The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 8223·119th Congress·Introduced Apr 9, 2026

RECOUP Act of 2026

IntroducedImmigrationMajor
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47]
Committees
Homeland Security Committee (primary)
Last action
Apr 10, 2026

Bottom line

This bill mandates federal reimbursement to state and local first responders for their involvement in federal immigration enforcement activities, aiming to shift associated costs from local budgets to the Department of Homeland Security.

What it actually does

This bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to reimburse state and local first responder agencies for costs incurred when responding to requests for assistance from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) related to enforcing immigration laws. It establishes a process for either federal officers to proactively collect information for reimbursement or for local agencies to submit requests, and specifies that funding will come from existing, unobligated ICE/CBP appropriations.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that state and local first responder agencies should not bear the financial burden of assisting federal immigration enforcement operations, as these are federal responsibilities. They contend that local resources are often stretched thin, and reimbursement ensures these agencies are not penalized for cooperating with federal mandates or requests, thereby promoting better inter-agency cooperation and fiscal fairness.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that this bill could incentivize increased state and local involvement in immigration enforcement, potentially blurring lines between local policing and federal immigration duties, which could erode trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. They may also raise concerns about the administrative burden of tracking and processing reimbursements, or that it diverts funds from other critical ICE/CBP operations.

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick read and understanding.

Section 2(a)

Mandate for DHS Reimbursement

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to pay back state and local first responder agencies for any costs they incur when responding to requests for assistance from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) related to enforcing immigration laws. This makes federal reimbursement mandatory, not discretionary.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupState and local first responder agencies (police, fire, EMS)ImpactFinancial relief/cost recoveryMechanismDirect reimbursement from DHS for costs incurred during immigration enforcement assistance.ScalePotentially significant, depending on the frequency and scale of assistance provided.
GroupFederal agencies (ICE, CBP, DHS)ImpactIncreased administrative and financial burdenMechanismRequired to process reimbursements and fund them from existing appropriations.ScaleModerate administrative burden, financial impact depends on total reimbursement claims.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this provision ensures that local agencies are not financially burdened for fulfilling federal responsibilities, promoting fiscal equity and encouraging cooperation without straining local budgets.

Critics contend

Critics might contend that this provision could encourage greater local involvement in federal immigration enforcement, potentially leading to increased interactions between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, which some argue can undermine community trust and public safety.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the desire to support local first responders financially with potential concerns about the role of local agencies in federal immigration enforcement and the administrative costs to federal agencies.

Section 2(b)

Reimbursement Request and Payment Process

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This section outlines two paths for reimbursement. First, if federal officers collect first responder information at the scene, DHS must proactively request cost details from the agency and reimburse them within 30 days of receiving the information. Second, if federal officers do not collect this information, state or local agencies can submit a request for reimbursement, including details like date, location, duration, and pay rates, and DHS must reimburse them within 30 days unless no response was provided.

Section 2(d)

Authorization of Appropriations and Funding Source

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This section specifies that the Secretary of Homeland Security must use existing, unobligated funds already appropriated to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under Public Law 119-21 (the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act") to cover the reimbursement costs. These funds will remain available until January 20, 2029.

FOUND

Prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from releasing the personally identifiable information (PII) of any first responder collected under this section, except in accordance with a court order.

Section 2(c)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for privacy protections, often placed in a separate subsection. It's not necessarily evasive.

Case for: Supporters would argue this protects the privacy and security of individual first responders whose information is collected for administrative purposes, preventing misuse or unauthorized disclosure.

Case against: No direct opposition is typically raised against privacy protections, though some might argue for broader transparency in government data collection, balanced against individual privacy.

Estimated impact: Protects the PII of potentially thousands of state and local first responders involved in immigration enforcement activities.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
  • Implementation
  • Political analysis
Ask Ledger AI about this