PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 23, 2025
Tren de Aragua Border Security Threat Assessment Act
This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit a border threat assessment and strategic plan regarding Tren de Aragua and other transnational criminal organizations. (Tren de Aragua is a gang that originated in Venezuela.)
The threat assessment must include current and potential criminal threats from Tren de Aragua and a description of its origins, strategic aims, funding sources, and U.S. growth and presence.
DHS must submit a strategic plan not later than one year after submission of the threat assessment. The plan must include, for example, a consideration of the threat assessment and mitigation efforts regarding Tren de Aragua and other transnational criminal organizations and efforts to disseminate information between DHS and other departments, agencies, and law enforcement entities with missions associated with the border.
People & committees
Rep. Knott, Brad [R-NC-13] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4787)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4787)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4070.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4786-4788)
Mr. Guest moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 267.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-313.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-313.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 30, 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.4070 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.4070 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.4070 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.4070 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.