Latest action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Originating chamber has voted to pass. Sent to the other chamber.
The House voted to pass the bill. It now moves to the Senate, which repeats the committee referral and floor-vote process.
Next: Passed Both Chambers
Conference committee (if versions differ), then the President
Restricts Small Business Administration services in cities that limit immigration enforcement cooperation.
The problem
Some cities have policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Proponents argue this affects federal program administration and resource allocation decisions.
The proposal
Prohibits SBA from providing funding or services to cities with sanctuary policies regarding immigration enforcement.
The impact
Small businesses in certain cities may lose access to SBA loans, grants, and services based on local immigration policies.
May incentivize cities to cooperate more with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Supporters argue this addresses concerns about inconsistent law enforcement across jurisdictions.
Attempts to create uniform enforcement of federal immigration law nationwide. Proponents believe federal programs should not operate in areas with conflicting policies.
Links federal program participation to compliance with federal immigration policies. Supporters argue federal dollars should come with federal policy expectations.
Small business owners in affected cities lose SBA support regardless of their personal views on immigration. This may reduce entrepreneurship and job creation in those areas.
Local immigration policies are determined by elected city officials, not individual business owners. Small businesses and residents bear consequences for city-level political decisions.
Critics argue cities should set their own law enforcement cooperation policies. Using federal funds as leverage raises questions about state and local autonomy.
The bill's definition of 'sanctuary cities' and qualifying policies may be disputed. Implementation could face legal challenges and administrative confusion.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.