Igor Bobic, senior politics reporter at HuffPost, reported Tuesday on social media that he asked U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and president pro tempore of the Senate, “whether it’s appropriate for ICE to enter homes without a judicial warrant.”
[Note: The question is raised by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s assertion that federal agents are justified in entering homes with “administrative warrants,” which do not require judicial sign-off.]
According to Bobic, Grassley replied, “Ask a constitutional lawyer. I’m a farmer.”
Trump antagonist and Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) chimed in, telling Grassley: “Constitutional lawyer here, Sir! ICE needs a warrant based upon probable cause signed by a neutral, impartial judge or magistrate under Article III to enter a person’s home. No executive branch edict or order from Trump or Noem can empower masked federal agents to override the Fourth Amendment. Now, as a farmer, can you tell me how Trump’s unconstitutional tariffs are working for farm country?”
Constitutional lawyer here, Sir!
ICE needs a warrant based upon probable cause signed by a neutral, impartial judge or magistrate under Article III to enter a person’s home. No executive branch edict or order from Trump or Noem can empower masked federal agents to override the… https://t.co/otEixUHOZF
— Rep. Jamie Raskin (@RepRaskin) January 28, 2026
[Note: The 92-year-old Grassley, with his son Robin, grows corn and soybeans on his 750-acre farm in Iowa. In 2018, the farmer-Senator defended his intent to apply for a federal grant for his farm as part of President Trump’s $12 billion bailout for farmers who struggled after Trump initiated a trade war. “Equal treatment for everybody,” Grassley said at the time, claiming his job in the Senate shouldn’t make him ineligible.]
Grassley’s fellow Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) — like Grassley, not a constitutional lawyer — has been more forthcoming with an opinion about ICE’s need for warrants.
Concerned with “the idea that you can write your own warrant,” Paul has said, “The whole idea of the Fourth Amendment is that it goes to an impartial judge who’s not, you know, enmeshed in the chase, who’s not biased one way the other. Supposed to be dispassionate.’”
In 2025, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Grassley championed President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill which included “massive new funding for recruitment and retention of ICE staff and to support enforcement and removal operations.”
Paul was one of three Republicans who voted against the bill and is now pushing back against the additional funding DHS seeks.
With DHS funding in the political crosshairs in the wake of the federal shootings of citizens in Minneapolis, Paul wrote this week: “In 2025, ICE received $10 billion in appropriations. The 2026 bill holds ICE at $10 billion — but last year Congress gave them $75 billion in advance funding. So even if ICE appropriations were eliminated, ICE would still have a 750% increase over last year.”
DHS funding should be viewed in the context of our current $2 trillion deficit.
The 2026 spending bill gives DHS $92 billion for this year.Last year Congress gave DHS an additional $165 billion in advance funding.
So even if DHS appropriations were eliminated this year, DHS…
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) January 27, 2026
Paul added: “DHS funding should be viewed in the context of our current $2 trillion deficit. The 2026 spending bill gives DHS $92 billion for this year. Last year Congress gave DHS an additional $165 billion in advance funding. So even if DHS appropriations were eliminated this year, DHS would still be funded at roughly 180% of their regular level.”