Reimagining Safety Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill fundamentally reimagines federal safety and security infrastructure by dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and redirecting its resources and functions towards community-led safety, social services, and civil liberties protections.
What it actually does
This bill proposes to abolish the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and establish a new Department of Community Safety (DCS). It transfers various DHS agencies and functions to the DCS, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, and Department of Justice. The bill also abolishes immigration detention, repeals numerous immigration enforcement and surveillance authorities, mandates the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and reallocates rescinded DHS funds to a wide array of social safety net and community-led programs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that true safety is cultivated through universal care, economic equity, housing stability, and climate justice, rather than through a punitive national security apparatus. They contend that DHS has perpetuated harm, particularly against immigrant communities, and that redirecting resources to social safety nets and community-driven interventions will foster collective well-being and liberation, while upholding civil liberties and due process.
Opponents contend
Critics would argue that abolishing DHS and its enforcement capabilities would severely compromise national security, border integrity, and the ability to respond to terrorism, cyber threats, and natural disasters. They would likely contend that dismantling established agencies and repealing critical authorities would create dangerous vulnerabilities, chaos, and an inability to protect the nation from various threats.
The bill is extensive and complex, proposing a complete overhaul of federal security and social policy. It requires significant time for review and understanding, which may be challenging given typical legislative timelines for such a transformative proposal.
Title I, Sec. 101
Establishment of the Department of Community Safety (DCS)
This section establishes the Department of Community Safety as a new executive department. Its mission is to protect human, civil, and constitutional rights, invest in community safety and resilience, and respond to emergencies with equity and justice. The DCS is tasked with creating programs for localized disaster relief, preventative transit safety, community violence prevention, civilian asylum reception, and community-based immigrant assistance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing the DCS with a focus on community well-being and civil rights will create a more effective and just approach to safety, addressing root causes of insecurity rather than relying on enforcement and surveillance.
Critics contend
Critics would contend that this new department's mission is too broad and lacks the necessary focus on traditional national security threats, potentially leaving the nation vulnerable to external and internal dangers.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for a more humane and community-focused approach to safety against concerns about maintaining traditional national security functions and the practical challenges of creating an entirely new federal department.
Title I, Sec. 102-105
Transfer of DHS Agencies and Functions
These sections transfer the functions of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the new Department of Community Safety. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Coast Guard are transferred to the Department of Transportation. Customs functions of U.S. Customs and Border Protection are transferred to the Department of the Treasury, and immigration enforcement functions, including those of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, are transferred to the Department of Justice.
Title I, Sec. 106
Limitation on Removal Authority
This section significantly restricts the federal government's ability to remove noncitizens. It requires authorization from the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General to initiate removal or inadmissibility proceedings. Crucially, it mandates that no noncitizen can be removed from the United States unless a joint resolution approving such removal is enacted by Congress, outlining expedited legislative procedures for such resolutions.
Title II, Sec. 201
FEMA Reforms and Resilience Programs
This section mandates several reforms for FEMA, now under the Department of Community Safety. It converts regional community liaison roles into permanent civil service positions with residency requirements, ensuring institutional memory. It also provides grants for pre-stocked neighborhood emergency hubs, establishes a formal coordination protocol for rapid deployment of medical and public health professionals during disasters, and requires all FEMA communications and resources to be ADA compliant and available in primary languages of affected populations. Additionally, it makes predisaster mitigation funds available at FY2022 levels and expands eligible mitigation measures to include climate harm prevention and extreme heat adaptation.
Title III, Sec. 301
Abolishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
This section formally abolishes the Department of Homeland Security. It terminates specific DHS programs, including grants to law enforcement for surplus military gear and tactical training, and the Integrated Surveillance Tower program of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It also prohibits federal funds for border wall construction, fusion centers, and Countering Violent Extremism/Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant Programs. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is repealed.
Title III, Sec. 302
Abolition of Immigration Detention and Repeal of Detention Authority
This section mandates the release of all noncitizens detained by the Attorney General within six months of enactment, coordinating with the Department of Community Safety for services. It repeals numerous sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that authorize the inspection, apprehension, and detention of noncitizens, effectively eliminating federal authority for immigration detention. It also repeals laws that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws (e.g., 287(g) agreements) and mandates the termination of all immigration detention and monitoring contracts within two years.
Title III, Sec. 304(b)
Civil Liberties Protections and Surveillance Restrictions
This section enacts several significant civil liberties protections. It repeals the authority for federal agencies to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) and requires a warrant based on probable cause for any federal law enforcement or intelligence agency to purchase or obtain information on a U.S. person from a commercial entity. It also repeals the Department of Defense's authority to sell surplus military equipment to state and local governments (the 1033 program), prohibits federal grants for consolidating information to monitor First Amendment activity, and bans private outsourcing of domestic tracking and surveillance infrastructure. Additionally, it prohibits federal funds for databases or registries that profile individuals based on geographic origin, ancestry, or religious affiliation without a criminal conviction or warrant.
Title III, Sec. 304(c)(1)
Closure of Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and Prohibition on Military Detention
This section mandates the closure of the Department of Defense detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within 60 days of enactment. All individuals detained there must be released, with an absolute right to select their relocation destination (U.S., country of origin, or willing third-party nation), requiring express, knowing, and voluntary written consent. It also prohibits the Department of Defense from establishing or modifying any facility in the U.S. or its territories for the detention or imprisonment of non-military personnel.
Title III, Sec. 304(c)(2)
Terrorism and Economic Sanctions Reforms
This section repeals a terrorism-related inadmissibility ground in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA 212(a)(3)(B)). It sunsets the authority to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (INA 219) after one year. Most notably, it amends the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to require congressional approval via a joint resolution for the President to exercise emergency economic powers, allowing only a temporary 30-day interim authority without such approval. It also formally recognizes the absolute applicability of the Geneva Conventions and International Human Rights Law to all individuals in U.S. custody.
Title IV, Sec. 402
Investing in Community Safety and Social Programs
This section rescinds unobligated balances from DHS immigration enforcement funds and authorizes their appropriation for a wide range of social programs. These include universal healthcare (Medicare for All, free mental health), Housing for All, universal childcare, access to healthy food, free public education (Pre-K to graduate school, student loan forgiveness), Climate Justice (green jobs, emergency preparedness), Safe and Dignified Migration (universal legal counsel), and Economic Opportunity programs (Universal Basic Income, living wage, paid parental leave, unionized jobs, AI worker displacement programs). It also establishes a National Social Service Corps, an Inclusive Democracy Grant Program, and a Community Recovery and Support Fund for victims of DHS enforcement actions.
Establishes detailed expedited legislative procedures for Congress to consider and vote on a joint resolution approving the removal of a noncitizen. These procedures include automatic committee discharge, limited debate, and prohibitions on amendments or motions to postpone.
Sec. 106(c)
Why it matters:This level of procedural detail is standard legislative drafting for expedited processes, but its complexity can obscure the significant shift in power it represents, making it harder for the public to grasp the practical implications of requiring congressional approval for every removal.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these procedures ensure that Congress can effectively exercise its oversight role and provide a timely, albeit thorough, review of executive removal decisions, preventing indefinite delays while ensuring due process.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with expedited procedures, requiring a joint resolution for every removal would create an unmanageable legislative burden, leading to significant backlogs and effectively paralyzing the removal process.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches regarding immigration enforcement, potentially making individual removals extremely rare and politically charged.
Prohibits any Federal agency or department from contracting with, or procuring services or technology from, any private contractor, vendor, or data broker for the purpose of conducting domestic tracking or real-time geolocation monitoring of individuals, bulk data collection/profiling of personally identifiable information, or deploying public safety surveillance infrastructure. It includes detailed definitions of 'biometric identifiers,' 'domestic tracking,' and 'public safety surveillance infrastructure.'
Sec. 304(b)(6)
Why it matters:The detailed definitions are necessary for legal precision, but their placement and technical language can make the full scope of the prohibition less immediately apparent to a casual reader, potentially masking its significant impact on government surveillance capabilities.
Case for: Proponents argue this closes a critical loophole that allows federal agencies to bypass constitutional protections by purchasing data and surveillance capabilities from private entities without warrants, thereby protecting privacy and civil liberties.
Case against: Critics would argue that this prohibition could severely limit federal agencies' ability to gather intelligence and track threats, especially in areas where private data sources are crucial for identifying malicious actors or preventing attacks.
Estimated impact: Significantly curtails federal government's ability to conduct domestic surveillance and data collection through private third parties, impacting intelligence, law enforcement, and national security operations.
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to strike the definition of 'alien' and insert a new definition for 'noncitizen,' stating that any reference to 'alien' in federal law, regulation, or executive instrument shall be deemed a reference to 'noncitizen.'
Sec. 401
Why it matters:Definitional changes are standard legislative practice, but this particular change carries a strong political and social message that might be less prominent when embedded in a technical amendment.
Case for: Proponents argue that the term 'alien' is dehumanizing and contributes to negative perceptions of immigrants, while 'noncitizen' is a more accurate and respectful term that reflects their status as human beings within society.
Case against: Opponents might argue that changing the terminology is a superficial gesture that does not address underlying immigration issues, or that it is an unnecessary alteration of established legal language.
Estimated impact: A symbolic and practical shift in federal language regarding immigrants, potentially influencing public discourse and policy approaches.
States that any detainee released from Guantanamo Bay 'has the absolute right to select their destination of relocation' and that the Federal Government 'shall facilitate transfer only to the destination explicitly chosen by the individual,' which may include resettlement within the United States.
Sec. 304(c)(1)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:While critical to the detainee's rights, the specific wording granting an 'absolute right' to choose relocation, including within the U.S., is a strong policy statement that might be less visible amidst the technicalities of facility closure.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures humane treatment and self-determination for individuals who have been detained for extended periods, often without charge, and aligns with principles of justice and rehabilitation.
Case against: Critics would argue that granting detainees the 'absolute right' to choose relocation, especially to the United States, poses unacceptable national security risks and undermines the government's ability to manage the disposition of individuals previously deemed dangerous.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the process for detainee release and resettlement, potentially leading to some former Guantanamo detainees residing in the United States.