Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit Department of Homeland Security immigration officers and agents, including ICE and CBP, from wearing any clothing, accessories, or other items bearing the word "police" while performing immigration duties. It is titled the Combating Deceptive Immigration Enforcement Practices Act of 2025 and adds this restriction to 8 U.S.C. 1357.
Left emphasizes community trust and civil-rights protections
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clearly creates a statutory prohibition but provides minimal implementation, definitional, fiscal, or accountability detail.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit Department of Homeland Security immigration officers and agents, including ICE and CBP, from wearing any clothing, accessories, or other items bearing the word "police" while performing immigration duties.
It is titled the Combating Deceptive Immigration Enforcement Practices Act of 2025 and adds this restriction to 8 U.S.C. 1357.
The text is narrowly focused on the use of the specific word "police."
Low-cost, narrow measure increases chances, but subject matter sensitivity and lack of compromise features lower standalone likelihood; more plausible as part of larger package.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clearly creates a statutory prohibition but provides minimal implementation, definitional, fiscal, or accountability detail.
Left emphasizes community trust and civil-rights protections
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes community trust and civil-rights protections
Likely broadly supportive: the bill limits deceptive practices that cause immigrant communities to confuse DHS agents with local police.
Supporters would view it as protecting civil liberties and public safety by reducing fear of seeking services and reporting crimes.
Cautiously supportive if operational concerns are addressed.
The bill addresses a clear public trust issue while raising questions about officer safety, identification in joint operations, and practical implementation.
Likely opposed or skeptical: sees the prohibition as an unnecessary constraint on law enforcement identification that could hinder operations and officer safety.
May view the bill as politically motivated rather than operationally necessary.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low-cost, narrow measure increases chances, but subject matter sensitivity and lack of compromise features lower standalone likelihood; more plausible as part of larger package.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes community trust and civil-rights protections
Low-cost, narrow measure increases chances, but subject matter sensitivity and lack of compromise features lower standalone likelihood; mor…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clearly creates a statutory prohibition but provides minimal implementation, definitional, fiscal, or accountability…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.