Latest action: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Reimburse states for costs from federal immigration enforcement operations.
The problem
States claim federal immigration enforcement operations cause financial burdens and property damage that states must pay for without federal support.
The proposal
Create a federal grant program to reimburse states for costs and damages resulting from federal immigration officials' widespread deployment.
The impact
State governments receive federal funds to offset immigration enforcement expenses. Affects state budgets, federal spending, and immigration policy implementation.
Federal government shares costs of its immigration enforcement with states. This recognizes that federal policies have local impacts that states shouldn't bear alone.
States facing budget pressures from immigration enforcement can receive reimbursement. This protects funding for education, healthcare, and other state services.
Federal government takes responsibility for costs created by its immigration policies. This encourages transparent accounting of enforcement expenses.
Creates new federal grants, increasing overall government spending. This adds to the federal budget deficit unless offset by other spending cuts or revenue.
Determining fair reimbursement amounts between states could be complicated and controversial. States might disagree on what costs qualify for reimbursement.
Reimbursement programs might encourage increased federal immigration enforcement. This could expand operations beyond what's fiscally efficient.
Bill lacks specific information about eligibility requirements, calculation methods, or funding amounts. Implementation details will heavily influence actual outcomes.
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.