Federal funds now pay for state immigration enforcement—no oversight required.
S. 1993 — RIPPLE Act of 2025 · Filed by Ashley Moody (R-FL) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Jun 9, 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 allows the federal government to reimburse states and local police departments for the salaries and overtime costs of their officers who perform immigration enforcement duties under existing federal-state partnership agreements (Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act). Currently, states and localities bear these costs themselves; the bill shifts that financial burden to the federal government.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a straightforward federal reimbursement authority for state/local immigration-enforcement salaries under existing 287(g) partnerships. It is a fiscal transfer, not a policy change to immigration law itself.
What the text implies
- Reimbursement may incentivize states/localities to expand 287(g) programs and immigration enforcement activity, since federal funds now cover salary costs that were previously a local budget constraint.
- The bill does not specify reimbursement caps, approval processes, or audit requirements, leaving the scope and scale of federal spending undefined and potentially open-ended.
- Shifts immigration enforcement from a federal-only function (ICE/CBP) to a decentralized state/local model with federal subsidy, fragmenting enforcement standards and accountability.
- No requirement that reimbursed officers receive federal immigration-law training or comply with federal civil-rights standards beyond existing 287(g) MOU terms.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Local taxpayers in states with 287(g) agreements benefit from federal cost-sharing, reducing local tax burden for immigration enforcement. However, the bill expands immigration enforcement capacity without new oversight or accountability mechanisms, potentially increasing enforcement against immigrant communities; the civic benefit to some taxpayers is offset by potential harms to immigrants and mixed federalism effects.
Who stands to gain
- state and local governments with 287(g) agreements
- law enforcement agencies in participating jurisdictions
Named in the bill
Attorney General, states and political subdivisions, Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Internal Revenue Code Section 3121(a), Fair Labor Standards Act Section 7
Where it stands
1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.
- Jun 9, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Jun 9, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (832 characters) on Aug 14, 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.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Federal funds now pay for state immigration enforcement—no oversight required.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s1993 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.