Congress moves to rein in Border Patrol's expanding interior arrest power
S. 3571 — Keeping Our Agents on the Line Act · Filed by Christopher Murphy (D-CT) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Dec 18, 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 restricts U.S. Border Patrol officers to operating within 25 miles of the U.S. land border or territorial sea, reversing recent expansions of their interior arrest authority. It also mandates that CBP publicly report detailed data on checkpoint encounters and interior arrests, including information on arrests of U.S. citizens and the training status of agents conducting searches. The bill aims to prevent Border Patrol from duplicating ICE functions and to increase transparency around their enforcement activities.
Why we flagged it
The bill primarily restricts Border Patrol operational authority to a 25-mile border zone and mandates transparency reporting on checkpoint and arrest activities. It is fundamentally a jurisdictional and accountability measure, not a commemorative or appropriations vehicle.
What the text implies
- Reaffirming the 25-mile rule may signal that current Border Patrol operations have expanded significantly beyond historical norms, suggesting a de facto policy shift that this bill seeks to reverse through legislation.
- The requirement to report on arrests of U.S. citizens by Border Patrol in the interior could expose a pattern of Fourth Amendment violations or mistaken-identity arrests, potentially triggering civil litigation or policy reform.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who it affects
Citizens gain transparency into Border Patrol arrest practices and Fourth Amendment compliance, and the jurisdictional constraint reduces the risk of mistaken-identity arrests or unconstitutional searches by undertrained agents operating far from the border. However, the constraint may reduce federal flexibility in responding to genuine cross-border threats, creating a mixed but net-positive outcome for civil liberties and accountability.