The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released a revised version of the SECURE America Act, a $70 billion immigration funding measure that runs through 2029. Republican lawmakers forced the removal of a $220 million allocation earmarked for ballroom security, citing both political optics and a parliamentarian’s finding that the spend violated reconciliation rules.

Removal of $220 million ballroom security allocation

The revised bill eliminates the contentious $220 million line that would have funded security for large event venues. According to the source,GOP objections centered on the perception of using taxpayer money for what many saw as a non‑essential expense, especially amid broader debates over immigration enforcement funding.

Senate parliamentarian blocks reconciliation rule breach

A Senate parliamentarian determined that the original ballroom security provision did not meet the strict budgetary criteria of the reconciliation process.. As the report notes,this ruling forced leadership to excise the line to keep the entire $70 billion package viable under the simple‑majority path Republicans are pursuing.

Chuck Grassley frames bill as defense against Democratic agenda

Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R‑IA) defended the legislation , arguing it prevents the Department of Homeland Security from being “held hostage by Democrats’ radical leftist agenda.” He accused Democrats of breaking the appropriations process ealrier in the year and warned that their actions would leave communities vulnerable to crime and illegal immigration. The source quotes Grassley’s statement, emphasizing the Republican narrative that the bill is fundamentally about public safety.

GOP senators demand removal of Trump’s $1.8 billion anti‑weaponization fund

Even after the ballroom security cut, some Republican senators are still holding out for further changes. A key demand is the deletion of language that would block former President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.8 billion “anti‑weaponization fund,” a request the administration now says it is no longer pursuing. This lingering demand highlights the delicate coalition‑building required to secure enough votes for final passage.

Which GOP senators still balk at the revised bill?

The source indicates that a handful of GOP senators have signaled they need additional amendments before they will suport the measure,but it does not name them.. This lack of detail leaves an open question about the exact composition of the remaining opposition within the Republican caucus.