To establish a Federal grant program to reimburse certain States for the costs incurred and damage caused by widespread deployment of Federal immigration officials, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 10503 creates a HUD-administered grant program, funded by reallocating $139.5 billion from ICE and CBP, to reimburse seven specific states for damages and costs incurred due to federal immigration enforcement operations, with funds then distributed to non-profits and small businesses.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal grant program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to reimburse specific states for costs and damages resulting from increased federal immigration enforcement activities. It reallocates approximately $139.5 billion from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to fund this program. States receiving grants are required to transfer these funds to eligible 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations and small businesses impacted by these operations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that federal immigration enforcement operations can impose significant economic and social costs on states and local communities, including lost economic activity, increased burdens on local governments, and community harm. They contend that this bill provides necessary financial relief to these affected areas, allowing them to recover and support impacted educational institutions, healthcare providers, local government services, and small businesses. Furthermore, supporters believe that reallocating funds from enforcement agencies to community support reflects a more humane and effective approach to immigration policy.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill diverts critical funding from essential federal immigration enforcement agencies, potentially undermining national security and border control efforts. They might contend that reimbursing states for the consequences of federal law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent and could incentivize states to resist federal immigration policies. Critics may also raise concerns about the broad criteria for 'community harm' and the potential for misuse or lack of accountability for funds transferred to non-profits and small businesses, viewing it as an attempt to defund immigration enforcement under the guise of state relief.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick read and understanding of its core provisions.
Section 1(a)
Establishment of Federal Grant Program
This section mandates the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish a grant program within 60 days of the bill's enactment. The purpose of this program is to reimburse states for the financial costs and damages they have incurred due to increased federal immigration enforcement activities, referred to as 'operations' within the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing this program is a necessary step to address the tangible negative impacts that federal immigration enforcement operations have on state and local economies and communities, providing a mechanism for financial redress.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that creating such a program could be seen as an implicit criticism of federal immigration enforcement, potentially undermining its legitimacy and creating a precedent for states to seek reimbursement for federal actions they disagree with.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal government's role in immigration enforcement with the financial burdens that enforcement activities can place on state and local governments, creating a tension between federal authority and state autonomy.
Section 1(b)
Funding Mechanism and Amount
This section specifies that the grant program will be funded by transferring $139,575,630,000 from existing funds allocated to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under Public Law 119-21. These funds are then transferred to the HUD Secretary to carry out the reimbursement program.
Section 1(c)
Eligible States and Specific Operations
This section explicitly lists seven states eligible to apply for grants under the program: Minnesota (for 'Operation Metro Surge'), California, Illinois (for 'Operation Midway Blitz'), Louisiana (for 'Operation Swamp Sweep and Catahoula Crunch'), Maine (for 'Operation Catch of the Day'), North Carolina (for 'Operation Charlottes Web'), and Oregon (for 'Operation Black Rose'). Each state is associated with specific immigration enforcement 'operations' for which reimbursement is sought, except for California, which is listed generally.
Section 1(d)
Grant Criteria
This section directs the HUD Secretary to establish specific criteria that states must meet to receive a grant. These criteria must include, at a minimum, assessments of lost economic activity, estimated costs incurred by local governments, and the extent of community harm caused by the immigration enforcement operations.
Section 1(e)(1)
Use of Funds by Non-profit Organizations
This section mandates that states receiving grants must transfer funds to organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. These non-profits can then use the funds for specific purposes: supporting educational institutions impacted by operations, providing healthcare (including psychosocial support), aiding local government operations with increased costs, and supporting commissions for inquiry, truth-telling, investigations, and memorialization related to the operations.
Section 1(e)(2)
Use of Funds by Small Businesses
This section requires states receiving grants to transfer a portion of the funds directly to small businesses that have been negatively impacted by the specified immigration enforcement operations. This aims to provide direct economic relief to businesses that may have suffered losses due to these activities.
Section 1(f)
Oversight and GAO Study
This section establishes oversight mechanisms for the grant program. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is tasked with providing ongoing oversight. Additionally, the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) is required to conduct a study and submit a report within 30 days of the bill's enactment to Congress and the governors of the eligible states, detailing the total costs of the operations to each state.
The bill funds the new grant program by transferring $139,575,630,000 from existing appropriations for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under Public Law 119-21.
Section 1(b)
Why it matters:This is a direct and significant reallocation of funds, which is a core policy choice of the bill, rather than a technical detail. It is not 'buried' in the sense of being hidden, but its full implications for the defunded agencies might not be immediately apparent without deeper analysis.
Case for: Supporters argue this reallocation is a deliberate policy choice to shift resources from enforcement activities that cause harm to programs that address and mitigate that harm, reflecting a change in priorities for federal spending on immigration.
Case against: Opponents would argue this represents a severe defunding of critical national security and border enforcement agencies, potentially compromising their ability to perform their duties and leading to adverse consequences for border security and interior enforcement.
Estimated impact: This represents a transfer of approximately $139.5 billion from ICE and CBP budgets.
Grant funds transferred to 501(c)(3) non-profits can be used for 'commissions of inquiry, truth telling, investigations, and memorialization undertaken to record, investigate, remember, and otherwise address the events of the operations.'
Section 1(e)(1)(D)
Why it matters:This provision is a specific and potentially politically charged use of funds that goes beyond direct financial relief, suggesting a broader aim of documenting and contextualizing the impacts of immigration enforcement. Its inclusion among other support services might make its unique nature less immediately prominent.
Case for: Proponents would argue that documenting and memorializing the impacts of immigration operations is crucial for historical accuracy, accountability, and healing within affected communities, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the human cost.
Case against: Opponents might criticize this as potentially funding advocacy or politically motivated narratives under the guise of 'truth telling' and 'investigations,' raising concerns about objectivity and the appropriate use of federal funds for such purposes.
Estimated impact: The financial impact is difficult to estimate as it depends on the number and scope of such commissions/activities, but it represents a significant expansion of the types of activities eligible for federal funding in this context.