Oklahoma GOP votes to censure Lankford over Senate border talks

The Oklahoma Republican Party approved a resolution Saturday condemning and censuring Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) for his role as a chief negotiator in the Senate border security talks between Democrats and Republicans.

The resolution — a copy of which was posted on X, formerly Twitter — by state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R) said, “Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger.”

Senate negotiators have been working for weeks to negotiate a compromise on border and immigration policy that is meant to address the number of migrants who come across the U.S. border with Mexico. 

“Authorizing several thousand people to invade our borders before any action can be taken is contrary to the oath that Senator Lankford took to the Constitution and therefore outside of the area that he is authorized to negotiate in,” the resolution states.

Some parameters of the deal being reported include a provision that would shut down the border once 5,000 migrants have come through. President Biden over the weekend took the remarkable step of declaring he had the authority to shut the border down and would enforce such action once a bill was signed.

The Hill has reached out to the Oklahoma Republican Party and Lankford’s office for a response.

Lankford on Sunday took to the political news shows to defend his work on the negotiations but was not asked about the resolution.

“It is interesting, Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said, ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in law,'” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“And now, it’s interesting, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because of presidential election year,'” he added.