Securing America's Ports of Entry Act of 2025
The Securing America’s Ports of Entry Act of 2025 would direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to expand staffing at ports of entry by hiring, training, and assigning 1,000 additional CBP officers each fiscal year above attrition levels until staffing meets the agency’s Workload Staffing Model. It also authorizes additional support staff, such as technicians and mission support personnel, to handle non-law-enforcement administrative work so officers can focus on inspections and enforcement.
The bill would require CBP to use more detailed traffic and workload forecasting when determining staffing needs, including seasonal surges, commercial and passenger volume changes, pre-pandemic travel patterns, and outbound inspection needs at land ports of entry. If CBP fails to meet the hiring target, the Government Accountability Office would review CBP hiring practices and report to Congress on the reasons for shortfalls.
In addition to staffing, the bill requires CBP to submit a report within 90 days identifying infrastructure, detection equipment, and safety equipment needs at ports of entry to improve interdiction of opioids and other illicit drugs. The report would specifically address barriers to deploying technology already used at other ports and would include equipment to detect opioids, precursors, and derivatives, as well as protective gear for officers.
The bill also increases congressional oversight of CBP’s temporary duty assignments and port-to-port staff redeployments. CBP would have to file quarterly reports detailing the number, cost, duration, and origin/destination of temporary assignments, provide advance notice before non-emergency redeployments, and brief affected employees on mitigation plans. It further amends existing reporting requirements for CBP agreements at ports of entry to include the factors considered before entering agreements and the economic and security benefits of those agreements.
Overall, the bill would not directly change immigration or customs enforcement standards, but it would significantly expand reporting obligations and pressure CBP to increase staffing and improve port security infrastructure. Its practical effect would be to shape how CBP allocates personnel and resources at ports of entry, with a particular focus on drug interdiction, operational transparency, and reducing staffing shortages.
The bill would amend federal customs and homeland security reporting and staffing practices, primarily affecting U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security. It would create new hiring targets for CBP officers and support staff, require more detailed staffing-model inputs, mandate multiple reports to Congress, and modify an existing reporting provision in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. It would also increase oversight of temporary duty assignments and port staffing reallocations, especially those tied to southern border operations.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the available record. Based on the bill’s sponsors and its stated purpose, the measure appears to be framed as a bipartisan border-security and anti-drug-trafficking bill, with emphasis on staffing shortages, operational efficiency, and port security. The absence of votes or hearing testimony means overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s supportive framing in the text.
The main likely points of contention are the scale and feasibility of the hiring mandate, the cost of adding 1,000 officers per year plus support staff, and whether CBP can realistically meet the Workload Staffing Model targets given attrition and hiring constraints. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s reporting and notice requirements for temporary duty assignments, which could limit CBP flexibility to shift personnel quickly to the southern border or other high-priority areas. Stakeholders focused on port operations may also debate whether the bill sufficiently addresses infrastructure and technology gaps versus simply increasing staffing.