Securing our Border Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Tim [R-NC-14]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 28, 2025
Bottom line
The bill redirects significant IRS enforcement funding towards border security initiatives, including technology, physical barriers, and personnel incentives, while also tightening asylum processing for individuals arriving from contiguous territories.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Securing our Border Act," proposes to reprogram all remaining unobligated funds from the Internal Revenue Service's enforcement account, originally allocated under the Inflation Reduction Act. One-third of these funds would be transferred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for nonintrusive inspection systems at land ports of entry, aiming for 100% scanning by 2034. The remaining two-thirds would go to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for border wall construction along the southwest border, also by 2034. Additionally, the bill authorizes recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses for CBP agents and amends immigration law to mandate the return or detention of aliens arriving from contiguous territory, rather than allowing discretionary action.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses a critical national security and humanitarian crisis at the southern border by reallocating funds from what they view as an overfunded IRS enforcement agency to essential border protection measures. They contend that increased scanning technology, border wall construction, and incentivized CBP staffing are vital to stemming the flow of illicit drugs like fentanyl, reducing migrant deaths, and enhancing national security by deterring potential terrorists. The mandatory return or detention of aliens is presented as a necessary step to restore order and control over border crossings.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that defunding the IRS enforcement account would weaken tax collection efforts, potentially increasing the national deficit and allowing wealthy tax evaders to avoid accountability. They might also contend that border wall construction is an ineffective and environmentally damaging solution, and that mandatory returns or detentions of asylum seekers could violate international humanitarian laws and endanger vulnerable individuals. Critics may also argue that the bill's provisions do not address the root causes of migration and could exacerbate humanitarian issues at the border.
The bill is concise and its provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core impacts within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3
Funding for Nonintrusive Border Inspections
This section mandates that one-third of all remaining unobligated funds from a specific IRS enforcement account (established by the Inflation Reduction Act) be transferred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). These funds are earmarked for purchasing and deploying nonintrusive inspection systems, with the goal of achieving a 100% scanning rate for vehicles at all northern and southwest border land ports of entry by February 6, 2034.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for national security, directly addressing the influx of illicit narcotics like fentanyl and preventing potential terrorist threats by enhancing detection capabilities at the border. They contend that a 100% scanning rate is a necessary and achievable goal to secure the nation.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that redirecting funds from IRS enforcement could hinder efforts to collect taxes and combat financial crime, potentially leading to a net loss in federal revenue. They might also question the cost-effectiveness and long-term efficacy of a 100% scanning mandate, suggesting other border security measures might be more impactful.
Tradeoffs
The provision trades off IRS enforcement capacity for enhanced border inspection technology. It balances the desire for increased border security against potential impacts on tax compliance and federal revenue generation.
Section 4
Funding for Border Wall Construction
This section directs two-thirds of the remaining unobligated funds from the same IRS enforcement account (Public Law 117-169, Section 10301(1)(A)(ii)) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). These funds are specifically designated for activities related to the construction of a border wall system along the southwest international border of the United States, with a completion target of February 6, 2034. DHS is also required to submit quarterly reports to relevant congressional committees detailing implementation plans, benchmarks for stemming illegal immigration, and cost estimates for the wall construction.
Section 5
Authorization to Provide Bonuses to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agents
This section authorizes the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with DHS Secretary approval, to offer various bonuses to CBP agents. These include recruitment bonuses up to $15,000 for new hires after basic training and a written agreement, annual retention bonuses up to 15% of basic pay for satisfactory service, and relocation bonuses up to 15% of annual basic pay for agents agreeing to transfer for at least three years. The section clarifies that these bonuses are not considered part of an agent's basic pay for retirement or leave computation purposes.
Section 6
Mandatory Treatment of Aliens Arriving from Contiguous Territory
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to change the discretionary authority of border officials regarding aliens arriving from contiguous territory (e.g., Mexico or Canada). Previously, officials "may return" such aliens. The amendment changes this to "shall" either return the alien to the contiguous territory or a safe third country, or detain the alien for further asylum consideration, which must include a credible fear determination. This makes the return or detention mandatory rather than optional.
The bill redirects unobligated funds from "section 10301(1)(A)(ii) of Public Law 117-169."
Sections 3 and 4
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to refer to existing law by citation. It is not necessarily evasive, but it does require external research for full comprehension.
Case for: Supporters would argue that using statutory citations is precise and standard, avoiding redundancy in bill text.
Case against: Critics might argue that for a bill with significant political implications, explicitly stating the source of funds (e.g., "IRS enforcement account from the Inflation Reduction Act") would increase transparency for the public.
Estimated impact: The impact is the redirection of potentially billions of dollars from IRS enforcement to border security. The exact amount depends on the "unobligated balances" as of the enactment date.