Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The bill bars FEMA from carrying out any program that supports sheltering or related activities provided by non‑Federal entities to relieve overcrowding in U.S. Customs and Border Protection short‑term holding facilities. It also rescinds the unobligated balances of previously transferred amounts made available to FEMA under two cited appropriations provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2023 and 2024.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian harm and shifted costs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive policy change that clearly prohibits FEMA from supporting certain non-Federal sheltering activities and rescinds specified unobligated transferred funds.
The bill bars FEMA from carrying out any program that supports sheltering or related activities provided by non‑Federal entities to relieve overcrowding in U.S. Customs and Border Protection short‑term holding facilities.
It also rescinds the unobligated balances of previously transferred amounts made available to FEMA under two cited appropriations provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2023 and 2024.
Narrow but ideologically charged; could pass in a like‑minded simple‑majority chamber but faces significant Senate and litigation hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive policy change that clearly prohibits FEMA from supporting certain non-Federal sheltering activities and rescinds specified unobligated transferred funds. It identifies the responsible official and the funding sources to be rescinded, but it lacks definitional, procedural, and oversight detail.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian harm and shifted costs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian harm and shifted costs
Likely opposed.
Sees the prohibition as removing federal humanitarian support for people in CBP custody and shifting burdens to states or migrants.
Views rescissions as an abrupt defunding that risks immediate harm.
Mixed.
Understands desire to clarify agency roles and limit FEMA mission creep, but worries about operational gaps, legal liabilities, and humanitarian fallout without transition plans.
Likely supportive.
Views the bill as preventing federal support for noncitizens in immigration custody, protecting taxpayer dollars and reducing incentives for irregular migration.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but ideologically charged; could pass in a like‑minded simple‑majority chamber but faces significant Senate and litigation hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian harm and shifted costs
Narrow but ideologically charged; could pass in a like‑minded simple‑majority chamber but faces significant Senate and litigation hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive policy change that clearly prohibits FEMA from supporting certain non-Federal sheltering activities and rescinds specified unobligated transf…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.