Peak travel periods expose weak links. Even small shifts in staffing can create nonlinear increases in wait times when passenger volume surges.
System confidence matters in security
Security systems rely on public compliance and predictable flows. When travelers face chaos, they arrive earlier, crowd terminals, and increase congestion. That may not be a direct security failure, but it is a stressor—one that forces TSA to manage human behavior in addition to screening.
A shutdown that degrades throughput also raises a quieter question: what else is being delayed or deferred behind the scenes when leaders are triaging daily operations? The reporting we have is focused on visible disruptions. The broader implication is that operational focus narrows under strain, and narrowing focus is rarely a good security posture.
A shutdown that degrades throughput also raises a quieter question: what else is being delayed or deferred behind the scenes when leaders are triaging daily operations? The reporting we have is focused on visible disruptions. The broader implication is that operational focus narrows under strain, and narrowing focus is rarely a good security posture.
The Senate’s “fund most DHS” bill: triage or precedent?
The Senate’s voice-vote package to fund most of DHS while excluding ICE and parts of CBP is the most important policy innovation in this episode. It attempts to separate immediate public-facing harm (TSA disruption) from a deeper policy dispute (immigration enforcement constraints).
The case for triage: stop the immediate harm
Supporters see the bill as a practical response to measurable damage. TSA absenteeism is up. Quits are accumulating. Major airports are reporting long lines and lane constraints. If Congress can reopen most DHS functions quickly, why wouldn’t it?
Senate Democrats also argue the separation is principled: funding core homeland security functions shouldn’t require Congress to capitulate on enforcement reforms after the Minneapolis killings. Their view is that the public can have functioning airports and simultaneously demand stricter rules for agencies that use force.
Senate Democrats also argue the separation is principled: funding core homeland security functions shouldn’t require Congress to capitulate on enforcement reforms after the Minneapolis killings. Their view is that the public can have functioning airports and simultaneously demand stricter rules for agencies that use force.
The case against: selective funding as a governance weapon
Opponents see something more dangerous: a new template for governing by targeted starvation. If Congress can say “we’ll fund the parts we like and defund the parts we’re furious at,” then any future controversy could produce a similar carve-out.
House leaders rejecting the Senate approach describe it as unserious—Johnson’s “joke” comment, reported by the AP, wasn’t just rhetorical heat. It signaled the House’s unwillingness to legitimize the carve-up approach, even if it relieves immediate pressure at airports.
The dilemma is real: the Senate bill may be the fastest route to reduced chaos, but it may also be the most consequential precedent.
House leaders rejecting the Senate approach describe it as unserious—Johnson’s “joke” comment, reported by the AP, wasn’t just rhetorical heat. It signaled the House’s unwillingness to legitimize the carve-up approach, even if it relieves immediate pressure at airports.
The dilemma is real: the Senate bill may be the fastest route to reduced chaos, but it may also be the most consequential precedent.
What readers should do now: practical travel and civic takeaways
A DHS funding lapse can feel distant until it isn’t. For most people, it becomes real at an airport checkpoint or when a trip begins to wobble. The most useful advice is grounded, not alarmist.
If you’re flying in the coming weeks
Based on the reported impacts—lane constraints, absentee spikes, and long lines at major hubs—travelers should plan for added uncertainty.
Practical steps:
Practical steps:
Practical steps for travelers
- ✓Arrive earlier than usual, especially at major airports and during peak morning windows.
- ✓Monitor your airport’s TSA and terminal advisories the day before and the day of travel.
- ✓Build margin into connections where possible; tight transfers become riskier when security throughput slows.
- ✓Expect variability: a line can be manageable one hour and overwhelmed the next, depending on staffing.
If you care about the policy, not just the line
Readers should resist the false choice being offered by some political narratives: that you must either fund everything with no conditions or accept a broken DHS. The heart of the dispute—how to constrain immigration enforcement after lethal incidents—deserves serious debate. The operational harm at TSA also deserves serious urgency.
A mature civic expectation is that Congress can do both: keep essential systems stable while legislating accountability. The longer lawmakers treat stability as optional, the more likely it is that public-facing institutions lose the workforce confidence they need to function.
A mature civic expectation is that Congress can do both: keep essential systems stable while legislating accountability. The longer lawmakers treat stability as optional, the more likely it is that public-facing institutions lose the workforce confidence they need to function.
Key Insight
The standoff isn’t abstract: staffing instability at TSA becomes visible disruption—then lingering capacity loss—because hiring and training can’t be rushed.
The deeper meaning of a one-department shutdown
A shutdown limited to DHS reveals something uncomfortable: Congress can create national disruption without “shutting down the government” in the traditional sense. A narrow lapse can still have broad effects when it hits a system built on daily staffing and public throughput.
The numbers tell the story. 42 days is long enough for 458+ TSA employees to quit and for absenteeism to spike to nearly 11% on a given day. The lived experience—hours-long warnings at airports like Houston, Atlanta, and BWI—translates those statistics into civic reality.
The politics are equally telling. Senate Democrats, led in messaging by figures such as Patty Murray, are trying to leverage funding to force constraints on ICE and CBP after the Minneapolis killings. House Republicans, with Mike Johnson aligned with the Freedom Caucus, reject selective funding and push a short-term CR to fund DHS fully. The Senate, under John Thune’s leadership, has moved a bill that funds most DHS but isolates immigration enforcement.
None of these positions is cartoonish. Each has a logic. Yet the combined effect is a failure of governance: a prolonged lapse in a department where the public can measure dysfunction in minutes and missed flights.
The national security lesson is not that TSA is fragile. It’s that stability is a choice—and Congress is currently choosing instability as a negotiating tactic. That choice doesn’t stay inside the Beltway. It shows up at the checkpoint.
The numbers tell the story. 42 days is long enough for 458+ TSA employees to quit and for absenteeism to spike to nearly 11% on a given day. The lived experience—hours-long warnings at airports like Houston, Atlanta, and BWI—translates those statistics into civic reality.
The politics are equally telling. Senate Democrats, led in messaging by figures such as Patty Murray, are trying to leverage funding to force constraints on ICE and CBP after the Minneapolis killings. House Republicans, with Mike Johnson aligned with the Freedom Caucus, reject selective funding and push a short-term CR to fund DHS fully. The Senate, under John Thune’s leadership, has moved a bill that funds most DHS but isolates immigration enforcement.
None of these positions is cartoonish. Each has a logic. Yet the combined effect is a failure of governance: a prolonged lapse in a department where the public can measure dysfunction in minutes and missed flights.
The national security lesson is not that TSA is fragile. It’s that stability is a choice—and Congress is currently choosing instability as a negotiating tactic. That choice doesn’t stay inside the Beltway. It shows up at the checkpoint.
The national security lesson is not that TSA is fragile. It’s that stability is a choice—and Congress is currently choosing instability as a negotiating tactic.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
1) Is the federal government shut down right now—or just DHS?
The disruption is a DHS funding lapse, not a whole-of-government shutdown. TIME described it as “among the narrowest shutdowns in modern history” because it stems from a single stalled appropriations bill while other funding has advanced. The narrowness doesn’t reduce the impact, because DHS contains highly visible systems like TSA checkpoints.
2) When did the DHS shutdown start, and how long has it lasted?
Reporting places the funding halt in mid-February 2026, with the shutdown persisting into late March. By March 27, 2026, it was widely described as about 42 days long. That length is significant enough to drive staffing instability and measurable operational disruption, particularly at airports.
3) Why are TSA airport lines getting worse?
AP reported that on March 23, nearly 11% of TSA workers scheduled to report—more than 3,200—missed work. Staffing shortages also prevent opening enough screening lanes, according to Senate appropriations messaging. When passenger volume stays steady but available staff drops, lines lengthen quickly, especially during peak travel periods.
4) How many TSA employees have quit during the shutdown?
AP reported at least 458 TSA employees have quit since the shutdown began. That matters because hiring and training new officers takes time. Even if funding is restored, elevated quit rates can leave checkpoints understaffed for months, prolonging delays beyond the formal end of the lapse.
5) What is Congress fighting about—why is ICE/CBP central?
AP reports Senate Democrats are refusing to fund DHS without restraints on immigration enforcement after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis during enforcement operations. Democrats argue funding must be paired with reforms; many Republicans argue DHS should be funded comprehensively and that selective defunding undermines the department’s mission.
6) What did the Senate pass, and why won’t the House take it up?
The Senate passed a bill by voice vote that would fund most DHS components but exclude ICE and at least parts of CBP, aiming to reduce TSA and broader DHS disruption while isolating the immigration-enforcement dispute. AP reported Speaker Mike Johnson called the Senate plan a “joke” and refused to advance it, reflecting a deeper strategy conflict with Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
7) What should travelers do if they’re flying soon?
Plan for uncertainty. AP reported airports “snarled by long security lines,” with travelers told to arrive hours early at airports including Houston, Atlanta, and BWI. Give yourself extra time, watch airport advisories, and avoid tight connections when possible. The main variable is staffing—conditions can change sharply by time of day.
T
About the Author
TheMurrow Editorial is a writer for TheMurrow covering opinion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the federal government shut down right now—or just DHS?
The disruption is a DHS funding lapse, not a whole-of-government shutdown. TIME described it as “among the narrowest shutdowns in modern history” because it stems from a single stalled appropriations bill while other funding has advanced. The narrowness doesn’t reduce the impact, because DHS contains highly visible systems like TSA checkpoints.
When did the DHS shutdown start, and how long has it lasted?
Reporting places the funding halt in mid-February 2026, with the shutdown persisting into late March. By March 27, 2026, it was widely described as about 42 days long. That length is significant enough to drive staffing instability and measurable operational disruption, particularly at airports.
Why are TSA airport lines getting worse?
AP reported that on March 23, nearly 11% of TSA workers scheduled to report—more than 3,200—missed work. Staffing shortages also prevent opening enough screening lanes, according to Senate appropriations messaging. When passenger volume stays steady but available staff drops, lines lengthen quickly, especially during peak travel periods.
How many TSA employees have quit during the shutdown?
AP reported at least 458 TSA employees have quit since the shutdown began. That matters because hiring and training new officers takes time. Even if funding is restored, elevated quit rates can leave checkpoints understaffed for months, prolonging delays beyond the formal end of the lapse.
What is Congress fighting about—why is ICE/CBP central?
AP reports Senate Democrats are refusing to fund DHS without restraints on immigration enforcement after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis during enforcement operations. Democrats argue funding must be paired with reforms; many Republicans argue DHS should be funded comprehensively and that selective defunding undermines the department’s mission.
What did the Senate pass, and why won’t the House take it up?
The Senate passed a bill by voice vote that would fund most DHS components but exclude ICE and at least parts of CBP, aiming to reduce TSA and broader DHS disruption while isolating the immigration-enforcement dispute. AP reported Speaker Mike Johnson called the Senate plan a “joke” and refused to advance it, reflecting a deeper strategy conflict with Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
