Sponsors (7)
Ask me to break this bill down.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Amends subsection (r) to replace specified terms with references to the Secretary/Department of Homeland Security, add '287(g)' to the 'Breached Bond/Detention' line item, and add a new clause authorizing expenses for administering section 287(g); also makes punctuation edits to existing clauses.
Revises and expands section 287(g) (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) by replacing paragraph (1) with new text requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into written agreements with States or political subdivisions on request, imposing approval presumptions and processing/notification deadlines, prohibiting limits on the number of agreements, adding protections against termination, requiring accommodation of enforcement models, prohibiting substitution by broad federal programs or technologies, providing appeal and civil-action rights, redesignating existing paragraphs (2)–(10) as (5)–(13), replacing an unspecified term with the word “Secretary” throughout, and appending the short title "287(g) Program Protection Act."
Requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to accept and process requests from States and local governments to enter 287(g) immigration enforcement agreements, sets rules for how those agreements are approved, structured, and ended, and adds transparency and oversight requirements. It also orders DHS to publish yearly performance reports and a recruitment plan for the 287(g) program and to begin a rulemaking on new training standards within 180 days.
Amends Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)).
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into a written agreement with a State or political subdivision upon that State's or subdivision's request, allowing qualified State or subdivision law enforcement officers to perform immigration officer functions related to investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens (including transportation across State lines to detention centers) at the expense of the State or political subdivision.
All requests from a bona fide State, political subdivision, or bona fide law enforcement agency must be approved absent a compelling reason.
If the Secretary denies a request, the Secretary must, not later than 180 days before finalizing the denial, submit to Congress an explanation containing the reasons for denial and publish that explanation in the Federal Register.
The Secretary may not limit the number of agreements that may be approved and must process each request as expeditiously as possible and no later than 90 days after receiving the request.
Who is directly affected:
State and local law enforcement agencies: Gain a clearer, mandated path to request and obtain written 287(g) agreements, along with defined procedural protections (notice and appeal) and requirements (training, oversight). The law formalizes timelines for DHS to process requests and announce denials, which could speed or clarify decisionmaking for agencies seeking participation.
Noncitizens and immigrant communities: May be more directly affected where local agencies enter or expand 287(g) agreements, since those agreements authorize certain local immigration enforcement activities. At the same time, increased reporting and training rulemaking may increase transparency and oversight of local enforcement actions.
Department of Homeland Security and DHS personnel: Face new administrative tasks, including establishing implementing regulations, meeting processing timelines, producing detailed annual reports and recruitment plans, and conducting rulemaking on training within 180 days. DHS will also be authorized to cover administrative expenses for the program.
Local jails, detention facilities, and court systems: Could experience changes in intake and transfer patterns if local enforcement activity changes under new or existing agreements; reporting requirements may create additional data-sharing or compliance obligations.
Broader effects and trade-offs:
Transparency and oversight are enhanced: Regular public reporting on arrests, removals, training compliance, audits, complaints, and terminations will provide more data for policymakers, advocates, and the public to evaluate the program.
Administrative burden and costs: DHS must create and implement rules, meet deadlines, and publish reports; local agencies choosing to participate must meet training and oversight standards. While the law authorizes use of funds for program administration, it does not appropriate large new sums; participating localities may still bear costs to meet training or operational requirements.
Legal and political friction: The changes may reduce abrupt terminations by DHS (owing to notice/appeal rights) and limit replacement of agreements by federal programs, which could generate disputes over federal control of immigration enforcement policy. The policy implications and public reaction will vary across jurisdictions depending on local politics and immigration patterns.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced July 23, 2025 by James Risch · Last progress July 23, 2025
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate