Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends 18 U.S.C. 3056 to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to use, with consent, State and local government services, personnel, equipment, and facilities to carry out the Secret Service functions set out in 3056(a)(3) and (a)(7), and to reimburse those governments for such use. It also authorizes retroactive reimbursement for such uses from July 12, 2024, through the bill's effective date.
Progressives emphasize local relief and fairness to municipalities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory amendment that creates authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize and reimburse State and local governments for services, personnel, equipment, and facilities in specified Secret Service functions, and to do so retroactively for a defined period.
This bill amends 18 U.S.C. 3056 to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to use, with consent, State and local government services, personnel, equipment, and facilities to carry out the Secret Service functions set out in 3056(a)(3) and (a)(7), and to reimburse those governments for such use.
It also authorizes retroactive reimbursement for such uses from July 12, 2024, through the bill's effective date.
Technically narrow, low-controversy bill enabling reimbursements; fiscal questions and retroactivity create some debate but generally favorable.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory amendment that creates authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize and reimburse State and local governments for services, personnel, equipment, and facilities in specified Secret Service functions, and to do so retroactively for a defined period.
Progressives emphasize local relief and fairness to municipalities.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize local relief and fairness to municipalities.
Likely supportive because it helps local governments recoup costs for providing security during presidential-level protection activities.
Views reimbursement as fairness to cash-strapped municipalities and as improving federal-local cooperation.
Generally favorable as a practical measure to formalize reimbursements, but cautious about administrative implementation, cost controls, and budgetary offsets.
Wants clear rules to prevent delays or disputes.
Mixed to mildly supportive because it shifts local security costs to the federal level, but cautious about expanding federal spending and creating new bureaucratic obligations.
Prefers tight limits and accountability.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow, low-controversy bill enabling reimbursements; fiscal questions and retroactivity create some debate but generally favorable.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize local relief and fairness to municipalities.
Technically narrow, low-controversy bill enabling reimbursements; fiscal questions and retroactivity create some debate but generally favor…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory amendment that creates authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize and reimburse State and local governments for services, pers…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.