On a chilling day in January, Minnesota Representatives Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig, and Kelly Morrison faced an abrupt expulsion from an ICE facility in Minneapolis, a move orchestrated by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. This incident marks a contentious battle over congressional access to immigration detention centers, highlighting a broader strategy of obstruction.

The denial of entry at the Whipple Detention Center, as described by Rep. Angie Craig, involved aggressive confrontations and even the use of pepper spray against peaceful protesters. This incident underscores the intensified measures under Noem's directive, following the controversial expansion of ICE facilities under the Trump administration. The administration's push to increase detention capacities has been met with fervor from private prison entities benefiting from lucrative no-bid contracts.

Under the shadow of such expansions, Noem implemented a policy necessitating a week's notice from legislators before granting access to these facilities, a move that starkly contradicts the stipulations of § 527 of the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act. According to this act, DHS is prohibited from using allocated funds to obstruct congressional representatives from inspecting any ICE-operated facility.

This policy faced legal challenges, and in December, Judge Jia Cobb ruled against the seven-day notice requirement, emphasizing that it breached the legislative provision which ensures unimpeded access to detention facilities. Despite this, Noem countered with an audacious move on January 8, issuing new guidance that ostensibly complies with the court's ruling by declaring the policy would now be funded exclusively through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

Noem's tactical shift to use OBBBA funds for enforcing her restrictive access policy cleverly circumvents the restrictions imposed by § 527 of the Appropriations Act. This maneuver, however, raises significant ethical and legal questions about the fungibility of money and the transparent accountability of federal funds.

Rep. Joe Neguse, among others, has vowed to challenge this policy in court, suggesting that the administration's attempt to isolate funding sources for specific operational policies might not hold up under scrutiny. Critics argue that merely tagging funds from different sources does not alter the inherent nature of the expenditures, especially when previous assertions by DHS admitted non-use of OBBBA funds for detention operations.

As this legal and political drama unfolds, the question remains whether this creative accounting will indeed shield DHS from the required transparency and oversight or if it will be seen as another chapter in the ongoing saga of administrative defiance. Congressional and public scrutiny is intensifying, and the outcomes of these legal battles could set significant precedents for the limits of executive power in relation to legislative oversight.