Package of law enforcement bills spurs intraparty fight among Democrats

Michael Macagnone, CQ-Roll Call on Jul 29, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The Senate floor erupted in a rare public intraparty bout Tuesday afternoon after Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., objected to the passage of a package of bipartisan bills on local law enforcement.

Booker’s objection to the passage of the seven bills held up legislation that covered everything from expanding grants to local law enforcement to cover secondary exposure to fentanyl, to a bill providing law enforcement training programs, to a measure expanding the potential duties of retired law enforcement officers.

During an exchange on the Senate floor, Booker criticized fellow Democrats for passing bills that the Trump administration could use against their communities.

“This to me is the problem with Democrats in America right now,” Booker said, accusing the party of being “complicit” to the Trump administration.

Specifically, Booker objected to the fact that his amendments to five bills in the seven-bill package were not included, and he prevented the whole package from passing by unanimous consent.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Booker said that his amendments would prevent politicization of the distribution of law enforcement grants to local agencies, regardless of where in the country they were.

Booker has stated that the Trump administration has withheld grant funds to agencies in New Jersey as a political tool to try to leverage cooperation on immigration policy.

“It is disgraceful, it is unfair, it is unjust and it is dangerously reckless toward the officers whose well-being they are jeopardizing,” Booker said.

A sponsor of the retired officers bill, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said Booker should have offered the amendments in the Judiciary Committee and pointed out that he may not have been at the panel when the committee considered them.

“I can’t help it if someone couldn’t change their schedule to be there,” she said.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., argued that as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Booker had an opportunity to weigh in on the measures. Cortez Masto said inclusion of Booker’s amendments would kill chances of the bills’ swift passage in Congress.

“He’s on the committee. … He had an opportunity at that time to present this amendment. This is the first time we’re ever hearing about it,” she said.

The floor fight follows a testy exchange in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week where Booker offered – then withdrew – an amendment to one of the bills there that would force the Justice Department to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

Booker said the dispute was rooted in Trump administration decisions that hurt New Jersey and other Democrat-leaning states. During the markup, Booker secured pledges from Committee Chair Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to work with the White House on the issue.