PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Crank, Jeff [R-CO-5] · R–CO
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 Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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: Dec 5, 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.1984 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.1984 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.1984 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.1984 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 · 2025-03-10 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 condition local governments’ eligibility for federal infrastructure funding on having rules requiring advance notice to federal immigration officials before certain people leave custody. It would apply to people those officials determine are unlawfully present, subject to notice and detention requirements. The restriction would cover direct funding and funding routed through states. The proposal gives local governments one year after enactment to have the required rules in place.
The Secretary of Transportation shall not obligate or award funds for any infrastructure project, including for highway construction, to a political subdivision of a State, nor shall any funds obligated or awarded to a State, go to any political subdivision of a State that does not have in effect not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the BLOC Act a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice requiring an entity or official of such political subdivision to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designee thereof) not later than 48 hours before of the release from custody or detainment of an alien if— (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designee thereof) has determined that such alien is not lawfully present in the United States; (2) not later than 48 hours before such release, the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designee thereof) has notified the sheriff or detaining entity of such State or political subdivision of the legal status of such alien; and (3) such alien has been in custody or detainment for not less than 48 hours before such release.
Section 1 would name the legislation the Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025, or BLOC Act.
This Act may be cited as the Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025 or the BLOC Act.
Section 2 would add a funding restriction to federal transportation law. It would require the Transportation Secretary to withhold infrastructure funding commitments and awards from local governments that lack the required notification rule, and would also bar funds routed through states from reaching those local governments. A qualifying statute, ordinance, policy, or practice would have to be in effect within one year after enactment.
Chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 612. Ineligibility of sanctuary jurisdictions for certain Federal funds
The Secretary of Transportation shall not obligate or award funds for any infrastructure project, including for highway construction, to a political subdivision of a State, nor shall any funds obligated or awarded to a State, go to any political subdivision of a State that does not have in effect not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the BLOC Act a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice
The required local rule would direct a local entity or official to notify the Homeland Security Secretary, or a designated representative, at least 48 hours before a covered person’s release from custody or detention.
requiring an entity or official of such political subdivision to notify the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designee thereof) not later than 48 hours before of the release from custody or detainment of an alien if—
The notification rule would apply only when all three conditions are met: Homeland Security has determined that the person is unlawfully present in the United States; Homeland Security has notified the sheriff or detaining entity of that status at least 48 hours before release; and the person has been held for at least 48 hours before release.
(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designee thereof) has determined that such alien is not lawfully present in the United States; (2) not later than 48 hours before such release, the Secretary of Homeland Security (or designee thereof) has notified the sheriff or detaining entity of such State or political subdivision of the legal status of such alien; and (3) such alien has been in custody or detainment for not less than 48 hours before such release.
The proposal expressly includes highway construction. For the broader meaning of an infrastructure project, it would use the definition in a federal regulation as that regulation exists on the enactment date.
any infrastructure project, including for highway construction
In this section, the term infrastructure project has the meaning given such term in section 184.3 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of the BLOC Act).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated December 5, 2025, records introduction in the House and referrals to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and its Highways and Transit Subcommittee on March 10, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-05T22:54:57Z. 2025-03-10: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. 2025-03-10: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2025-03-10: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-10. 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 rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion 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 and does not establish absence in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out, special exemption, or other targeted benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 5, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI