Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each…
This bill requires political subdivisions (cities, counties) that maintain “sanctuary” statutes, policies, or practices to return any federal funds received but not obligated during a specified period. A jurisdiction is a "sanctuary" if it restricts sharing citizenship or immigration status information or refuses DHS detainer/notification requests under INA sections 236 or 287.
Progressives stress public-safety and immigrant-trust harms.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive objective and defines covered conduct and limited exceptions, but it lacks the operational detail, fiscal acknowledgment, and enforcement architecture typically expected for a statute that mandates recovery of Federal funds from subnational entities.
This bill requires political subdivisions (cities, counties) that maintain “sanctuary” statutes, policies, or practices to return any federal funds received but not obligated during a specified period.
A jurisdiction is a "sanctuary" if it restricts sharing citizenship or immigration status information or refuses DHS detainer/notification requests under INA sections 236 or 287.
The remedy applies to funds received beginning with the fifth full fiscal year before the bill’s effective date, excludes certain Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act funds, and allows suspension if the jurisdiction notifies the Attorney General and cures the policy within 15 days.
Punitive, high-salience immigration policy with major fiscal and federalism impacts; likely legal challenges and Senate obstacles limit prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive objective and defines covered conduct and limited exceptions, but it lacks the operational detail, fiscal acknowledgment, and enforcement architecture typically expected for a statute that mandates recovery of Federal funds from subnational entities.
Progressives stress public-safety and immigrant-trust harms.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress public-safety and immigrant-trust harms.
Likely to oppose the bill as punitive and coercive toward local governments and immigrant communities.
Would view it as undermining public-safety practices that encourage immigrant cooperation with local law enforcement.
Mixed reaction: supports federal oversight of fund use but worries about retroactivity, administrative complexity, and public-safety consequences.
Would seek clearer, targeted rules and procedural safeguards.
Likely to strongly support the bill as appropriate leverage to enforce federal immigration laws and ensure federal funds aren't used by noncooperative jurisdictions.
Sees it as protecting rule of law.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Punitive, high-salience immigration policy with major fiscal and federalism impacts; likely legal challenges and Senate obstacles limit prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress public-safety and immigrant-trust harms.
Punitive, high-salience immigration policy with major fiscal and federalism impacts; likely legal challenges and Senate obstacles limit pro…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive objective and defines covered conduct and limited exceptions, but it lacks the operational detail, fiscal acknowledgment, and enfo…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.