PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1] · R–SC
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 Ways and Means.
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 9, 2025. 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.1879 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.1879 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.1879 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.1879 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 · 2025-03-05 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 No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act would deny tax-exempt status to bonds issued by state or local governments meeting its definition of a “sanctuary jurisdiction.” The definition covers restrictions on sharing citizenship or immigration-status information, or on complying with certain lawful federal immigration detention or release-notification requests. The change would apply to bonds issued after enactment, based on the issuing government's status when it issues the bond.
This Act may be cited as the No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act.
Denial of tax exempt status for bonds issued by sanctuary jurisdictions
Any bond that is issued by a sanctuary jurisdiction (as determined on the date of issuance).
The term sanctuary jurisdiction means a State or political subdivision of a State that has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from— (A) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual, or (B) complying with a request lawfully made by the Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357) to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release of, an individual.
The amendments made by this section shall apply in taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act to any obligation issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The bill would add a new paragraph to section 103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code covering any bond issued by a qualifying sanctuary jurisdiction. Whether the issuer qualifies would be determined on the bond's issuance date.
Subsection (b) of section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: (4) Bond issued by sanctuary jurisdiction Any bond that is issued by a sanctuary jurisdiction (as determined on the date of issuance).
A state or local government would qualify under the information-sharing part of the definition if its law, ordinance, policy, or practice prohibits or restricts government entities or officials from sending, receiving, keeping, or exchanging citizenship or immigration-status information with federal, state, or local government entities. This covers information about both lawful and unlawful immigration status.
The term sanctuary jurisdiction means a State or political subdivision of a State that has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from— (A) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual
A state or local government would also qualify if such a restriction prevents or limits compliance with a Department of Homeland Security request concerning an immigration detention request, called a detainer, or notification of an individual's release. The federal request must be lawfully made under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The term sanctuary jurisdiction means a State or political subdivision of a State that has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from—
or (B) complying with a request lawfully made by the Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357) to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release of, an individual.
The Treasury Secretary or a delegate would have to publish a list of qualifying jurisdictions within 180 days after enactment and annually afterward. Treasury would first have to consult the Homeland Security Secretary.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary’s delegate) shall, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions for purposes of section 103(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
The amendments would apply only to obligations issued after enactment, and only in tax years ending after enactment. The implementation dates therefore depend on when the bill becomes law.
The amendments made by this section shall apply in taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act to any obligation issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 9, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on March 5, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-10-09T00:11:26Z. 2025-03-05: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2025-03-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-05. 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 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 were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, special exemption, or carve-out 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 9, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI