HR 205 · 119th CongressIn Committee

No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act

Latest updateJan 3, 2025

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Immigration

Sponsor

Beth Van Duyne

Introduced

January 3, 2025

Latest action

January 3, 2025

Legislative Progress

How far this bill has traveled through Congress

Introduced

Bill filed in chamber

Committee

Reviewed & reported

Passed Chamber

House or Senate vote

Passed Both

House & Senate agree

President

Sent to White House

Enacted

Signed into law

Introduced

Bill filed in chamber

Committee

Reviewed & reported

Passed Chamber

House or Senate vote

Passed Both

House & Senate agree

President

Sent to White House

Enacted

Signed into law

Latest Action

Plain-Language Summary

AI Generated

Congressional earmarks—funds that individual lawmakers direct to specific projects in their districts or states—are currently available to all jurisdictions regardless of their immigration enforcement policies. Some states and cities have adopted sanctuary policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, such as restricting the sharing of immigration status information or declining to honor certain Department of Homeland Security detention requests. These policies reflect different views on the appropriate role of local law enforcement in federal immigration matters, but they do not currently affect a jurisdiction's eligibility to receive earmarked federal funds.

This bill prohibits the use of federal funds for congressional earmarks directed to any state or local government designated as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The bill defines a sanctuary jurisdiction as any state or political subdivision that has enacted a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice restricting government entities from sharing immigration status information with federal authorities or complying with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests under immigration law. The measure carves out an exception for policies that protect crime victims and witnesses from immigration enforcement inquiries. Congress would enforce this prohibition by declining to direct earmarked funds to qualifying jurisdictions.

The prohibition takes effect for fiscal year 2026 and applies to all subsequent years. No new funding mechanism or enforcement agency is established; instead, individual members of Congress would need to avoid directing earmarks to jurisdictions meeting the sanctuary definition. The practical effect would reduce the flow of discretionary federal project funding to affected states and cities, potentially limiting infrastructure, community development, and other locally-targeted investments. Jurisdictions could regain eligibility by modifying their immigration policies to permit information-sharing and detainer compliance, though the exception for victim and witness protections would remain available.

Key Provisions

1Prohibits the use of federal funds for congressional earmarks directed to any state or unit of local government that maintains a sanctuary jurisdiction policy restricting immigration status information-sharing or Department of Homeland Security detainer compliance.
2Defines a sanctuary jurisdiction as any state or political subdivision with a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts government entities from exchanging immigration status information with federal authorities or complying with lawful Department of Homeland Security detainer requests.
3Establishes an exception to the sanctuary jurisdiction definition for policies that protect crime victims and witnesses by restricting immigration enforcement inquiries regarding individuals who come forward to report criminal offenses.
4Applies the earmark prohibition beginning in fiscal year 2026 and continuing for all subsequent fiscal years without establishing new enforcement mechanisms or funding sources.

★ Why this matters

Jurisdictions designated as sanctuary jurisdictions would lose access to congressionally directed earmarks, reducing discretionary federal funding for local projects and infrastructure. States and cities would face a choice between maintaining their immigration policies or modifying them to regain earmark eligibility. The measure creates a financial incentive for jurisdictions to change their approach to immigration enforcement cooperation.

● Who this affects

State and local government officials in sanctuary jurisdictions, particularly mayors and city councils in major urban centers with sanctuary policies; members of Congress representing these jurisdictions who would be unable to direct earmarks to their districts; residents of sanctuary jurisdictions who depend on federally funded local projects; and immigrant communities in these jurisdictions whose legal status information would become subject to potential federal sharing if policies change to comply with the bill.

Bill Text

View on Congress.gov

Show / hide bill text preview

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 205

    To prohibit the use of Federal funds for congressional earmarks 
  targeted to a State or unit of local government that is a sanctuary 
                             jurisdiction.

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

  Ms. Van Duyne (for herself and Mr. Ellzey) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the use of Federal funds for congressional earmarks 
  targeted to a State or unit of local government that is a sanctuary 
                             jurisdiction.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary 
Cities Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS TARGETED TO 
              SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS.

    (a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds may be used for a congressional 
earmark targeted to a State or unit of local government which is a 
sanctuary jurisdiction.
    (b) Congressional Earmark Defined.--In subsection (a), the term 
``congressional earmark'' has the meaning given such term under clause 
9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 3. SANCTUARY JURISDICTION DEFINED.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), for 
purposes of this Act the term ``sanctuary jurisdiction'' means any 
State or political subdivision of a State that has in effect a statute, 
ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any 
government entity or official from--
            (1) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any 
        Federal, State, or local government entity information 
        regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or 
        unlawful) of any individual; or
            (2) complying with a request lawfully made by the 
        Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357) to 
        comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release of, an 
        individual.
    (b) Exception.--A State or political subdivision of a State shall 
not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on its having a 
policy whereby its officials will not share information regarding, or 
comply with a request made by the Department of Homeland Security under 
section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1226 and 1357) to comply with a detainer regarding, an in…

Auto-Whip

Where House representatives currently stand

Built from official statements, public releases, and voting records where they exist. Members without enough evidence are marked as no position.

448 tracked

Support

443

No Position

Oppose

Support

Members whose public record points toward backing the bill.

Kevin Kiley

I-California · District 3

Likely support

While the public record doesn't contain explicit statements about the 'No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act,' several indicators suggest possible support: (1) Rep. Kiley is an Independent (I-CA) who has shown concern about government accountability and fiscal responsibility; (2) His April 29, 2026 statement criticizes exempting 'immigration enforcement' from appropriations requirements, suggesting he views immigration enforcement funding as an important appropriations matter; (3) The DHS funding bill statement emphasizes Congress's responsibility for funding decisions; (4) His focus on 'Protecting Taxpayers' and 'Government Accountability' aligns with the bill's premise of controlling federal spending to sanctuary jurisdictions. However, confidence is moderate because: there is no direct statement on this specific bill, he is an Independent (less predictable than party-line positions), and the website content is limited. A stronger position determination would require explicit voting records or direct statements on sanctuary city policies.

No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act

Legislative Progress

Plain-Language Summary

Key Provisions

★ Why this matters

● Who this affects

Bill Text

Where House representatives currently stand

Support

Opposition

No Position

Party Positions

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Take Action

Active Organizations

No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act

Legislative Progress

Plain-Language Summary

Key Provisions

★ Why this matters

● Who this affects

Bill Text

Where House representatives currently stand

Support

Opposition

No Position

Party Positions

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Take Action

Active Organizations