HB1984, titled the “Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025” or the “BLOC Act,” would amend federal highway law to condition certain U.S. Department of Transportation infrastructure funding on local and state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Specifically, it would prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from obligating or awarding infrastructure project funds, including highway construction funds, to a political subdivision of a state unless that jurisdiction has a law, ordinance, policy, or practice requiring officials to notify the Department of Homeland Security before releasing certain aliens from custody or detention.
The notification requirement would apply only when DHS has determined the person is not lawfully present in the United States, DHS has already notified the detaining authority of that person’s legal status at least 48 hours before release, and the person has been held for at least 48 hours. The bill would also add a new section to title 23 of the U.S. Code and make a conforming clerical amendment to the chapter analysis. In practical terms, it would create a federal funding penalty for jurisdictions that do not adopt the specified immigration-notification process.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would change title 23 of the U.S. Code by adding a new federal funding restriction tied to immigration-related detention and release procedures. It would affect states and, more directly, counties, cities, and other political subdivisions that receive federal infrastructure funds, potentially limiting access to highway and other transportation project funding unless they adopt the required notification policy. The bill would not directly change immigration status law, but it would use transportation funding as leverage to influence local cooperation with DHS.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and its introduction by sponsors associated with border-security and immigration-enforcement priorities, the bill appears to be framed positively by supporters as a measure to discourage sanctuary policies and increase cooperation with federal authorities. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or amendment activity in the record here. The overall tone of the measure is strongly enforcement-oriented and politically aligned with immigration restriction efforts.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s use of federal transportation funding as a penalty for jurisdictions that do not comply with a federal immigration-notification mandate. Supporters would likely argue it promotes public safety and prevents release of individuals unlawfully present in the country without DHS notice, while opponents would likely view it as coercive, an intrusion into local law-enforcement and detention practices, and a form of pressure against sanctuary jurisdictions. The bill also raises practical questions about implementation, including how DHS status determinations are made, how the 48-hour notice requirement would work, and whether local agencies can reliably comply.
Federal Officer Protection Act Shielding Heroes In Enforcement from Loud Disruptions Act No Student Visas for Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026 No Rogue Nonprofits Act Stopping Invaders Act No Sanctuary Cities Act