Federal funding cut-off for sanctuary cities—no appeal process, no definition of 'federal funds'

What it does

This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to create and maintain a public database of state and local jurisdictions that have laws, policies, or practices limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—such as refusing to honor ICE detainers or restricting police from assisting with immigration arrests. Any jurisdiction listed in the database becomes ineligible to receive federal funding. The bill defines these jurisdictions as 'sanctuary jurisdictions' and requires the database to be updated quarterly.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a financial penalty—withholding federal funds—designed to coerce state and local compliance with federal immigration enforcement priorities. It is not primarily a direct immigration enforcement tool but rather a conditional-funding statute that uses fiscal pressure as leverage.

What the text implies

• The bill does not specify which federal funds are subject to the prohibition—'Federal funds' is undefined, potentially capturing all federal dollars flowing to a sanctuary jurisdiction (education, transportation, healthcare, law enforcement grants), creating cascading harm to unrelated programs and vulnerable populations.
• The database is public and updated quarterly, creating a permanent, searchable record that may expose sanctuary jurisdictions to political pressure, litigation, or reputational targeting beyond the funding mechanism itself.
• The bill does not define 'sanctuary jurisdiction' by statute—it delegates the determination entirely to DHS and DOJ, giving those agencies unilateral power to add or remove jurisdictions without legislative oversight or judicial review, and without requiring the jurisdiction to have notice or opportunity to contest the designation.
• The criteria for inclusion are broad and overlapping: a jurisdiction can be listed for having ANY law, regulation, policy, or practice that 'prohibits or restricts' cooperation with detainers or immigration arrests, potentially capturing neutral policies (e.g., a rule requiring a warrant before arrest) that are not explicitly anti-immigration but have that effect.
• No sunset, review mechanism, or appeal process is provided—once listed, a jurisdiction remains subject to the funding prohibition indefinitely unless it repeals the policy triggering the listing, creating permanent fiscal leverage.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates a concrete cost to residents of sanctuary jurisdictions through loss of federal funding for schools, infrastructure, law enforcement, and social services—harming ordinary people in those areas regardless of their immigration stance. However, the bill's stated purpose reflects a legitimate federal interest in immigration enforcement, and citizens in non-sanctuary jurisdictions may view enforcement cooperation as a public safety benefit. The trade-off between local autonomy and fe

Named in the bill

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Justice, Attorney General, State and local government entities, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Immigration and Nationality Act, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Where it stands

29 cosponsors: 29 Republicans.

• Aug 19, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Aug 19, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,780,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 1 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 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Chip Roy, the sponsor, reported $68,100 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Reform Action Fund — $1,750,000 on 1 filing
• Reform Action Fund — $30,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 21, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.