PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2025
Stop the Cartels Act
This bill addresses various issues relating to immigration, law enforcement cooperation with Mexico, and drug cartels.
The bill bars federal financial assistance for state or local jurisdictions that (1) restrict compliance with immigration detainers issued by the Department of Homeland Security, or (2) have any law or policy that violates immigration laws.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Furthermore, under this bill, the detention of alien minors must be governed by specified sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and not any judicial decree or settlement. (A 1997 settlement agreement imposes requirements related to the treatment of such minors, including limits on how long they may be detained under certain conditions.)
The bill also makes various changes to asylum applications, including by (1) increasing the burden that an asylum applicant must meet to establish a credible fear of persecution, and (2) establishing refugee application and processing centers in Central America.
In addition, certain Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development assistance may not be made available to Mexico's government until the State Department certifies that Mexico has removed certain barriers to law enforcement cooperation and intelligence sharing between the United States and Mexico.
The bill also establishes the foreign Special Transnational Criminal Organization designation and establishes penalties related to designated organizations, such as making it a crime to knowingly provide material support to such an organization. The State Department must designate specified organizations, including the Sinaloa Cartel, with the designation, and may designate other organizations that fit the bill's criteria.
People & committees
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services, 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 Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services, 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 Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services, 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 Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services, 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 Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services, 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 Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services, 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 Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services, 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: Jun 11, 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.1915 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.1915 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.1915 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.1915 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 · 2025-03-06 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 Stop the Cartels Act would expand intelligence work and legal measures against international criminal groups, restrict aid to Mexico, and deny federal financial assistance to certain state and local governments over immigration policies. It would change detention rules for migrant children and families, restrict asylum eligibility, add immigration court staff, and establish temporary refugee application centers abroad. It would also increase authorized funding for substance abuse prevention and treatment grants while repealing or ending several drug and mental health programs. These are proposals in the supplied introduced text, not established changes to law.
This Act may be cited as the Stop the Cartels Act.
a report containing an analytical assessment of the activities of drug trafficking organizations in covered foreign countries.
The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a foreign Special Transnational Criminal Organization
None of the amounts appropriated to the Department of State to combat the threats of drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, and money laundering or appropriated to the United States Agency for International Development may be made available to the Mexican federal government or its subsidiaries until the Secretary of State certifies to Congress
A State or unit of local government that is determined to be an ineligible jurisdiction may not receive any Federal financial assistance
the Secretary of Homeland Security may detain any alien minor (other than an unaccompanied alien child)
an alien is ineligible for asylum if the alien— (I) has been convicted of a felony;
the number of immigration judges by not fewer than an additional 500 judges
The amendments made by this section shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is three years and 240 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
shall designate refugee application and processing centers outside the United States.
by striking $1,908,079,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027 and inserting $3,961,600,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
(c) Community mental health services block grant Subpart I of part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x et seq.) is hereby repealed.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall terminate by the end of fiscal year 2025, and not establish any successor programs to, the following programs
Section 101 would require the Director of National Intelligence, working with drug enforcement and State Department intelligence officials, to report to Congress within 60 days after enactment on drug trafficking organizations. The assessment would cover security, economic conditions, migration, intelligence activity, trafficking routes, connections to other criminal groups, and illicit financing. The report, or an unclassified summary if the report is classified, would be public.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Chief of Intelligence of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report containing an analytical assessment of the activities of drug trafficking organizations in covered foreign countries.
(1) an assessment of the effect of drug trafficking organizations on the security and economic situation in covered foreign countries; (2) an assessment of the effect of the activities of drug trafficking organizations on the migration of persons from covered foreign countries to the United States-Mexico border; (3) a summary of any relevant activities by elements of the intelligence community in relation to drug trafficking organizations in covered foreign countries and Mexico; (4) a summary of key methods and routes used by drug trafficking organizations in covered foreign countries and Mexico to the United States; (5) an assessment of the intersection between the activities of drug trafficking organizations, human traffickers and human smugglers, and other organized criminal groups in covered foreign countries; and (6) an assessment of the illicit funds and financial transactions that support the activities of drug trafficking organizations and connected criminal enterprises in covered foreign countries.
The report required by subsection (a) may be submitted in classified form, but if so submitted, shall contain an unclassified summary. (c) Availability The report under subsection (a), or the unclassified summary of the report described in subsection (b), shall be made publicly available.
Section 102 would require a separate intelligence assessment within 60 days after enactment on human trafficking and smuggling, coordinated with Homeland Security and State Department officials. It would address security and economic conditions, intelligence activity, routes to the U.S.–Mexico border, criminal connections, and financing. The report or its unclassified summary would be public.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis and the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report containing an analytical assessment of human trafficking and human smuggling by individuals and organizations in covered foreign countries.
(1) an assessment of the effect of human trafficking and human smuggling on the security and economic situation in covered foreign countries; (2) a summary of any relevant activities by elements of the intelligence community in relation to human trafficking and human smuggling in covered foreign countries; (3) an assessment of the methods and routes used by human traffickers and human smuggler organizations to move persons from covered foreign countries to the United States-Mexico border; (4) an assessment of the intersection between the activities of human traffickers and human smugglers, drug trafficking organizations, and other organized criminal groups in covered foreign countries; and (5) an assessment of the illicit funds and financial transactions that support the activities of human traffickers and human smugglers and connected criminal enterprises in covered foreign countries.
The report required by subsection (a) may be submitted in classified form, but if so submitted, shall contain an unclassified summary. (c) Availability The report under subsection (a), or the unclassified summary of the report described in subsection (b), shall be made publicly available.
The intelligence title's covered countries would be Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Belize, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Section 108 also identifies the congressional committees receiving reports and incorporates existing statutory definitions of human trafficking and the intelligence community.
(1) Appropriate congressional committees The term appropriate congressional committees means— (A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and (B) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. (2) Congressional intelligence committees The term congressional intelligence committees means the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
The term covered foreign countries means Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Belize, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
(4) Human trafficking The term human trafficking has the meaning given the term severe forms of trafficking in persons by section 103 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102). (5) Intelligence community The term intelligence community has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003).
Section 103 would require a review of intelligence collection priorities for the covered countries and a report within 120 days after enactment. If priorities were found inadequate, the report would describe changes to be made. Further reports would follow every 90 days for five years; the first would include relevant spending in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. Classified reports would require unclassified summaries.
shall carry out a comprehensive review of the current intelligence collection priorities of the intelligence community for covered foreign countries
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a comprehensive description of the results of the review required by subsection (a)
If the report concludes that such priorities are not so appropriate and sufficient, the report shall also include a description of the actions to be taken to modify such priorities
Not later than 90 days after the date on which the report under paragraph (1) is submitted, and every 90 days thereafter for a 5-year period
The first report under this paragraph shall also include a description of the amount of funds expended by the intelligence community to the efforts described in subsection (a) during each of fiscal years 2023 and 2024. (c) Form The reports required by subsection (b) may be submitted in classified form, but if so submitted, shall contain an unclassified summary.
Section 104 would withhold specified State Department funds and funds appropriated to the U.S. Agency for International Development from Mexico's federal government and its subsidiaries. The restriction would last until the Secretary of State certified that Mexico had removed all cooperation barriers created after December 2020 that hindered law enforcement cooperation and intelligence sharing, including the specified foreign-agent and visa restrictions.
None of the amounts appropriated to the Department of State to combat the threats of drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, and money laundering or appropriated to the United States Agency for International Development may be made available to the Mexican federal government or its subsidiaries until the Secretary of State certifies to Congress that Mexico has removed all barriers to bilateral cooperation created after December 2020 that have hindered law enforcement cooperation and intelligence-sharing between United States and Mexican law enforcement agencies, including the implementation of the Foreign Agents law and the limits that have been placed on issuing visas to United States law enforcement personnel.
Section 105 would require a plan within 60 days after enactment to restore regular high-level and working-level U.S.–Mexico security meetings. Within 90 days, the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development would also report on programs under the Merida Initiative or Bicentennial Framework, including results, investment recommendations, and, where practicable, effects of Mexico's Foreign Agents law on cooperation.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan and timeline to reestablish regular bilateral security meetings between appropriate high-level and working-level officials of the Governments of the United States and Mexico
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall submit a report to appropriate congressional committees that— (1) provides a review of programs, projects, and activities implemented as part of either the Merida Initiative or The Bicentennial Framework; and (2) includes— (A) evaluations, assessments, or other analyses, as appropriate; (B) successes, challenges, and lessons learned in achieving program outcomes and United States policy goals; (C) recommendations to change investment levels in specific projects; and (D) to the extent practicable, an assessment of the effect, if any, of Mexico’s Foreign Agents law on bilateral security cooperation with the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, and the Department of Justice.
Section 106 would authorize the Secretary of State, consulting Treasury and the Attorney General, to designate qualifying foreign groups as Special Transnational Criminal Organizations. The criteria concern continuing international organizations pursuing gains partly through illegal means, protecting their activities through specified methods, and threatening U.S. nationals or national security. National security would include defense, foreign relations, and economic interests.
The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a foreign Special Transnational Criminal Organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that— (A) the organization is a foreign organization; (B) the organization is a self-perpetuating association of individuals who operate transnationally for the purpose of obtaining power, influence, monetary, or commercial gains, wholly or in part by illegal means, while protecting their activities through a pattern of corruption or violence or through a transnational organization structure and the exploitation of transnational commerce or communication mechanisms; and (C) the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.
the term national security means the national defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the United States;
the term Secretary means the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.
The bill would require this designation for the Sinaloa Cartel; Jalisco New Generation Cartel; Beltran-Leyva Organization; Cartel del Noreste and Los Zetas; Guerreros Unidos; Gulf Cartel; Juarez Cartel and La Linea; La Familia Michoacana; and Los Rojos.
The Secretary shall designate the following organizations as Special Transnational Criminal Organizations: (1) Sinaloa Cartel. (2) Jalisco New Generation Cartel. (3) Beltran-Leyva Organization. (4) Cartel del Noreste and Los Zetas. (5) Guerreros Unidos. (6) Gulf Cartel. (7) Juarez Cartel and La Linea. (8) La Familia Michoacana. (9) Los Rojos.
Designation would require classified notice to specified congressional leaders and committees seven days before publication. Publication would make the organization subject to 18 U.S.C. 2339B, whose substantive rules are not reproduced. Starting with congressional notice, Treasury could require U.S. financial institutions to block transactions involving the organization's assets until a further Treasury directive, an act of Congress, or a court order.
Seven days before making a designation under this subsection, the Secretary shall, by classified communication, notify the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore, majority leader, and minority leader of the Senate, and the members of the relevant committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of the intent to designate an organization
The Secretary shall publish the designation in the Federal Register seven days after providing the notification under clause (i). (B) Effect of designation For purposes of section 2339B of title 18, United States Code— (i) an organization designated as a foreign Special Transnational Criminal Organization shall be treated as an organization subject to such section for purposes of such section; and (ii) a designation under this subsection shall take effect for such purposes upon publication under subparagraph (A)(ii).
Upon notification under paragraph (2)(A)(i), the Secretary of the Treasury may require United States financial institutions possessing or controlling any assets of any foreign organization included in the notification to block all financial transactions involving those assets until further directive from either the Secretary of the Treasury, Act of Congress, or order of court.
A designation would continue until revoked or set aside by a court. An organization could petition for revocation beginning two years after designation, or two years after the decision on its previous petition, and would need evidence of changed circumstances. The Secretary would have 180 days to decide. Congress could block or revoke a designation by law; the Secretary could revoke it at any time and would have to do so after the specified reviews if changed circumstances or U.S. national security warranted revocation.
A designation under this subsection shall be effective until revoked under paragraph (5) or (6) or set aside pursuant to subsection (c).
the petition period begins 2 years after the date on which the designation was made; or (II) if the designated organization has previously filed a petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the petition period begins 2 years after the date of the determination made under clause (iv) on that petition.
must provide evidence in that petition that the relevant circumstances described in paragraph (1) are sufficiently different from the circumstances that were the basis for the designation such that a revocation with respect to the organization is warranted.
Not later than 180 days after receiving a petition for revocation submitted under this subparagraph, the Secretary shall make a determination as to such revocation.
The Congress, by an Act of Congress, may block or revoke a designation made under paragraph (1).
The Secretary may revoke a designation made under paragraph (1) at any time, and shall revoke a designation upon completion of a review conducted pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4) if the Secretary finds that— (i) the circumstances that were the basis for the designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation; or (ii) the national security of the United States warrants a revocation.
If five years passed without a petition-based review, the Secretary would have to review the designation; the procedures and results of that review would not be reviewable in court. The Secretary could also amend a designation to cover a name change, alias, reconstitution, or merger. Such amendments would take effect when published in the Federal Register.
If the Secretary determines that a 5-year period has elasped since the designation without a review having taken place under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall review the designation
The results of such review and the applicable procedures shall not be reviewable in any court.
The Secretary may amend a designation under this subsection if the Secretary finds that the organization has changed its name, adopted a new alias, dissolved and then reconstituted itself under a different name or names, or merged with another organization.
Amendments made to a designation in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
A designated organization would have 30 days after publication to challenge a designation, amendment, or petition decision in the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit. Review would rely on the agency record, with classified evidence potentially shown privately to the court without the other party present. The court would have to set aside actions meeting the listed legal, evidentiary, or procedural defects. Filing a challenge would not itself suspend the designation.
Not later than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register of a designation, an amended designation, or a determination in response to a petition for revocation, the designated organization may seek judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Review under this subsection shall be based solely upon the administrative record, except that the Government may submit, for ex parte and in camera review, classified information used in making the designation, amended designation, or determination in response to a petition for revocation.
The Court shall hold unlawful and set aside a designation, amended designation, or determination in response to a petition for revocation the court finds to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitation, or short of statutory right; (D) lacking substantial support in the administrative record taken as a whole or in classified information submitted to the court under paragraph (2); or (E) not in accord with the procedures required by law.
The pendency of an action for judicial review of a designation, amended designation, or determination in response to a petition for revocation shall not affect the application of this section, unless the court issues a final order setting aside the designation, amended designation, or determination in response to a petition for revocation.
Once a designation took effect, a criminal defendant or a noncitizen in removal proceedings could not challenge its validity as a defense or objection in that proceeding. Revocation would not affect proceedings based on conduct before revocation became effective.
The revocation of a designation under paragraph (5) or (6) shall not affect any action or proceeding based on conduct occurring prior to the effective date of such revocation.
If a designation under this subsection has become effective under paragraph (2)(B) a defendant in a criminal action or an alien in a removal proceeding shall not be permitted to raise any question concerning the validity of the issuance of such designation as a defense or an objection at any trial or hearing.
Section 107 would require monthly Homeland Security reports to the House and Senate homeland security committees, beginning by the fifteenth day of the second full month after enactment. Reports would cover the preceding month and count border apprehensions, encounters with people deemed inadmissible, returns to Mexico, accelerated removal processing and fear claims, detention and releases, notices to appear or report, missed appearances, and specified removal orders.
Not later than the fifteenth day of the second full month after the date of the enactment of this Act and not later than the fifteenth day of each month thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report relating to migrants. Each such report shall cover the period of the immediately preceding month
(1) The total number of U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions. (2) The total number of inadmissible aliens encountered by the Office of Field Operations (OFO) of CBP. (3) The total number of migrants (including apprehensions and inadmissibles under paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively) voluntarily returned to Mexico. (4) The total number of migrants placed into expedited removal pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)). (5) The total number of migrants placed into expedited removal who claimed credible fear pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii)). (6) The total number of migrants placed into expedited removal who claimed credible fear pursuant to such section who received a positive determination relating thereto. (7) The total number of migrants who were detained by CBP.
(13) The total number of migrants released on any other ground, including specifications of which such grounds, into the United States. (14) The total number of migrants issued a Notice to Appear. (15) The total number of migrants issued a Notice to Report.
(17) The total number of migrants released into the United States to appear at an ICE Field Office who failed to appear.
(19) The total number of migrants issued a Notice to Appear who failed to appear at an Initial Master Calendar hearing. (20) The total number of migrants issued a Notice to Appear who failed to appear at an initial Master Calendar hearing who were ordered removed from the United States.
Section 201 would make a state or local government ineligible for federal financial assistance if it violated section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373), restricted compliance with a Homeland Security detainer, or maintained a law or policy violating immigration law. Homeland Security would assess every jurisdiction within one year after enactment and annually thereafter. An ineligible jurisdiction would lose assistance covered by the cited statutory definition for the fiscal year following the determination year. The referenced statutes are not reproduced, so their full scope cannot be determined from the supplied text.
A State or unit of local government is an ineligible jurisdiction for purposes of this section if that State or unit of local government— (1) violates section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373); (2) otherwise restricts compliance with a detainer issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security; or (3) has any law or policy in effect that violates the immigration laws.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall make a determination as to whether each State or unit of local government is an ineligible jurisdiction under subsection (a) and submit such determinations to Congress.
A State or unit of local government that is determined to be an ineligible jurisdiction may not receive any Federal financial assistance (as such term is defined in section 7501(a)(5) of title 31, United States Code) for the fiscal year following any fiscal year in which the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the State or unit of local government is an ineligible jurisdiction under subsection (b).
Section 301 would allow Homeland Security to detain noncitizen minors who are inadmissible or removable until removal proceedings finish, excluding children currently classified as unaccompanied. Prior unaccompanied status would not prevent detention under this provision. The Attorney General would have to prioritize these children's and families' cases and set a completion goal of no more than 100 days; that is a case-processing goal, not an express detention limit.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, judicial determination, consent decree, or settlement agreement, the Secretary of Homeland Security may detain any alien minor (other than an unaccompanied alien child) who is inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) or removable from the United States under section 237(a) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)) pending the completion of removal proceedings, regardless of whether the alien minor was previously an unaccompanied alien child.
The Attorney General shall— (i) prioritize the removal proceedings of an alien minor, or a family unit that includes an alien minor, detained under subparagraph (A); and (ii) set a case completion goal of not more than 100 days for such proceedings.
For these minors, detention and release decisions would be governed only by specified immigration statutes and implementing rules or policies, rather than judicial decrees or settlements. Homeland Security would have sole discretion over detention conditions, with its determination excluded from judicial review. The text separately preserves bond or parole eligibility and courts' authority to hear constitutional claims.
The decision to detain or release an alien minor described in subparagraph (A)— (i) shall be governed solely by sections 212(d)(5), 217, 235, 236, and 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), 1187, 1225, 1226, and 1231) and implementing regulations or policies; and (ii) shall not be governed by standards, requirements, restrictions, or procedures contained in a judicial decree or settlement relating to the authority to detain or release alien minors.
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine, in the sole discretion of the Secretary, the conditions of detention applicable to an alien minor described in paragraph (1)(A) regardless of whether the alien minor was previously an unaccompanied alien child. (B) No judicial review A determination under subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to judicial review.
Nothing in this section— (A) affects the eligibility for bond or parole of an alien; or (B) limits the authority of a court to hear a claim arising under the Constitution of the United States.
States could not require state or local licensing of immigration facilities holding children under 18 with their parents or legal guardians. Homeland Security would have to ensure secure, safe family facilities and suitable accommodations, food, water, timely medical and mental health assistance, and other necessary child-care services. The provision would authorize whatever funding is necessary, without itself specifying an appropriation amount.
a State may not require an immigration detention facility used to detain families consisting of one or more children who have not attained 18 years of age and the parents or legal guardians of such children, that is located in the State, to be licensed by the State or any political subdivision thereof.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that each— (A) family residential facility is secure and safe; and (B) alien child and accompanying parent at a family residential facility has— (i) suitable living accommodations; (ii) access to drinking water and food; (iii) timely access to medical assistance, including mental health assistance; and (iv) access to any other service necessary for the adequate care of a minor child.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
Section 301 would replace restrictions arising from the Flores settlement and related judicial determinations with the new subsection's rules or those imposed by the 2008 trafficking-protection law. Courts could approve other settlements or consent decrees about detention conditions for noncitizen children only if they complied with the new subsection's limits.
Any conduct or activity that was, before the date of the enactment of this subsection, subject to any restriction or obligation imposed by the stipulated settlement agreement filed on January 17, 1997, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Flores v. Reno, CV 85–4544–RJK, (commonly known as the Flores settlement agreement), or imposed by any amendment of that agreement or judicial determination based on that agreement— (A) shall be subject to the restrictions and obligations in subsection (j) or imposed by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–457); and (B) shall not be subject to the restrictions and the obligations imposed by such settlement agreement or judicial determination.
In any civil action with respect to the conditions of detention of alien children, the court shall not enter or approve a settlement agreement or consent decree unless it complies with the limitations set forth in subsection (j).
Section 302 would replace the definition of 'credible fear of persecution,' an asylum screening standard, with a requirement that asylum eligibility be more likely than not. The officer would also have to find that the applicant's statements, or statements made on their behalf, were more likely than not true. People barred from applying for or receiving asylum could not receive a positive credible-fear determination.
the term credible fear of persecution means that it is more likely than not that the alien would be able to establish eligibility for asylum under section 208— (aa) taking into account such facts as are known to the officer; and (bb) only if the officer has determined, under subsection (b)(1)(B)(iii) of such section, that it is more likely than not that the statements made by the alien or on behalf of the alien are true.
An alien shall not be determined to have a credible fear of persecution if the alien is prohibited from applying for or receiving asylum, including an alien subject to a limitation or condition under subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2) (including a regulation promulgated under such subsection) of section 208.
Applicants receiving a positive credible-fear determination would be referred to an immigration judge. Review would be limited to eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, and whether asylum should be granted as a matter of discretion. Withholding of removal and torture protection are forms of protection against removal; their underlying eligibility rules are not reproduced here.
An alien determined to have a credible fear of persecution shall be referred to an immigration judge for review of such determination, which shall be limited to a determination whether the alien— (aa) is eligible for asylum under section 208, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3), or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York, December 10, 1984 (referred to in this clause as the Convention Against Torture); and (bb) merits a grant of asylum in the exercise of discretion.
For applicants in the specified referral process who established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, consideration would generally be limited to withholding of removal or torture protection. Even those options would be unavailable if failure to establish credible fear itself barred eligibility. Applicants adjudicated through that route could receive no other removal relief, and people in the specified referral process would be ineligible for a section 240 hearing.
Except as provided in item (bb), if an alien referred under subparagraph (A)(ii) is determined to have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the alien shall be eligible only for consideration of an application for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
An alien shall not be eligible for consideration of an application for relief under item (aa) if the failure of the alien to establish a credible fear of persecution precludes the alien from eligibility for such relief.
An alien whose application for relief is adjudicated under item (aa) shall not be eligible for any other form of relief or protection from removal. (vii) Ineligibility for removal proceedings An alien referred under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall not be eligible for a hearing under section 240.
Subject to its separately worded exception, section 302 would add asylum bars for people convicted of a felony, people inadmissible under section 212(a) except paragraphs (4), (5), and (7), and people previously removed from the United States. It would also bar nationals or habitual residents of Central American countries with refugee application centers and of countries bordering those countries, except Mexico under the neighboring-country branch.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including paragraph (1), except as provided in clause (ii), an alien is ineligible for asylum if the alien— (I) has been convicted of a felony; (II) is inadmissible under section 212(a) (except paragraphs (4), (5), and (7)); (III) has been previously removed from the United States; or (IV) is a national or habitual resident of— (aa) a country in Central America that has a refugee application and processing center; or (bb) a country contiguous to such a country (other than Mexico).
The asylum amendment contains a clause labeled 'Exception' for people present in the United States on its enactment date. Its wording says 'paragraph (1) shall not apply' to those people, rather than directly saying that the new bars in clause (i) do not apply. The supplied text therefore does not support describing this as a clear exemption from the new asylum bars.
(ii) Exception Notwithstanding clause (i), paragraph (1) shall not apply to any alien who is present in the United States on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.
Section 303 would require at least 500 additional immigration judges above the number at enactment, necessary support staff, and additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys and staff based on a workload staffing model. It would authorize necessary funding for hiring, facilities, equipment, and proceedings near apprehension and detention locations. This is authorization for funding, not a specified appropriation.
The Attorney General shall increase— (1) the number of immigration judges by not fewer than an additional 500 judges, as compared to the number of immigration judges as of the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) the corresponding number of support staff, as necessary.
The Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall increase the number of attorneys and staff employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by the number that is consistent with the workload staffing model to support the increase in immigration judges.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for— (1) the hiring of immigration judges, support staff, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys under this section; and (2) the lease, purchase, or construction of facilities or equipment (including video teleconferencing equipment and equipment for electronic filing of immigration cases), and the transfer of federally owned temporary housing units to serve as facilities, for— (A) the increased number of immigration judges, attorneys, and support staff under this section; and (B) conducting immigration court proceedings in close proximity to the locations at which aliens are apprehended and detained.
Section 304 would require the Secretary of State, consulting Homeland Security, to designate overseas refugee application centers within 240 days after enactment of the new subsection. There would be one in Mexico and at least three in Central America. Centers would accept and process applications for refugee admission and could be located in U.S. diplomatic facilities.
The term refugee application and processing center— (A) means a facility designated under section 207(g) by the Secretary of State to accept and process applications for refugee admissions to the United States; and (B) may include a United States embassy, consulate, or other diplomatic facility.
Not later than 240 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall designate refugee application and processing centers outside the United States.
The Secretary of State shall establish— (A) 1 refugee application and processing center in Mexico; and (B) not fewer than 3 refugee application and processing centers in Central America at locations selected by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The centers would provide an application route for nationals or habitual residents of a country hosting a center or a neighboring country. Asylum officers would decide the refugee applications. Admission through this process would remain subject to the existing section's limits, including numerical limits; establishing centers would not itself guarantee admission.
The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall ensure that any alien who is a national or habitual resident of a country in which a refugee application and processing center is located, or a country contiguous to such a country, may apply for refugee status at a refugee application and processing center in that country.
An application for refugee status submitted to a refugee application and processing center shall be adjudicated by a asylum officer.
The admission to the United States of refugees under this subsection shall be subject to the limitations, including the numerical limitations, under this section.
Centers would prioritize applications submitted within 90 days of a referral from a nongovernmental organization authorized by the Secretary of State, subject to the Secretary's requirements. State and Homeland Security would charge application-processing fees based on processing costs, anti-fraud measures, and an amount intended to deter frivolous applications. The bill does not set a dollar amount.
The Secretary of State shall ensure that refugee application and processing centers accord priority to applications submitted— (A) by aliens who have been referred by an authorized nongovernmental organization, as determined by the Secretary of State; (B) not later than 90 days after the date on which such referral is made; and (C) in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of State under this subsection.
The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall charge, collect, and account for fees prescribed by each such Secretary
The fees prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall be based on a consideration of the amount necessary to deter frivolous applications and the cost for processing the application, including the implementation of program integrity and anti-fraud measures.
Section 304's amendments establishing and governing the refugee centers would stop being effective three years and 240 days after enactment. This expiration is expressly limited to amendments made by section 304.
The amendments made by this section shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is three years and 240 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 401 would replace the substance abuse prevention and treatment block-grant authorization of $1,908,079,000 annually for fiscal years 2023–2027 with $3,961,600,000 annually for fiscal years 2025–2029. This changes an authorization for a grant program; it does not itself establish that the money has been appropriated or spent.
401. Reauthorization of block grants for prevention and treatment of substance abuse Section 1935(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x–35(a)) is amended by striking $1,908,079,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027 and inserting $3,961,600,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
Section 402 would repeal the cited statutory provisions for substance abuse treatment programs of regional and national significance, the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, community mental health services block grants, jail diversion grants, and priority substance-use prevention needs of regional and national significance. The underlying provisions are not reproduced, so the full operational consequences cannot be determined from this bundle.
(a) Substance abuse treatment programs of regional and national significance Section 509 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb–2) is hereby repealed. (b) Drug-Free Communities Support Program Chapter 2 of subtitle A of title I of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.) is hereby repealed. (c) Community mental health services block grant Subpart I of part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x et seq.) is hereby repealed. (d) Grants for jail diversion programs Section 520G of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb–38) is hereby repealed.
(f) Priority substance use disorder prevention needs of regional and national significance Section 516 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb–22) is hereby repealed.
Section 402 would also direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate Project AWARE and the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics Expansion Grants program by the end of fiscal year 2025 and prohibit successor programs. That is the deadline written in the proposal, not evidence that termination occurred.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall terminate by the end of fiscal year 2025, and not establish any successor programs to, the following programs carried out under section 520A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb–32): (1) Project AWARE. (2) The Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics Expansion Grants program.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated June 11, 2026, records introduction in the House on March 6, 2025, referrals that day to seven House committees, and referral to the Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee. These entries do not establish passage or enactment, and the snapshot does not establish what happened after its update.
Source snapshot updated 2026-06-11T23:26:35Z.
2025-03-06: Introduced in House
2025-03-06: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
2025-03-06: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services, 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 · 2025-03-06. 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 clearly unrelated rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced version, considered as a package covering criminal organizations, immigration, and federal drug-program changes. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials, and the source does not document amendment attachment history.
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 a particular recipient or place outside general program arrangements was identified in the complete supplied introduced version. This text-only conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or absence in other versions, disclosures, or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced version contains narrow exemptions and preferential treatment within its proposed policies. Classification describes that treatment without judging its justification or motive.
Family immigration detention facilities would receive a specific exemption from state and local licensing requirements. The beneficiaries are facilities holding children under 18 with parents or legal guardians; the exemption is part of the bill's family-detention policy and does not remove its separate federal care requirements.
a State may not require an immigration detention facility used to detain families consisting of one or more children who have not attained 18 years of age and the parents or legal guardians of such children, that is located in the State, to be licensed by the State or any political subdivision thereof.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that each— (A) family residential facility is secure and safe; and (B) alien child and accompanying parent at a family residential facility has— (i) suitable living accommodations; (ii) access to drinking water and food; (iii) timely access to medical assistance, including mental health assistance; and (iv) access to any other service necessary for the adequate care of a minor child.
Nationals and habitual residents of Mexico would be excluded from the new asylum bar's neighboring-country branch. This is a specific geographic exception to the rule for countries bordering a Central American country with a refugee application center; it is not an exemption from the bill's other asylum bars.
an alien is ineligible for asylum if the alien— (I) has been convicted of a felony; (II) is inadmissible under section 212(a) (except paragraphs (4), (5), and (7)); (III) has been previously removed from the United States; or (IV) is a national or habitual resident of— (aa) a country in Central America that has a refugee application and processing center; or (bb) a country contiguous to such a country (other than Mexico).
Applicants referred by nongovernmental organizations authorized by the Secretary of State would receive application-processing priority at the proposed refugee centers if they submitted within 90 days after referral and complied with the Secretary's requirements and procedures. This preference benefits qualifying referred applicants within the new refugee application process. It does not guarantee admission: applications would still be adjudicated, and admissions would remain subject to the referenced limits, including numerical limits.
The Secretary of State shall ensure that refugee application and processing centers accord priority to applications submitted— (A) by aliens who have been referred by an authorized nongovernmental organization, as determined by the Secretary of State; (B) not later than 90 days after the date on which such referral is made; and (C) in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of State under this subsection.
An application for refugee status submitted to a refugee application and processing center shall be adjudicated by a asylum officer.
The admission to the United States of refugees under this subsection shall be subject to the limitations, including the numerical limitations, under this section.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI