Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
This bill redirects all remaining unobligated balances made available under section 10301(1)(A)(ii) of Public Law 117–169 (the IRS enforcement account) to Department of Homeland Security uses. One-third of those balances are transferred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for nonintrusive inspection systems to reach 100% scanning at northern and southwest land ports by February 6, 2034; two‑thirds are transferred to DHS for southwest border wall system construction through the same date.
Liberals emphasize diverted IRS funds and asylum access harms.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states goals and source of funds, assigns responsibilities, and makes substantive statutory changes, but provides only moderate procedural detail and minimal fiscal quantification or comprehensive oversight measures.
This bill redirects all remaining unobligated balances made available under section 10301(1)(A)(ii) of Public Law 117–169 (the IRS enforcement account) to Department of Homeland Security uses.
One-third of those balances are transferred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for nonintrusive inspection systems to reach 100% scanning at northern and southwest land ports by February 6, 2034; two‑thirds are transferred to DHS for southwest border wall system construction through the same date.
It authorizes recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses for CBP personnel, requires quarterly implementation and cost reports to key congressional committees, and amends INA 235(b)(2)(C) to allow returning or detaining aliens arriving from contiguous territory pending proceedings or credible-fear determinations.
High ideological salience and controversial reallocations plus immigration and wall provisions reduce chances; Senate supermajority barrier is key.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states goals and source of funds, assigns responsibilities, and makes substantive statutory changes, but provides only moderate procedural detail and minimal fiscal quantification or comprehensive oversight measures.
Liberals emphasize diverted IRS funds and asylum access harms.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize diverted IRS funds and asylum access harms.
Likely views the bill negatively overall.
Redirecting IRS enforcement funds to wall construction and enforcement is seen as undermining tax enforcement and major expansion of punitive immigration policy.
Views the bill with mixed appraisal.
Supports measures to reduce fentanyl trafficking and staff ports of entry, but worries about funding source reallocation, cost-effectiveness of a wall, and legal risks from asylum changes.
Generally supportive: redirects unused IRS enforcement money to strengthen border security via technology and wall construction, and tightens treatment of arrivals from contiguous territory.
Bonuses are practical to recruit and keep agents.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High ideological salience and controversial reallocations plus immigration and wall provisions reduce chances; Senate supermajority barrier is key.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize diverted IRS funds and asylum access harms.
High ideological salience and controversial reallocations plus immigration and wall provisions reduce chances; Senate supermajority barrier…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states goals and source of funds, assigns responsibilities, and makes substantive statutory changes, but provides only moderate procedural detail and minimal…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.