- Local governmentsIncentivizes local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement through conditional transportation funding.
- Federal agenciesMay improve identification and transfer of unlawfully present noncitizens to federal custody.
- Federal agenciesConditions federal infrastructure dollars to encourage uniform notification policies nationwide.
BLOC Act
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The BLOC Act (H.R.1913) amends Title 23, U.S. Code to make political subdivisions ineligible for federal transportation infrastructure funds if, within one year of enactment, they do not adopt a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice requiring local officials to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designee) at least 48 hours before releasing an alien whom DHS has determined is not lawfully present and who has been in custody at least 48 hours. The prohibition applies to funds that would flow to political subdivisions from states or directly to those subdivisions for infrastructure projects (as defined by 2 C.F.R. §184.3).
Liberals stress community trust, civil‑rights harms; conservatives stress enforcement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive eligibility condition for certain Federal infrastructure funds tied to local notification requirements to DHS and sets a concrete timing requirement and compliance window.
The BLOC Act (H.R.1913) amends Title 23, U.S. Code to make political subdivisions ineligible for federal transportation infrastructure funds if, within one year of enactment, they do not adopt a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice requiring local officials to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designee) at least 48 hours before releasing an alien whom DHS has determined is not lawfully present and who has been in custody at least 48 hours.
The prohibition applies to funds that would flow to political subdivisions from states or directly to those subdivisions for infrastructure projects (as defined by 2 C.F.R. §184.3).
High ideological salience and constitutional/federalism litigation risk make enactment unlikely absent strong bipartisan coalition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive eligibility condition for certain Federal infrastructure funds tied to local notification requirements to DHS and sets a concrete timing requirement and compliance window. However, it provides only limited operational detail about implementation, lacks fiscal acknowledgement, does not define several key terms, and omits procedures for determining and enforcing compliance, reporting, or dispute resolution.
Liberals stress community trust, civil‑rights harms; conservatives stress enforcement.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Local governmentsCreates federal intrusion into traditional state and local law enforcement authority.
- Local governmentsMay erode trust between immigrant communities and local police, reducing crime reporting.
- Potential burdenImposes administrative and recordkeeping burdens on jails and law enforcement.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Liberals stress community trust, civil‑rights harms; conservatives stress enforcement.
Overall likely to oppose the bill.
It conditions federal infrastructure money on local cooperation with immigration enforcement, which progressives typically view as coercive and harmful to immigrant communities and local public-safety relationships.
Mixed view: appreciates goal of improving federal coordination with immigration authorities but worries about federalism, constitutionality, and practical collateral damage to infrastructure and communities.
Generally supportive.
This persona sees the bill as a tool to enforce immigration laws and to pressure 'sanctuary' jurisdictions to cooperate with federal authorities by conditioning federal funds.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High ideological salience and constitutional/federalism litigation risk make enactment unlikely absent strong bipartisan coalition.
- How courts would treat conditional-spending and commandeering challenges
- Administrative mechanisms for certifying local 'notification' policies
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Liberals stress community trust, civil‑rights harms; conservatives stress enforcement.
High ideological salience and constitutional/federalism litigation risk make enactment unlikely absent strong bipartisan coalition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive eligibility condition for certain Federal infrastructure funds tied to local notification requirements to DHS and sets a concrete timi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.