Federal grants weaponized to force local immigration cooperation
H.R. 3881 — Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act · Filed by Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY) · 20 cosponsors · Introduced Jun 10, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill penalizes state and local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by stripping them of federal economic development and community development grants. It grants legal immunity to state and local officers who comply with federal immigration detainers, making them federal agents for liability purposes, while barring jurisdictions with 'sanctuary' policies from receiving Economic Development Administration and Community Development Block Grant funding.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is not direct immigration enforcement but rather a financial penalty—withholding federal grants from jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration detainers. This is a coercive federalism tool disguised as an immigration-safety measure.
What the text implies
- The bill redefines 'sanctuary jurisdiction' to include any jurisdiction that does not share immigration status information or comply with detainers—a broad definition that may capture jurisdictions with victim-witness protections (though a narrow exception exists). This could chill reporting of crimes by undocumented immigrants.
- Federal funding clawback provisions (requiring immediate return of grants) create administrative chaos and potential mid-year budget crises for affected municipalities, harming public services unrelated to immigration policy.
- By deeming state officers 'federal agents' for liability purposes and substituting the US as defendant, the bill shifts litigation costs to federal taxpayers and may reduce incentive for federal oversight of state conduct during immigration enforcement.
- The bill does not require that detainers be based on criminal conduct—section 236 of the INA permits detainers for civil immigration violations alone, meaning state officers could be immunized for detaining individuals whose only violation is unlawful presence.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill uses federal funding as a coercive lever to override state and local policy choices about immigration enforcement cooperation, potentially harming residents of sanctuary jurisdictions through loss of economic development and community development resources. It also creates broad immunity for state officers executing federal detainers, reducing accountability for potential civil rights violations and shifting liability to the federal government.
Named in the bill
Department of Homeland Security, Economic Development Administration, Community Development Block Grants, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Immigration and Nationality Act sections 236 and 287
Where it stands
20 cosponsors: 20 Republicans.
- Jun 10, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jun 10, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services and House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
4 lobbying clients named this bill on 7 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,350,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 3 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 72% of bills with at least one filing.
Nicholas Langworthy, the sponsor, reported $1,046,611 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Consumer Bankers Association — $2,000,000 on 2 filings
- Electronic Payments Coalition — $220,000 on 2 filings
- Racetrac, Inc. — $70,000 on 1 filing
- Visa, Inc. — $60,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (7,186 characters) on Aug 17, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Federal grants weaponized to force local immigration cooperation” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr3881 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.