Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion Act of 2026
Summary
HB 7105, the “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion Act of 2026,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a new legal framework for responding to a presidential declaration of an “invasion” at the southern border. The bill authorizes the President to proclaim that an invasion exists at the U.S.-Mexico border and requires notice to Congress within seven days of issuing or ending that proclamation.
Once such a proclamation is in effect, the bill would require suspension of the entry of any person who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter across the southern border. It would also make such individuals ineligible for immigration relief or protection that would allow them to remain in the United States, including asylum, withholding of removal, and parole, and would bar judicial review of most determinations made under the new section. The bill further directs the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the State Department and the Attorney General, to repel, detain, expel, or remove persons involved in the invasion and to prevent further entry, using federal personnel and assets as needed.
Impact
The bill would significantly expand executive authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding new sections 212A and 208A and by amending section 212(f). It would create a new statutory basis for a presidential invasion declaration tied specifically to the southern border, trigger mandatory suspension of entry for unauthorized crossers during that period, and make affected individuals categorically ineligible for several forms of immigration relief. It would also add a new inadmissibility ground for failure to provide certain information before entry during a declared invasion and authorize immediate removal, repatriation, or transfer in those cases. The bill would further limit court review, except for nationality claims, and would terminate these authorities only when the President proclaims the invasion has ended.
Sentiment
Based on the available context, the bill appears to have been introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee without recorded committee debate or votes. Because there are no transcripts or vote totals, there is no documented legislative sentiment in the provided materials beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. The text itself reflects a strong enforcement-oriented approach to border control and immigration restriction.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s use of the term “invasion,” the breadth of presidential discretion it creates, and the suspension of immigration protections and judicial review. Supporters would likely view the measure as a border-security and state-protection tool aimed at rapid federal response to unlawful crossings at the southern border. Opponents would likely object that it could undermine asylum and other humanitarian protections, concentrate power in the executive branch, and raise constitutional and due-process concerns, especially given the bill’s attempt to limit court jurisdiction.
Recognizing that article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution explicitly reserves to the States the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend their citizenry from the overwhelming and "imminent danger" posed by paramilitary, narco-terrorist cartels, terrorists and criminal actors who seized control of our southern border.
Recognizing that members and affiliates of Tren de Aragua are alien enemies perpetrating an invasion of the United States and affirming that the President is exercising his constitutional authority to repel that invasion.