HR-4213-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 139.
Sponsored by Mark Amodei (R-NV)
What it does
This bill would appropriate funds for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2026 (ending September 30, 2026). It would allocate roughly $66 billion across DHS components including Customs and Border Protection (~$19B), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (~$11B), the Transportation Security Administration (~$10.7B), the Coast Guard (~$14B), the Secret Service (~$3.1B), FEMA (~$5.4B), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (~$2.7B). Beyond dollar amounts, the bill would set binding policy conditions on how those funds may and may not be used — covering immigration enforcement priorities, detention standards, border security technology, and personnel screening requirements.
Who benefits
U.S. residents broadly who rely on border security, aviation security, and emergency management services. Nonprofit organizations, which would receive $335 million in security grants. State and local governments receiving homeland security grants (~$520M State Homeland Security Grant Program; $615M Urban Area Security Initiative). Firefighters and emergency responders receiving FEMA assistance grants. Coast Guard personnel and retirees. Contractors and defense/security technology firms receiving procurement contracts. Travelers importing personal-use prescription drugs from Canada (up to a 90-day supply). Pregnant and postpartum individuals in CBP custody, who would receive explicit health protections. Victims of human trafficking and child exploitation, through dedicated ICE funding. U.S.-flag maritime shipping companies, who benefit from restrictions on Jones Act waivers for Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude oil transport.
Who is hurt
Unauthorized immigrants subject to expanded detention and removal operations, including those on non-detained dockets who would be required to wear GPS monitors. Transgender individuals in ICE custody, who would be denied gender-affirming medical care. Detained immigrants in facilities with poor performance records, whose facilities could lose contracts. Chinese nationals seeking visa-free entry to the Northern Mariana Islands. International students seeking F or M visas to attend unaccredited institutions. Foreign adversary-manufactured drone producers (particularly Chinese companies) whose products would be barred from U.S. entry. State and local governments that may have relied on federal flexibility in immigration enforcement partnerships. Recreational vessel owners, who would bear the full cost of their documentation services. Whale conservation advocates and environmental groups, as the bill would bar enforcement of newer vessel speed restrictions protecting North Atlantic right whales and Rice's whales. Workers in ICE detention facilities, whose state minimum wage and labor protections would be explicitly preempted under Section 227.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides essential, long-overdue funding to secure the border and restore order to an immigration system under strain — CBP's $18B+ allocation and ICE's $6.4B for enforcement, detention, and removal represent a serious commitment to deterrence and public safety. They contend that policy riders such as mandatory GPS monitoring for non-detained immigrants, prioritization of criminal aliens for removal, and maintenance of detention capacity at full levels are necessary operational tools backed by evidence that alternatives-to-detention programs reduce compliance rates. Supporters further argue that the bill strengthens congressional oversight through detailed reporting requirements on acquisitions, pilots, and budget obligations, and that the nonprofit security grant program ($335M) and FEMA assistance ($3.75B) demonstrate a balanced approach to both enforcement and community resilience.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's immigration enforcement provisions — including mandatory detention at full capacity, GPS monitoring for all non-detained immigrants, and the preemption of state labor laws for detained workers (Sec. 227) — prioritize punitive measures over cost-effective and humane alternatives, noting that alternatives-to-detention programs cost roughly $4/day compared to $150+/day for detention. They contend that the prohibition on gender-affirming care for ICE detainees (Sec. 223) and the bar on transporting certain immigrants into the interior (Sec. 221) raise serious due process concerns, and that blocking enforcement of whale speed restrictions (Sec. 237) subordinates environmental law to industry interests without scientific justification. Opponents also argue that Section 227's explicit preemption of state minimum wage laws for detained workers could expose the federal government to legal challenges under the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment.
Constitutional context
The bill's immigration provisions rest on Congress's broad plenary power over immigration, long recognized by the courts, and its Commerce Clause authority over border trade and transportation. However, Section 227 — which explicitly preempts state minimum wage laws for persons in federal immigration custody — could face scrutiny under the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018) and Fifth Amendment Due Process, as courts have increasingly examined labor conditions in civil detention. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency rules implementing the bill's broad delegations (e.g., mandatory GPS monitoring, detention capacity mandates) would face independent judicial review without deference to DHS interpretations.
Checks and balances
Congress gains significant direct control over DHS operations through spending conditions and policy riders; the Executive Branch (DHS Secretary) retains operational discretion within those conditions; the Inspector General and congressional appropriations committees serve as oversight checks through mandatory reporting, briefings, and fund-withholding provisions.
Historical precedent
Annual DHS appropriations acts have been enacted since the department's creation in 2003; prior versions have similarly included policy riders on immigration enforcement, detention standards, and border security technology, with courts generally upholding Congress's broad spending power to attach conditions to appropriated funds.