Sponsors (2)
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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.
Last progress June 11, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 11, 2025 by Michael A. Rulli
Creates a new Border Enforcement Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury and requires that amounts equal to taxes collected under chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code be transferred into that fund. The fund’s balance may be used, when Congress appropriates those amounts for that purpose, to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations related to enforcement, detention, and removal of noncitizens. The measure adds the trust fund to the tax code and updates the tax-subchapter table of sections; it does not itself appropriate funds for specific activities beyond directing transfers of chapter 35 tax receipts into the new account.
Congress finds that bold and decisive action must be taken to make America safe again by protecting communities from the harms of illegal migration.
Congress finds that the cost of making America safe again—apprehending, detaining, and deporting illegal aliens—should not fall on average American citizens.
Congress finds the Department of Justice reports the average cost to house an illegal alien is more than $150 per day, with an average detention time of 55 days prior to deportation. The finding cites the Department of Justice report for these figures .
Congress finds that a record $4.25 billion was appropriated to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for alien detention and removal operations in fiscal year 2024, and that this amount was not sufficient to keep up with the surge of aliens (fiscal year 2024 appropriation) .
Congress finds that Congressional Budget Office estimates show outlays for benefits provided to aliens and their children will total $177 billion by fiscal year 2034 if current policy does not change.
Who is affected and how:
Noncitizens / Aliens: Increased or more predictable funding for ICE detention, enforcement, and removal could lead to more sustained enforcement activity, potentially affecting detention rates, removal proceedings, and enforcement presence at the border and interior.
U.S. Border Patrol agents and other immigration enforcement personnel: May gain access to a more dedicated funding stream for operational costs, detention capacity, and removal logistics, which can support expanded or sustained enforcement activity.
Federal law enforcement personnel and agencies: ICE and related federal agencies could see changes in resource planning and budgeting; a dedicated fund may reduce reliance on ad hoc transfers or general‑fund allocations for enforcement costs.
Federal agencies (executive branch): The rerouting of chapter 35 receipts into the trust fund reduces discretionary control of those receipts for other programs; agencies that previously benefitted indirectly from that revenue stream could see budgetary impacts if receipts are significant.
Immigration courts and adjudicators (including immigration judges): A potential increase in enforcement and removals could raise caseloads and administrative pressures in the immigration adjudication system.
Secondary impacts and fiscal considerations:
Budgetary effects: The bill mandates transfer of a specified tax stream into the trust fund. That alters how certain tax receipts are posted and earmarked, which may affect the availability of those receipts for other uses and could influence overall budgetary tradeoffs.
Congressional control remains: Although the trust fund collects chapter 35 receipts, actual spending for ICE operations still requires affirmative appropriations by Congress. The bill changes the dedicated source but not final spending approval.
Community impact: Communities with high immigration enforcement activity or with detained noncitizen populations may see more enforcement resources deployed; this can affect local populations and service providers.
Legal and administrative implications: Creating a dedicated fund tied to a specific tax source can prompt administrative changes in Treasury and agency accounting and could raise policy debates about earmarking and priorities for federal tax receipts.
Transparency and oversight: The measure centralizes funding for ICE operational uses in a designated account, which may support clearer tracking of enforcement spending but could also reduce fiscal flexibility for other priorities.