HR-7395-119
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.
Sponsored by Wesley Bell (D-MO)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from spending any funds to produce, buy, distribute, or air television advertisements that promote ICE or its programs, recruit personnel for ICE, or improve ICE's public image. It does not restrict ICE's law enforcement operations, funding for enforcement activities, or other forms of communication such as print, digital, or social media.
Who benefits
Taxpayers and budget watchdogs who object to spending public funds on agency image or recruitment advertising; members of Congress and advocacy groups critical of ICE who argue such spending is wasteful or self-promotional.
Who is hurt
ICE's recruitment and public affairs operations, which would lose a television advertising channel for hiring and outreach; advertising and media production firms that currently contract with DHS for such campaigns; DHS officials who view TV ads as a tool for public communication about agency programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that taxpayer dollars should not be used to run promotional or recruitment television advertisements for a federal law enforcement agency, especially one that has drawn significant public controversy over its enforcement practices. They contend that DHS has other, lower-cost recruitment channels available and that spending on branding or image campaigns is an inappropriate use of appropriated funds when the agency could instead prioritize direct enforcement or oversight funding.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that federal agencies routinely use advertising to recruit qualified personnel and that ICE, like the military or other law enforcement agencies, faces genuine staffing shortages that television recruitment ads can help address. They contend that singling out one agency's advertising for a spending prohibition is a targeted political statement rather than a neutral budget rule, and that it could hamper legitimate recruitment and public information efforts.
Constitutional context
Congress holds the constitutional power of the purse under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, which allows it to restrict or condition how executive agencies spend appropriated funds; courts have generally upheld such spending riders as within Congress's authority to control appropriations, though the executive retains discretion over non-restricted spending choices.
Checks and balances
Congress would exercise its appropriations power to limit executive branch spending discretion, restricting how DHS allocates funds for a specific communications activity while leaving other agency operations untouched.
Historical precedent
Congress has periodically used appropriations riders to restrict specific agency spending on advertising or public relations, such as limits placed on Department of Defense recruitment advertising contracts and past restrictions on federal agency use of funds for self-promotional media campaigns.