HR-8223-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Sponsored by Dave Min (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to reimburse state and local first responder agencies for costs incurred when responding to requests for assistance from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It would establish a 30-day payment timeline, create two reimbursement pathways depending on whether federal officers collected responder information at the scene, and protect first responders' personal information from release except by court order. Funding would come from unobligated appropriations already allocated to ICE or CBP under the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (Public Law 119-21), available through January 20, 2029.
Who benefits
State and local first responder agencies (police, fire, EMS) that have assisted ICE or CBP operations and absorbed those costs without reimbursement. Municipal and county governments in jurisdictions where federal immigration enforcement operations are frequent, particularly in border states and large cities. Taxpayers in those localities who currently bear the cost of federal enforcement activities through local budgets. First responders themselves, whose agencies would have more resources available for local priorities.
Who is hurt
ICE and CBP, whose existing unobligated appropriations would be drawn down to fund reimbursements, potentially reducing funds available for other federal enforcement activities. Federal taxpayers broadly, as the bill redirects already-appropriated funds. Jurisdictions that decline to assist ICE or CBP would receive no benefit. The bill's sunset tied to existing appropriations means it provides no long-term funding mechanism, which could leave agencies without reimbursement after January 20, 2029.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that when federal agencies request local assistance, the resulting costs — officer overtime, equipment, and administrative burden — fall entirely on local budgets that were never designed to fund federal operations. They contend this creates an unfair fiscal transfer from local taxpayers to the federal government and may strain local emergency services. By requiring reimbursement from already-appropriated ICE and CBP funds, the bill ensures that federal enforcement activities are paid for by the federal government, not by cities and counties that had no choice but to respond.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would effectively penalize ICE and CBP by draining their operational budgets every time local agencies respond to enforcement requests, potentially discouraging federal agencies from seeking local assistance and hampering enforcement operations. They contend that local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement is a shared public safety responsibility, not a reimbursable service, and that the bill's funding mechanism — drawing from existing ICE and CBP appropriations — could undermine the very enforcement activities Congress has already funded, without providing any new appropriations to offset the cost.
Constitutional context
The anti-commandeering doctrine, established in cases like Murphy v. NCAA (2018) and reinforced by Arizona v. United States (2012), prohibits the federal government from compelling state and local governments to enforce federal law. This bill does not compel local participation — it creates a voluntary reimbursement incentive — so it does not raise commandeering concerns. The Spending Clause (Art. I, §8) and the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) give Congress broad authority to structure federal immigration enforcement and its funding.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (DHS/Secretary) gains a new mandatory spending obligation, but Congress retains control by capping funding to existing unobligated appropriations and setting a sunset date of January 20, 2029; local agencies retain discretion over whether to respond to federal requests.
Historical precedent
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) has historically reimbursed states and localities for costs of incarcerating unauthorized immigrants convicted of crimes, establishing a precedent for federal reimbursement of local costs related to immigration enforcement.