Not even a day has passed since the Senate revealed a much-anticipated bipartisan agreement on border protocol and foreign aid, and voila, opposition in the Senate is quickly swelling. This raises the likelihood that the bill will falter in a crucial vote anticipated this week. 

The magic number is 41. This many Senators, in opposition, could scuttle the agreement in a pending procedural vote. The opposition is growing, with 23 senators already publically expressing their disagreement. With lawmakers from across the political spectrum piling onto the rejection wagon, the bill may not secure the 60 votes necessary to advance. 

“I believe the proposition stands no chance,” opined Republican Sen. Roger Wicker from Mississippi, speaking on the border bill after leaving a meeting in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office on Monday. 

Just moments before, as she walked into McConnell’s office, Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa also had pessimistic predictions about the bill’s chances. Though she is still scrutinizing it, Ernst expressed, “I hope we can carve a way forward, but I remain uncertain if that’s feasible at this juncture.” 

As the bill faces ever-bleak chances in the Senate, both former President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson continue their onslaught on the deal. This has ramped up the pressure on Senate Republicans to reject it or risk igniting a conservative backlash. Speaker Johnson didn’t mince his words, stating the deal would be “DOA – dead on arrival” in the House after it was officially revealed. 

Critics among Republicans view the deal as insufficiently stringent. Still, the bill would introduce a robust shift in immigration law, untouched for years, and grant the president substantial authority to curtail illegal migration at the southern border significantly.

Let’s take note, folks, that no less than 20 Republican senators, with players like Montana’s Steve Daines and Texas’ John Cornyn leading the charge, haven’t held back their objections to this immigration model presented in the bill. 

In fact, the deck seems to be stacking against it with a significant portion of the Senate Republicans either leaning towards the ‘nay’ vote or prepping their red voting buttons for the upcoming procedural vote. 

John Thune, the Senate Republican Whip, admitted on Monday, “We’re still immersing ourselves in the details of the bill. We’ll collectively decide the next steps once our members share their opinions.” 

As for Thune himself? The jury is still out. His personal stance on the bill remains undecided.  

“I’m at the same stage as everyone else, reviewing. I believe James Lankford did his utmost and negotiated the best possible under the constraints. This bill is something our conference felt passionate about …. We’ll see where the wind blows,” he stated.  

Admittedly, Thune does note that the vocal declaration of House GOP leaders, writing off the bill as having struck out before it’s even played, added complexity into the Senate scenario.

Let’s look at Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota. Now, he’s planning to oppose the border deal through filibustering on Wednesday. However, he’s also encouraging Senate leaders from both parties to foster an agreement. Why? He believes senators need more time to examine and evaluate the proposed measures at length. Then, comes the floor debate, a perfect opportunity for senators to present and vote on amendments to alter the bill as required. 

Now, here’s his game plan–Sen. Rounds suggests that this strategy may enable the Congress to proceed with funding for Ukraine and Israel, a cause he firmly endorses. And, it would also provide a more relaxed timeframe for discussing the border deal, far better than the three-day term that Senator Schumer proposes. 

“Do you see? It’s all about fairness”, he expresses. “All we need is the right amount of time to provide a comprehensive debate and to propose changes to the bill”. And he’s very clear, “There’s still much to be accomplished.” 

But let’s take a look at the other side of the coin. Two Senate Democrats have openly critiqued the bill. Have you heard of New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez and California Sen. Alex Padilla? Yes, they’ve taken a firm stand. 

Menendez has labeled the deal as “unacceptable” in a statement released Sunday evening. He’s crystal clear, “If we accept the deal in its present form, it would mean a blatant betrayal to the communities we’ve promised to serve and protect. Now, had Trump considered these changes, Democrats would have been up in arms. But now it seems Latinos and immigrants are being sacrificed in the name of electoral victory.”

In a statement, Padilla expressed discontent, arguing the proposed bill “doesn’t hit the target” and is more likely to “escalate chaos at the border, not reduce it.” He also highlighted the bill’s shortcomings in not offering relief to DACA recipients, farm laborers, and other undocumented long-standing Americans who contribute enormously to our financial prosperity, undertake necessary roles, and bolster the strength of our nation. 

On Monday, Padilla suggested that more Democrats are against the bill than commonly known, further complicating the possibility of the bill receiving the 60 votes required to move forward on Wednesday. 

Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, on Sunday, announced his opposition to funds for Israel. He stated, “The United States cannot persist in funding Netanyahu’s atrocious war against the Palestinian people,” in reference to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Those in favor of the deal have been dismissing these criticisms, including what they claim are inaccurate interpretations of the bill’s intent. 

Sen. Lankford, a leading Republican negotiator, expressed confusion on Sunday regarding the criticism from Johnson, who stated that the deal Lankford established with Democrats to be “even worse than anticipated.” 

“I’m puzzled by the assertion that it’s worse than expected, considering it aims at constructing a border wall, expanding deportation flights and officers for both ICE and Border Patrol, and increasing detention beds. Moreover, it streamlines the deportation process and addresses persistent issues in the asylum process that have been causing disorder at the border. I find this confusing. I’ll need to discuss with the speaker’s team to understand their ‘worse than expected’ remark. Hopefully, they had the opportunity to review the text thoroughly,” Lankford explained during a press call.

This week, you can expect some candid exchanges between GOP senators and the main supporter of the bill. Misunderstandings seem to lurk around sections of the bill, sparking some of the existing unease. Keep your eyes peeled for a significant vote later in the week. 

Should the deal not fly through the Senate this week, we’re looking at a potential re-evaluation. Senators will have to unravel aid packages to Ukraine and Israel from the bill’s border and immigration components. A solo flight for a foreign aid package however, brings its own challenges. As you may know, several Senate Republicans have been steadfast in their demand for stricter border control, seeing it as a fair trade-off for extending aid to international allies.