Full-Body Restraint Prohibition Act
HB7709, the Full-Body Restraint Prohibition Act, would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to bar the Secretary of Homeland Security from using federal funds to acquire, or from using, full-body restraints. The bill defines full-body restraints as four-point and five-point restraints that immobilize an individual. It also includes a grandfather clause allowing existing contracts or similar agreements entered into on or before enactment to remain in place for acquisition purposes.
The bill would also create new reporting and accountability requirements for the Department of Homeland Security. Within 90 days of enactment, and quarterly thereafter, DHS would have to report to specified House and Senate committees on compliance, inventory any full-body restraints in its possession, and provide detailed information about any violation, including the person restrained, the reason, location, duration, injuries, immigration or citizenship status, language access services, and the responsible officer or employee. If an employee violates the prohibition or deceives Congress or departmental leadership about it, the Secretary would be required to remove that person from federal service.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section 714 to Title VII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and update the Act’s table of contents. It would prohibit DHS from purchasing or using four-point and five-point restraints, limit continued use of preexisting acquisition contracts, and impose mandatory reporting to congressional oversight committees. The bill would also require removal from federal service for employees who violate the prohibition or mislead Congress or leadership about it, affecting DHS personnel discipline and oversight practices.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be driven by concern over the humane treatment of individuals in DHS custody or control and by a desire for stronger transparency and accountability. The bill was introduced by a group of Democratic members and referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security, then to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability. No votes or committee debate are provided, so there is no recorded opposition or support beyond the bill’s sponsors and referral status.
The main points of contention likely center on whether DHS should be categorically barred from using full-body restraints, and whether such a prohibition could limit operational flexibility in detention or transport settings. Another likely issue is the bill’s extensive reporting mandate, which requires disclosure of sensitive details about restrained individuals, including race, ethnicity, immigration status, injuries, and language access services. Supporters would likely emphasize civil rights, safety, and oversight, while critics may argue the bill is too restrictive, administratively burdensome, or could interfere with security operations.