SB 4405, the “287(g) Expansion Act,” would create a federal incentive for states and local governments to enter into written immigration-enforcement agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Jurisdictions that sign such an agreement could apply to the Attorney General for an increased Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant allocation.
The bill directs the Attorney General, working with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to raise a qualifying jurisdiction’s annual Byrne JAG award by up to 10 percent of the average amount it received over the three most recent years in which it got that funding. The bill also authorizes $20 million per year for fiscal years 2027 through 2033 to cover these increased allocations.
Impact
The bill would amend the practical operation of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program by adding a new eligibility-based funding increase for jurisdictions that participate in 287(g) immigration-enforcement agreements. It does not mandate participation in 287(g), but it creates a financial incentive for states and political subdivisions to enter into or maintain such agreements with ICE. The measure would affect state and local governments that receive Byrne JAG funds, as well as federal agencies responsible for reviewing applications and administering the increase.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available legislative history, the measure appears to be framed as a pro-enforcement immigration policy with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The introduction by Senators Blackburn and Graham suggests support from sponsors who favor stronger local-federal immigration cooperation. Because there are no transcripts or roll-call votes included, there is no documented opposition or broader bipartisan sentiment in the supplied record.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s use of federal grant money to encourage participation in 287(g) agreements, which are often debated as a tool for immigration enforcement. Supporters would likely argue that the bill rewards cooperation with ICE and strengthens public safety and immigration enforcement. Opponents would likely object that it pressures local governments to take on immigration-enforcement roles, potentially strains local resources, and ties law-enforcement funding to controversial immigration policy choices. No specific objections or supporters are recorded in the provided committee materials.
PUBLIC SAFETY Act Providing Useful Budgets for Localities to Invest in Cops by Substituting Appropriations from Federal Enforcement To Yield Results Act
PUBLIC SAFETY Act Providing Useful Budgets for Localities to Invest in Cops by Substituting Appropriations from Federal Enforcement To Yield Results Act