Protect World Cup Attendees Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 18, 2026
Bottom line
The bill temporarily restricts the use of certain federal homeland security funds by state and local entities for civil immigration enforcement during the 2026 World Cup, with exceptions for urgent public safety and national security situations.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits entities receiving specific Federal funds under certain sections of Public Law 119-21 from participating in 287(g) programs or carrying out any civil immigration enforcement activities. This prohibition is temporary, applying only during the period of the 2026 FIFA World Cup (June 11 to July 19, 2026), and includes exceptions for exigent circumstances such as imminent risk to life, national security, or public safety.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this measure will help ensure a welcoming and safe environment for all attendees of the 2026 World Cup, including international visitors and immigrant communities, by reducing fear of civil immigration enforcement. They contend it allows local law enforcement to focus on genuine public safety threats rather than diverting resources to civil immigration matters, thereby fostering trust between communities and law enforcement.
Opponents contend
Critics may argue that restricting immigration enforcement, even temporarily, could compromise public safety and national security by creating a perceived 'sanctuary' period that might attract individuals who pose risks. They might also contend that it undermines federal immigration laws and could lead to confusion or inconsistencies in law enforcement practices during a major international event.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick and informed evaluation.
Section 2(a) and 2(b)
Temporary Prohibition on Civil Immigration Enforcement for Certain Grant Recipients
This provision forbids state and local entities that receive Federal funds under specific sections of Public Law 119-21 (sections 90005(a)(1)(B) or 90005(a)(1)(C)) from engaging in civil immigration enforcement activities. This includes participation in 287(g) programs, which deputize local officers to act as immigration agents. The prohibition is active only during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, from June 11 to July 19, 2026, and explicitly allows for exceptions in 'exigent circumstances' such as imminent threats to life, national security, or public safety.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision is crucial for creating an inclusive and secure environment for the World Cup. They believe that by temporarily limiting civil immigration enforcement, it will encourage greater cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of immigration status, feel safe reporting crimes or seeking assistance without fear of deportation. This focus, they contend, enhances overall public safety during a major international event.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision could create a dangerous precedent and undermine the rule of law. They argue that restricting immigration enforcement, even temporarily, might be perceived as an invitation for individuals who pose risks to public safety or national security to enter or remain in the country. They also raise concerns about federal overreach into the operational decisions of state and local law enforcement agencies, potentially hindering their ability to maintain order.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between ensuring a welcoming atmosphere for international visitors and immigrant communities during a major event, and maintaining consistent enforcement of federal immigration laws. It also balances the desire for local law enforcement autonomy with federal directives tied to funding, particularly concerning the scope of their duties during a high-profile period.
The limitation on civil immigration enforcement only applies to entities receiving Federal funds under 'section 90005(a)(1)(B) or section 90005(a)(1)(C) of an Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14 (Public Law 119-21)'.
Section 2(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for referencing existing law and targeting specific funding streams rather than creating a broad, universal prohibition. It makes the bill's application precise.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this specificity ensures the bill targets relevant funding streams without broadly impacting all federal grants, making the measure more tailored and potentially less disruptive to other law enforcement operations. It allows for a focused approach on funds deemed most pertinent to the bill's intent.
Case against: Critics might argue that this specific reference makes the bill's actual impact narrower than its title or general discussion might suggest. They could contend that by limiting the prohibition to only these specific funds, other federal monies could still be used for civil immigration enforcement, thereby creating a loophole or reducing the overall effectiveness of the bill's stated purpose.
Estimated impact: This clause significantly limits the scope of the bill's application to a subset of State Homeland Security Grant program recipients, rather than all recipients or all federal funds.