PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 4, 2025
Help Ensure Legal Detainers Act or the HELD Act
This bill prohibits the use of federal funds by a state or local subdivision that has in effect a law, policy, or procedure that prevents or impedes
a timely response to a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for information about an alien in state or local custody, including the alien's estimated release date; or
compliance with a request from ICE to hold an alien for up to 48 hours so that ICE may assume custody.
People & committees
Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41] · R–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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 3, 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.1821 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.1821 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.1821 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.1821 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 · 2025-03-04 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 bar federal funding for projects or activities carried out by states or local governments whose laws or policies obstruct specified immigration requests. Those requests concern information about people in custody or holding them temporarily for transfer to federal immigration custody. Eligible local governments could apply directly for funds otherwise routed through a government barred from receiving them.
no Federal funds may be used to assist any project or activity carried out by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, described in subsection (b).
that has in effect any law, policy, or procedure that prevents or impedes State or local law enforcement officials from—
timely responding to an immigration notice issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security that requests information about an alien in State or local custody
maintaining custody of an alien for a period of up to 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) pursuant to an immigration detainer issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security in order that the alien can be transferred to the custody of such Secretary
A political subdivision of a State that is not ineligible under subsection (a) to receive Federal funds, but is part of a State or another unit of government that is so ineligible, may submit, notwithstanding any other provision of law, an application for direct receipt of any funds that the political subdivision otherwise only would receive through subgrant, allocation, or allotment made by the ineligible State or government unit.
Section 1 names the proposal the Help Ensure Legal Detainers Act, or HELD Act.
This Act may be cited as the— (1) Help Ensure Legal Detainers Act; or (2) HELD Act.
The funding prohibition would apply to federal fiscal years beginning after enactment. It would cover federal assistance for any project or activity carried out by a state or local government meeting the bill's criteria, rather than being limited to a named funding program.
With respect to fiscal years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, no Federal funds may be used to assist any project or activity carried out by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, described in subsection (b).
One trigger would be a law, policy, or procedure that prevents or impedes police from responding promptly to a Homeland Security immigration notice requesting information about a noncitizen in custody. The requested information could include the person's estimated release date so federal officials can arrange to take custody upon release.
A State, or political subdivision of a State, described in this subsection is any State, or political subdivision of a State, that has in effect any law, policy, or procedure that prevents or impedes State or local law enforcement officials from— (1) timely responding to an immigration notice issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security that requests information about an alien in State or local custody, including the alien’s estimated release date, in order that the Secretary may arrange to assume custody of the alien upon such release;
The other trigger would be a law, policy, or procedure that prevents or impedes holding a noncitizen under a Homeland Security immigration detainer—a request to keep the person in custody for transfer to federal officials. The specified hold could last up to 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Federal officials would then determine whether to detain the person, begin proceedings to remove them from the country, release them, or remove them.
that has in effect any law, policy, or procedure that prevents or impedes State or local law enforcement officials from—
(2) maintaining custody of an alien for a period of up to 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) pursuant to an immigration detainer issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security in order that the alien can be transferred to the custody of such Secretary to determine whether the alien should be detained, placed in removal proceedings, released, or removed.
An eligible local government within an ineligible state or other government could apply directly for funds it otherwise would receive only through that government. This permission would apply despite other laws. The provision permits an application; it does not guarantee an award.
A political subdivision of a State that is not ineligible under subsection (a) to receive Federal funds, but is part of a State or another unit of government that is so ineligible, may submit, notwithstanding any other provision of law, an application for direct receipt of any funds that the political subdivision otherwise only would receive through subgrant, allocation, or allotment made by the ineligible State or government unit.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated April 3, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 4, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-04-03T15:40:36Z. 2025-03-04: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-03-04: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-04. 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 materials could provide additional evidence.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. General access to funding applications for otherwise eligible governments is treated as administration of the main policy. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 3, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI