Summary#
This bill lets states and local governments that have a 287(g) agreement get more Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) money. A 287(g) agreement is a written deal with ICE that allows local officers to perform certain immigration-enforcement tasks. The bill would permit an increase of up to 10% in a jurisdiction’s annual JAG allocation if the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security confirm the 287(g) agreement. It also authorizes $20 million per year for fiscal years 2027–2033 to pay for these increases.
Key changes:
- Increased grant option: Jurisdictions with a 287(g) agreement may apply for up to a 10% boost in their JAG allocation based on their recent 3-year average.
- Federal confirmation required: The Attorney General, working with the Secretary of Homeland Security, must confirm the jurisdiction has a 287(g) agreement before the increase is made.
- Funding authorized: $20 million is authorized each year from 2027 through 2033 to fund these increases.
- Override of a prior rule: The bill says applicants may apply despite an existing statutory limit referenced in the current JAG law.
What it means for you#
- State and local governments: Jurisdictions that already have, or that enter into, a 287(g) agreement could receive up to a 10% increase in JAG funding compared with their recent average allocation.
- Law enforcement agencies: Agencies in qualifying jurisdictions could see more grant money available. This could be used for programs allowed under JAG rules, which may include activities tied to public safety and enforcement.
- Communities with immigrants: This could encourage more local participation in federal immigration enforcement through the 287(g) program. This may affect how local police interact with immigrant communities. (The bill itself does not describe specific operational changes.)
- Taxpayers: Federal funds are designated to cover the increases, subject to the yearly $20 million authorization.
- Federal agencies: The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security would need to confirm agreements and manage the application process.
What is unclear:
- How funds will be allocated if demand exceeds the $20 million authorized each year.
- Whether the increased funds are subject to any new limits on how they may be used beyond existing JAG rules.
- Any new reporting, oversight, or civil-rights protections tied to the increased funding are not described.
Expenses#
Estimated public cost: $20 million per year authorized for fiscal years 2027–2033 to provide the increased allocations.
- Authorized appropriations: $20,000,000 annually for 2027–2033 to fund the increases described in the bill.
- Per-jurisdiction cap: Each qualifying jurisdiction may get an increase of no more than 10% of its average annual JAG allocation over the three most recent years it received funding.
- Administrative costs: The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security must confirm agreements. The bill does not provide a cost estimate for administering these applications or confirmations.
- No official budget estimate attached: The bill text does not include a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score or other fiscal note in the provided material.
If more jurisdictions apply than the $20 million will cover, the bill does not say how priorities or prorating would be handled.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to increase support for jurisdictions that participate in 287(g) agreements.
- Supporters may argue that the measure incentivizes cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
- A possible argument is that extra JAG funds will help jurisdictions cover costs tied to immigration-enforcement activities or related public-safety work.
- The bill could be seen as linking federal grant support to participation in a federal-local enforcement partnership.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that tying extra federal money to 287(g) participation may encourage more local involvement in immigration enforcement, which could affect trust between police and immigrant communities.
- The bill does not explain how increased funds would be used or restricted, raising questions about oversight and accountability.
- The $20 million annual authorization may be insufficient if many jurisdictions apply, and the bill does not say how funds would be allocated in that case.
- There could be additional administrative costs for DOJ and DHS to verify agreements and process applications; those costs are not estimated in the bill.
- It is unclear whether civil-rights safeguards or reporting requirements will accompany the increased funding.