Shutdown Statement: Multiple Misleading Claims About Democrats, ICE, and His Own Record

Statement

Source: Facebook Post, February 2, 2026

“I am opposed to government shutdowns–and always have been– but once again we find ourselves in one over Democrats’ refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security. This is wrong, dangerous, and puts America’s ability to protect our homeland at grave risk. We cannot play political games with our national security. Democrats have been on a quest to defund ICE and implement their sanctuary policies nationwide long before tensions rose in Minnesota.”

Why This Matters for NY-23

This shutdown affected federal workers throughout the district, delayed tax refunds, and created uncertainty for programs rural communities depend on. When the stated reasons for the shutdown are misleading — blaming Democrats for “defunding ICE” when the dispute actually began after two American citizens were shot by federal agents — constituents can’t make informed judgments about who’s responsible or what reforms might prevent future shutdowns.

Claim-by-Claim Analysis

Claim 1: “Always have been” opposed to shutdowns

Verdict: FALSE

December 19, 2024: Langworthy voted NO on H.R. 10545, a continuing resolution that would have prevented a Christmas shutdown.

His stated reason: calling it a “bloated spending bill” with “wasteful spending.”

The bill passed 366-34 and kept the government open.

His own statement that day: “I always believed it’s critical that we do our job to keep the government open… But that doesn’t mean signing off on a bloated spending bill.”

This demonstrates his opposition to shutdowns is conditional, not absolute.

Claim 2: Democrats “refused to fund” DHS

Verdict: MISLEADING

Democrats accepted a two-week continuing resolution for DHS (through February 13) while agreeing to fund five of six other appropriations bills for the full year.

The House ultimately passed the funding package 217-214, with 21 Democrats voting yes.

This is not a “refusal to fund” — it’s conditional funding pending reform negotiations following two fatal shootings of American citizens by federal agents.

Claim 3: “Democrats have been on a quest to defund ICE”

Verdict: MOSTLY FALSE

Historical legislation: The only “abolish ICE” bill was introduced in July 2018 by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI). It had only 8 co-sponsors out of 193 House Democrats. When Republicans tried to force a vote, its own sponsors announced they would vote against it. Democratic leaders explicitly rejected abolishing ICE.

Current Democratic position: Democrats are seeking operational reforms, not defunding:

• Requiring judicial warrants for entering homes
• Banning masks and requiring body cameras
• Ending roving immigration patrols
• Establishing a uniform code of conduct

The Democratic appropriations proposal would cut ICE by $115 million out of approximately $10 billion — keeping funding essentially flat.

More importantly: ICE already received $75 billion over four years through the Republican reconciliation bill passed in July 2025. Immigration enforcement would continue regardless of this appropriations dispute.

Public polling: 84% support body cameras for immigration agents; 69% support judicial warrants for home entry.

Claim 4: Tensions in Minnesota followed “defund ICE” push

Verdict: CAUSALLY REVERSED

The timeline shows the Minneapolis shootings caused the funding dispute, not the other way around:

The “defund ICE” push was a response to the Minneapolis shootings, not a precursor. Before the shootings, government funding was reportedly on a “glide path” to passage.

What Actually Caused the Shutdown

January 7, 2026: ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother who had just dropped her son at school.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stated: “Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly that is bullshit” — referring to DHS claims she tried to run over agents.

January 24, 2026: CBP agents shot and killed Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital, while he was filming enforcement activities.

Internal CBP documents reviewed by NPR contradicted DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s claims that he was a “domestic terrorist.”

The “Bipartisan Deal” Context

Langworthy says “we have the framework for a bipartisan deal.”

What the deal actually covered:

• Bipartisan passage of five appropriations bills for full year
• DHS separated for two weeks of negotiations
• Senate passed the compromise 71-29

What it does NOT include: Agreement on the ICE reforms that are the actual sticking point.

Senator John Thune (R-SD): Reaching a deal by February 13 is “an impossibility.”

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA): Negotiations would be “about as productive and efficient as an eighth grade car wash.”

Summary Table

Questions This Raises

1. If Langworthy “always” opposes shutdowns, why did he vote NO on H.R. 10545 in December 2024?
2. Does accepting a 2-week CR while funding five other agencies constitute “refusing to fund” DHS?
3. If ICE already has $75 billion from reconciliation, is the current appropriations dispute really about “defunding”?
4. Should the video evidence contradicting DHS claims about Renee Good inform how we evaluate the dispute?

Related Fact-Checks

• Minneapolis Shootings: Calling Renee Good a “Violent Rioter”

Sources

• Langworthy Facebook post (February 2, 2026)
• Congress.gov: H.R. 10545 vote record (December 19, 2024) — Langworthy: NO
• NPR: “Minneapolis shootings and federal response” (January 2026)
• Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey: Public statement on video evidence
• CBS News: Shutdown coverage (January-February 2026)
• Senator statements on DHS negotiations
• House Appropriations Committee: DHS funding bill details
• ICE reconciliation funding: H.R. 1 provisions

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from congressional records and news coverage. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Last updated: February 4, 2026