PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25] · 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 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: Mar 26, 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.2090 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.2090 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.2090 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.2090 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 · 2025-03-11 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 require U.S. Customs and Border Protection to take noncitizens into custody and hold them until their names are checked against the federal terrorist screening database and the Commissioner receives a result. It would also add being listed in that database to an existing immigration-law provision.
the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall take into and maintain custody over an alien until the Commissioner cross references the name of such alien with the terrorist screening database and a result for such cross reference is received by the Commissioner.
(C) is on the terrorist screening database.
The bill would add being on the terrorist screening database as an alternative criterion in section 236A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The existing provision is not reproduced, so the supplied text does not fully explain how that criterion would operate.
Section 236A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226A) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)(3)— (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ; or; (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and insert ; or; and (C) by adding at the end the following: (C) is on the terrorist screening database.
The proposed custody requirement would be mandatory for the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner and would apply despite other provisions of law. The new language states no exception or express limitation to particular locations or immigration statuses.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall take into and maintain custody over an alien until the Commissioner cross references the name of such alien with the terrorist screening database and a result for such cross reference is received by the Commissioner.
The proposed holding period would last until the name check is performed and the Commissioner receives a result. The provision sets no time limit for completing those steps and does not itself direct release after a result arrives.
shall take into and maintain custody over an alien until the Commissioner cross references the name of such alien with the terrorist screening database and a result for such cross reference is received by the Commissioner.
The bill would use the definition of “terrorist screening database” from section 2101 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. That definition is not reproduced in the supplied text.
In this section, the term terrorist screening database shall have the meaning given such term in section 2101 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated March 26, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 11, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-03-26T15:31:57Z. 2025-03-11: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-03-11: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-11. 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 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 congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and committee or conference materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit, special exemption, or preferential treatment 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: Mar 26, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI