A $118 billion Senate foreign-spending package that includes sweeping changes to asylum along the U.S.-Mexico border has split Arizona's congressional delegation, but not neatly along party lines.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., is championing the compromise legislation after two months of back-door negotiations with Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The bill has garnered support from the White House and even the National Border Patrol Union. But it's opposed by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

The bipartisan agreement would allocate $20 billion to overhaul access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. Among the key provisions, it would allow the federal government to shut down asylum processing during high levels of migration at the border. It would limit the release of migrants released into the interior and reduce the length of time it takes to adjudicate asylum claims.

Among Arizona's 11-member congressional delegation, Republicans appeared united in their opposition to the Senate deal because of the border security provisions. While the Democrats were largely in favor of the deal, with one notable holdout.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., threw his support behind his Senate colleague in supporting the Sinema-led deal. Kelly said he would review the agreement closely, but that it presented "a real opportunity" to provide much-needed resources at the border while providing urgent support to U.S. allies abroad.

"Although there is still more Congress must do to fix our broken immigration system, I urge my colleagues to not let politics get in the way of addressing this problem," Kelly said in a written statement.

Reps. Ruben Gallego and Greg Stanton, both Arizona Democrats, also issued statements in support of the deal. Gallego praised that several of his legislative priorities, including additional funding to border nonprofits and local governments, made it into the spending package.

"I firmly believe this compromise supports Arizonans and protects both our national security interests and those of our Israeli allies and Taiwanese and Ukrainian partners," Gallego said.

Stanton also praised the way the bill came together, calling on lawmakers to work together to achieve larger immigration reforms. He singled out the need to extend permanent protections to Dreamers, which the bill does not address.

“This deal represents bipartisan compromise–something Congress ought to do more of," Stanton said in a statement. "The proposed solutions will work to reestablish order at our Southern border and get much-needed support to Arizona communities."

Progressive Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the dean of the Arizona congressional delegation, said he was disappointed with the deal and criticized it for not tackling larger, comprehensive changes or addressing the root causes of migration.

"The Senate missed an opportunity to create thoughtful and lasting immigration reform and to confront and humanely manage our humanitarian crisis at the border," Grijalva's written statement said. "Instead, the bill doubles down on punitive measures that read like an extreme Republican wish list filled with failed Trump-era immigration policies."

The six House Republicans in the Arizona delegation have been highly critical of President Joe Biden's handling of the U.S.-Mexico border and support impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Several of the more conservative lawmakers wasted no time in attacking the bipartisan deal. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., criticized the bill for allocating $60 billion to Ukraine, while setting aside $20 billion to the border. He said the bill empowered Mayorkas at a time when Republicans are working to impeach him.

"The Senate border bill is the worst idea on border 'security' — EVER," he said on X, formerly Twitter. "Frankly, it makes matters worse than they already are. It is a disaster.

"Hard to believe, but this is even more terrible than the old Gang of Eight legislation," he added, referring to a 2013 bipartisan immigration bill co-authored by late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that passed the Senate but went nowhere in the House.

Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., criticized that Ukraine would receive triple the funding than the border security provisions under this deal. He tweeted "DEAD ON ARRIVAL" soon after the agreement's details were published Sunday.

"Instead of fighting for a serious bill that combats the invasion we face, weak-kneed Senate Republicans got rolled by Democrats, letting their obsession with Ukraine get in the way of their duty to America," Crane said Monday on X.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., said the bill was "rubbish" and went after co-authors Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and even fellow Republican Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., in his statement criticizing the bill. He did not mention Sinema.

Gosar said the bipartisan legislation would allow thousands of migrants to continue entering the country each day, allow them to get taxpayer-funded attorneys, as well as work permits. He complained that most of the bill's funding would be spent abroad, and said the issue was not with money but rather enforcing existing laws.

"The bill rescinds money already budgeted for border wall construction, funds sanctuary cities and does not deport a single illegal alien already here. I cannot in good conscience support this garbage, no lawmaker should. This is the worst bill in Congress in a decade and that is saying a lot," Gosar said.

Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., who is retiring at the end of her term, said she was still reviewing the 370-page bill.

"But I am very concerned with what I have read. I do not believe this proposal would secure our border nor hold the Biden Administration accountable for its failure to enforce our laws," Lesko said.

Rep. Juan Ciscomani, along with Grijalva, represents a congressional district on the U.S.-Mexico border. He has routinely spoken out about how the Tucson Sector, which covers most of southern Arizona including his entire district, has been among the busiest and most impacted sections of the border by the ongoing humanitarian crisis.

“I have major concerns and cannot support this package in its current form. We need a much tougher approach to stop this crisis," Ciscomani said in his statement. "In order to vote on an issue of this consequence, I need to know that it’s going to prioritize border communities like mine, and this bill falls short of doing so.”

Rep. David Schweikert, the remaining Republican lawmaker from Arizona, has yet to publicly express his thoughts on the bipartisan deal, although he has spoken out against Biden's handling of the border. He and Ciscomani face competitive challenges to their re-election campaigns in November.