PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.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.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 1, 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.10503 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.10503 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.10503 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.10503 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 · 2026-09-17 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.
This proposal would move $139.6 billion from immigration enforcement funding into grants reimbursing seven eligible states for costs and damage from increased immigration enforcement. States receiving grants would have to pass funds to qualifying tax-exempt nonprofits and affected small businesses. Nonprofits could support education, healthcare, local government operations, and efforts to investigate or commemorate the operations. The program would end three years after it was established.
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall establish and carry out a grant program to reimburse States for costs incurred and damage caused by increased immigration enforcement activities
Of the funds made available for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection under Public Law 119–21, $139,575,630,000 is hereby transferred to the Secretary
(1) Minnesota (Operation Metro Surge). (2) California. (3) Illinois (Operation Midway Blitz). (4) Louisiana (Operation Swamp Sweep and Catahoula Crunch). (5) Maine (Operation Catch of the Day). (6) North Carolina (Operation Charlottes Web). (7) Oregon (Operation Black Rose).
A State receiving a grant under this section shall transfer grant funds to organizations that are described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code. Such an organization may use the fund for any of the following purposes: (A) Support to educational institutions that were impacted by the operations. (B) Support for institutions and organizations that provide healthcare, including psychosocial support. (C) Support to local government operations that have increased costs due to the operations. (D) Support for commissions of inquiry, truth telling, investigations, and memorialization undertaken to record, investigate, remember, and otherwise address the events of the operations.
A State receiving a grant under this section shall transfer grant funds to small businesses impacted from the operations.
The grant program under this section shall terminate on the date that is 3 years after the date the program is established under subsection (a).
If enacted, the bill would require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish and carry out the reimbursement program within 60 days after enactment.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall establish and carry out a grant program to reimburse States for costs incurred and damage caused by increased immigration enforcement activities
The bill would transfer exactly $139,575,630,000 in funding made available under Public Law 119–21 for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to the Housing and Urban Development Secretary for the grant program.
Of the funds made available for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection under Public Law 119–21, $139,575,630,000 is hereby transferred to the Secretary to carry out the grant program under this section.
Eligible states would be Minnesota, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, and Oregon. The bill links each state except California to named enforcement operations. States would apply for reimbursement for the corresponding operations using the form and process required by the Secretary.
The following States shall be eligible to apply to the Secretary, in such form and manner as the Secretary may require, for a grant under this section for reimbursement for the corresponding operations: (1) Minnesota (Operation Metro Surge). (2) California. (3) Illinois (Operation Midway Blitz). (4) Louisiana (Operation Swamp Sweep and Catahoula Crunch). (5) Maine (Operation Catch of the Day). (6) North Carolina (Operation Charlottes Web). (7) Oregon (Operation Black Rose).
The Secretary would establish requirements states must meet to receive grants. Those requirements would have to address, at minimum, lost economic activity, estimated costs to local governments, and community harm.
The Secretary shall establish criteria for States to meet in order to receive a grant under this section. Such criteria shall include, at a minimum, lost economic activity, estimated cost to local governments, and community harm.
States receiving grants would have to transfer grant funds to nonprofit organizations that qualify under section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code and are tax-exempt under section 501(a).
A State receiving a grant under this section shall transfer grant funds to organizations that are described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.
Recipient nonprofits could use funds to support affected educational institutions; healthcare providers, including providers of psychological and social support; local government operations with increased costs from enforcement; and inquiries, investigations, truth telling, or memorial activities addressing the enforcement operations.
Such an organization may use the fund for any of the following purposes: (A) Support to educational institutions that were impacted by the operations. (B) Support for institutions and organizations that provide healthcare, including psychosocial support. (C) Support to local government operations that have increased costs due to the operations. (D) Support for commissions of inquiry, truth telling, investigations, and memorialization undertaken to record, investigate, remember, and otherwise address the events of the operations.
States receiving grants would also have to transfer grant funds to small businesses affected by the enforcement operations.
A State receiving a grant under this section shall transfer grant funds to small businesses impacted from the operations.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Inspector General would oversee the grant program.
The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development shall provide oversight over the grant program under this section.
Within 30 days after enactment, the Comptroller General would have to study the total costs of the enforcement operations to each eligible state and submit the study to Congress and those states' governors.
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study and submit such study to Congress and the governors of the States listed under subsection (c) on the total costs of the operations to each State.
The grant program would terminate three years after it was established. The termination period would run from the program's establishment, rather than the bill's enactment.
The grant program under this section shall terminate on the date that is 3 years after the date the program is established under subsection (a).
The supplied October 1, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House on September 17, 2026, and referral that day to the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Ways and Means Committees for consideration of provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-01T14:43:28Z.
2026-09-17: Introduced in House
2026-09-17: 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.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-17. 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 separate policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only 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 earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Program funding and restricted geographic eligibility alone do not establish earmark status. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a narrow geographic eligibility restriction within its main reimbursement policy. This classification does not determine whether the restriction is justified.
The proposed reimbursement grants would be available to seven specifically named states for corresponding enforcement operations, giving those states access to the program without a general eligibility route for other states experiencing similar costs or damage.
The following States shall be eligible to apply to the Secretary, in such form and manner as the Secretary may require, for a grant under this section for reimbursement for the corresponding operations: (1) Minnesota (Operation Metro Surge). (2) California. (3) Illinois (Operation Midway Blitz). (4) Louisiana (Operation Swamp Sweep and Catahoula Crunch). (5) Maine (Operation Catch of the Day). (6) North Carolina (Operation Charlottes Web). (7) Oregon (Operation Black Rose).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 1, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI