PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act
This bill prohibits federal funds from being used as congressionally directed spending (i.e., an earmark) for jurisdictions that withhold information about citizenship or immigration status or do not cooperate with immigration detainers.
Specifically, such funds are denied to any jurisdiction that has a law, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity from
maintaining, sending, or receiving information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual;
exchanging information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status with a federal, state, or local government entity;
complying with a valid immigration detainer from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); or
notifying DHS about an individual's release from custody.
The funding restriction does not apply to a law, policy, or practice that only applies to an individual who comes forward as a victim of or a witness to a criminal offense.
This prohibition begins in FY2026.
People & committees
Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24] · R–TX
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 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 28, 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.205 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.205 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.205 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.205 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 · 2025-01-03 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 proposal would bar federal funds from being used for congressional earmarks—certain spending designated by Congress—targeted to state or local governments meeting its definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction. That definition covers restrictions on sharing immigration-status information or cooperating with specified lawful immigration requests. An exception would protect governments from that classification based solely on certain policies concerning crime victims or witnesses.
No Federal funds may be used for a congressional earmark targeted to a State or unit of local government which is a sanctuary jurisdiction.
the term sanctuary jurisdiction means any 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— (1) 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 (2) 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.
A State or political subdivision of a State shall not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on its having a policy whereby its officials will not share information regarding, or comply with a request 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 regarding, an individual who comes forward as a victim or a witness to a criminal offense.
The bill is titled the No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act. Its proposed funding restriction concerns congressional earmarks targeted to covered governments; it does not state a ban on all federal funding for those governments.
This Act may be cited as the No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act.
No Federal funds may be used for a congressional earmark targeted to a State or unit of local government which is a sanctuary jurisdiction.
The proposal would use the definition of congressional earmark in clause 9(e) of House Rule XXI. The bill does not reproduce that definition.
In subsection (a), the term congressional earmark has the meaning given such term under clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Subject to the victim-and-witness exception, a state or political subdivision would qualify as a sanctuary jurisdiction if its laws, policies, or practices restrict any government entity or official from sending, receiving, keeping, or exchanging citizenship or immigration-status information with federal, state, or local government entities. This covers both lawful and unlawful immigration status.
Except as provided under subsection (b), for purposes of this Act the term sanctuary jurisdiction means any 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— (1) 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;
Subject to the same exception, the definition would also cover restrictions on complying with lawful Department of Homeland Security requests under the specified immigration statutes. These requests concern immigration detention requests called detainers, or notification about a person's release.
Except as provided under subsection (b), for purposes of this Act the term sanctuary jurisdiction means any 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—
(2) 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.
A government would not qualify as a sanctuary jurisdiction solely because it declines to share information or comply with the specified detainer requests concerning someone who comes forward as a crime victim or witness. This exception would not protect a government that qualifies on another basis. The exception does not expressly mention release-notification requests.
A State or political subdivision of a State shall not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on its having a policy whereby its officials will not share information regarding, or comply with a request 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 regarding, an individual who comes forward as a victim or a witness to a criminal offense.
The proposal would apply to fiscal year 2026 and every subsequent fiscal year, with no stated ending year.
This Act applies with respect to fiscal year 2026 and each succeeding fiscal year.
The supplied June 28, 2025 source snapshot records introduction in the House on January 3, 2025, and referral that day to the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2025-06-28T08:06:21Z.
2025-01-03: Introduced in House
2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 · 2025-01-03. 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 was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears 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 provision directing spending to a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text contains a narrow exception to the proposed funding restriction's eligibility criteria. Its classification as a targeted exception is not a judgment about its merits.
States and political subdivisions whose otherwise qualifying policies concern people coming forward as crime victims or witnesses would receive a limited exception: those policies alone would not trigger sanctuary-jurisdiction status and the associated earmark restriction. The exception concerns information sharing and specified detainer requests and is directly related to the bill's main policy.
A State or political subdivision of a State shall not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on its having a policy whereby its officials will not share information regarding, or comply with a request 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 regarding, an individual who comes forward as a victim or a witness to a criminal offense.
No Federal funds may be used for a congressional earmark targeted to a State or unit of local government which is a sanctuary jurisdiction.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 28, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI