PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 7, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10045 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10045 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10045 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10045 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Protect American Values Act would prohibit using federal money, including fees, to carry out a specified Department of Homeland Security immigration rule and related guidance. The bill describes that rule as affecting immigrants seeking lawful permanent resident status and families accessing assistance. It also expresses opposition to the rule; its statements about harm are policy judgments, not established outcomes.
This Act may be cited as the Protect American Values Act.
No Federal funds (including fees) made available for any fiscal year, may be used to implement, administer, enforce, or carry out the rule of the Department of Homeland Security entitled Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (91 Fed. Reg. 45324) or any guidance or sub-regulatory policy that implements or clarifies such rule.
It is the sense of Congress that—
the rule of the Department of Homeland Security entitled Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (91 Fed. Reg. 45324) is a dangerous policy that will impede access to essential food, medical care, and housing for many families, while injecting severe uncertainty and arbitrariness for immigrants adjusting to lawful permanent resident status
Section 2 would express Congress's view that immigrants and their families are integral to the country and that assistance programs help families maintain health, stability, and self-sufficiency. This is a statement of position, rather than a new assistance program or eligibility rule.
It is the sense of Congress that— (1) immigrants and their families are a core part of this Nation; (2) their health and safety is critical to the health and safety of our communities; (3) Federal, State, and local assistance programs promote self-sufficiency by ensuring that families, including immigrant and mixed-status families, maintain their health, strength, and stability, and can continue contributing to the Nation’s social and economic life
Section 2 would also express the view that the rule could harm access to services, public health, and local economies, and that it exceeds what Congress authorized. These are the bill's assertions; the supplied text does not independently establish those effects or legal conclusions.
It is the sense of Congress that—
the rule would damage State and local economies while burdening health and service providers
may lead to downstream effects on public health, community stability, and resilience including worse health outcomes
the rule would circumvent Congress and reverse over 140 years of law and policy, restricting immigration and chilling access to services for which immigrants and their United States citizen family members are eligible, in a manner not authorized or contemplated by Congress.
Section 3 would prohibit using any federal funds, expressly including fees, to implement, administer, enforce, or otherwise carry out the named rule. The restriction covers funds made available for any fiscal year, meaning any federal budget year.
No Federal funds (including fees) made available for any fiscal year, may be used to implement, administer, enforce, or carry out the rule of the Department of Homeland Security entitled Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (91 Fed. Reg. 45324)
The funding prohibition would also cover guidance and policies below the level of a formal regulation that implement or clarify the named rule.
No Federal funds (including fees) made available for any fiscal year, may be used to implement, administer, enforce, or carry out
or any guidance or sub-regulatory policy that implements or clarifies such rule.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 7, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on August 6, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-07T08:05:57Z. 2026-08-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-08-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 7, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI