GRACE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 18, 2025
Bottom line
The GRACE Act aims to codify a floor for annual refugee admissions and increase transparency and accountability in the refugee resettlement process through comprehensive reporting requirements.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a minimum annual goal for refugee admissions of not fewer than 125,000, which defaults to this number if the President does not issue a determination. It also requires the President to consider global resettlement needs and allocate regional admissions accordingly, while mandating detailed quarterly public reports on admissions and internal reports on processing metrics, including enhanced security checks and circuit rides.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides a crucial humanitarian floor for refugee admissions, ensuring the U.S. maintains its commitment to protecting vulnerable populations regardless of changing political administrations. They contend that the detailed reporting requirements will enhance transparency, identify bottlenecks in the processing system, and hold agencies accountable for meeting admission goals, ultimately making the system more efficient and responsive to global crises.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that mandating a minimum admission number restricts presidential flexibility in responding to national security concerns or domestic economic conditions. They may contend that such a high floor could strain resources for resettlement agencies and local communities, and that the extensive reporting requirements could create an undue administrative burden on federal agencies, potentially diverting resources from actual processing efforts.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(1)(A), amending Section 207(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Establishes Minimum Annual Refugee Admission Goal
This provision requires the President to set an annual goal for refugee admissions that is 'not fewer than 125,000' for humanitarian or national interest reasons. It also mandates a separate number for refugees admitted through community or private sponsorship. If the President fails to make this determination, the minimum goal automatically defaults to 125,000 refugees for that fiscal year.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision ensures a consistent and robust U.S. commitment to humanitarian aid and international refugee protection, preventing drastic reductions in admissions that can occur with changes in administration. It provides predictability for resettlement agencies and refugees.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision ties the hands of future administrations, limiting their ability to adjust immigration policy based on evolving national security threats, economic conditions, or domestic capacity to absorb new populations. They may also contend it could strain resources.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between ensuring a consistent humanitarian commitment and maintaining executive flexibility to respond to unforeseen circumstances or shifting national priorities.
Section 2(1)(D), inserting new paragraphs (5) and (6) into Section 207(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Mandates Consideration of UNHCR Needs and Regional Allocations
This provision requires the President, when determining annual refugee admission numbers, to consider the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR) projected global resettlement needs report. It also mandates that the President determine regional allocations for admissions, which must reflect UNHCR's projected needs or include an assessment by the Secretary of State justifying regional priorities. An unallocated reserve is also required for emerging needs.
Section 2(2), adding new subsection (g) to Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Mandates Quarterly Public Reports on Refugee Admissions
This provision requires the President to submit and publicly publish (on a website) quarterly reports on refugee admissions. These reports must include the number of refugees admitted during the preceding quarter, their percentage of the authorized goal, the cumulative number for the fiscal year, the number needed to meet goals, and regional admission percentages. These reports are due 15 days after the end of each quarter.
Section 2(2), adding new subsection (h) to Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Mandates Quarterly Reports on Refugee Processing Metrics
This provision requires the President to submit quarterly reports to Congress detailing various aspects of refugee processing. This includes data on aliens undergoing enhanced security checks (clearance rates, admissions), information on 'circuit rides' (deployments of Refugee Corps officers for interviews), average processing times (from identification to interview, and interview to admission), and approval/denial/hold rates by nationality. If quarterly admissions fall below 25% of the annual goal, a plan for procedural changes and monthly projections is required.
Defines 'enhanced security check' broadly to include any evaluation process for national security concerns, such as terrorism, espionage, or illegal transfer of goods. This includes USCIS internal processes, interagency checks, additional vetting for applicants from state sponsors of terrorism or countries with entry suspensions, and screening applicant data against publicly available social media.
Section 2(2), adding new subsection (h)(5) to Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms used within a specific subsection to ensure clarity and consistent application of the reporting requirements. It's not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a clear and comprehensive definition of enhanced security checks is essential for transparency in reporting and ensures that all relevant security measures are accounted for when assessing processing times and outcomes. It clarifies what is being reported.
Case against: Opponents might argue that explicitly detailing security check mechanisms, especially social media screening, could raise privacy concerns or provide information that could be exploited by those seeking to circumvent security measures. Some might also argue that the broad definition could be used to justify excessive delays.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of security vetting for all refugee applicants, potentially affecting processing times and the perception of security rigor.
States that nothing in this section may be construed to inhibit the expeditious processing of refugee and asylum applications or to restrict the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to admit aliens under any other Act.
Section 2(2), adding new subsection (i) to Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the intent and limits of a bill, preventing unintended interpretations or conflicts with existing law. It's not evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provision is crucial to ensure the bill's primary goal of setting admission floors and increasing transparency does not inadvertently create new obstacles to efficient processing or limit existing executive authority for other immigration pathways.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a 'rule of construction' could be seen as an attempt to mitigate concerns about potential processing delays caused by the new reporting requirements, without actually addressing the underlying administrative burden. Some might also see it as a loophole for the Secretary of Homeland Security to bypass the bill's intent.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the legal interpretation of the bill's impact on existing processing and admission authorities.