Secure the Border Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 7, 2026
Bottom line
The Secure the Border Act of 2026 seeks to drastically reduce illegal immigration and enhance border security through extensive physical barriers, increased enforcement personnel, and a complete overhaul of asylum and employment verification processes.
What it actually does
This bill enacts a comprehensive set of measures aimed at securing the U.S. borders and tightening immigration enforcement. It mandates the immediate resumption and completion of border wall construction, significantly increases U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel and technology, and imposes stricter eligibility requirements for asylum. The bill also reforms immigration parole, expands penalties for visa overstays, and establishes a mandatory E-Verify system for all employers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to restore operational control of the U.S. borders, deter illegal crossings, and combat drug and human trafficking. They contend it will end perceived abuses of the asylum system, protect national security, and ensure that only legal workers are employed, thereby safeguarding American jobs and wages. Supporters also emphasize the need to protect vulnerable unaccompanied alien children from exploitation by cartels.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill is inhumane, restricts access to asylum in violation of international and domestic law, and could lead to increased family separations and humanitarian crises at the border. They argue that the E-Verify mandate could harm the economy, particularly the agricultural sector, and that the extensive border wall construction is costly and environmentally damaging. Critics also raise concerns about the broad waiver authority and the potential for increased racial profiling.
The bill is exceptionally long and complex, requiring substantial time and legal expertise to fully comprehend its numerous provisions and their implications, far exceeding the time typically given for public review of such comprehensive legislation.
Sec. 102, Division A
Border Wall Construction
This section mandates the immediate resumption of border wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border, using all unexpired funds and materials appropriated since October 1, 2019. It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an annual plan to complete 200 miles of wall construction per year until the project is finished, including associated tactical infrastructure and technology.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a physical barrier is a proven, effective deterrent to illegal crossings and drug smuggling, providing a critical component for achieving operational control of the border.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that a border wall is an ineffective, expensive, and environmentally destructive solution that does not address the root causes of migration and can be circumvented.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the perceived security benefits of a physical barrier against the high financial cost, environmental impact, and potential disruption to border communities.
Sec. 103, Division A
Strengthening Requirements for Barriers and Technology
This section amends existing law to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to construct a border wall, including physical barriers, tactical infrastructure, and technology, along not fewer than 900 miles of the southwest border. It grants the Secretary broad authority to waive all legal requirements necessary for expeditious construction and deployment, with such waivers effective upon Federal Register publication and a 7-day notification to Congress.
Sec. 107, Division A
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Personnel
This section mandates increasing the number of active duty Border Patrol agents to not fewer than 22,000 full-time equivalents by September 30, 2025, explicitly prohibiting them from performing processing coordinator duties. It also authorizes up to $100 million for retention bonuses for front-line agents (GS-12 or below with 5+ years of service) who commit to two additional years. Furthermore, it prohibits Air and Marine Operations personnel or equipment from transporting non-detained or administratively released aliens.
Sec. 115, Division A
Restrictions on Funding for NGOs
This section prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from disbursing funds to any non-governmental organization (NGO) that facilitates or encourages unlawful activity (including unlawful entry, human trafficking, human smuggling, drug trafficking, and drug smuggling). It also specifically prohibits funds for NGOs to provide or facilitate transportation, lodging, or immigration legal services to inadmissible aliens who enter the U.S. after the bill's enactment date.
Sec. 120, Division A
Prohibited Identification Documents at Airport Security Checkpoints
This section prohibits the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from accepting certain DHS-issued documents (like I-200, I-205, I-220A, I-220B, I-862, I-94, I-385, or work authorization documents) as valid proof of identification at airport security checkpoints. If such a document is presented, TSA must notify immigration agencies and local law enforcement. Individuals found in violation of release terms cannot enter sterile areas unless for removal/deportation or if they present a 'covered identification document.' TSA is also mandated to collect biometric information from non-U.S. nationals seeking entry to sterile areas without covered ID and submit it to IDENT.
Sec. 101, Title I, Division B
Safe Third Country Rule Expansion
This section significantly expands the 'safe third country' rule, making aliens ineligible for asylum if they transited through at least one country outside their own before arriving in the U.S. This applies unless they can prove they sought and were denied protection in a transit country, were a victim of severe trafficking, or transited only through countries not party to major refugee conventions. The Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General can make this determination.
Sec. 104, Title I, Division B
Expanded Asylum Ineligibility Exceptions
This section significantly expands the categories of individuals ineligible for asylum. It includes those convicted of any felony, various misdemeanors (e.g., identity document misuse, unlawful public benefit receipt, certain drug offenses), specific immigration offenses, crimes supporting criminal street gangs, certain driving while intoxicated offenses, and crimes involving stalking, child abuse, or domestic violence. It also clarifies that prior firm resettlement or ability to relocate within one's country makes an alien ineligible.
Sec. 105, Title I, Division B
Asylum Seeker Employment Authorization Restrictions
This section significantly restricts employment authorization for asylum applicants. Authorization is not an entitlement and cannot be granted for 180 days after filing. It terminates immediately upon asylum officer denial (unless referred to an IJ), 30 days after an IJ denial (unless appealed), or immediately after BIA denial. Re-authorization is only possible if a federal court remands the case. Aliens ineligible for asylum or who entered unlawfully are barred from employment authorization.
Sec. 107, Title I, Division B
Stricter Rules for Determining Asylum Eligibility
This section adds new rules for determining asylum eligibility, particularly for 'particular social group,' 'political opinion,' and 'persecution.' It defines 'particular social group' as having common immutable characteristics, being defined with particularity, and socially distinct, explicitly excluding criminal activity, generalized violence, recruitment by groups, wealth-based targeting, interpersonal disputes, and returning alien status. 'Political opinion' is limited to discrete causes related to state control. 'Persecution' is defined as severe harm constituting an exigent threat, excluding unenforced laws, rogue officials, generalized violence, intermittent harassment, and non-severe economic harm. It also establishes adverse discretionary factors for asylum grants.
Sec. 201, Title II, Division B
Mandatory Return to Contiguous Country and Parole Restrictions
This section mandates that if the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot detain an alien as required or remove them to a safe third country, the Secretary 'shall, without exception,' return any alien arriving on land from a contiguous territory to that territory, pending their immigration proceedings. It also explicitly states that certain inadmissible aliens are not eligible for parole, except as expressly authorized for specific, limited purposes.
Sec. 202, Title II, Division B
Operational Detention Facilities
This section mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security to reopen or restore all U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities that were operational on January 20, 2021, but subsequently closed or had their use altered. It specifically lists facilities like Irwin County Detention Center and the South Texas Family Residential Center. The Secretary must submit periodic reports on compliance and notify Congress when facilities reach 90%, 95%, and full capacity.
Sec. 401, Title IV, Division B
Clarification of Standards for Family Detention
This section clarifies that the detention of alien children who are not unaccompanied (i.e., with a parent or legal guardian) is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, explicitly stating there is no presumption against their detention. It mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security to maintain care and custody of an alien and their child if the alien is charged with a misdemeanor under INA section 275(a). It also preempts any state licensing requirements for immigration detention facilities housing children or families.
Sec. 502, Title V, Division B
Repatriation of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs)
This section amends the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to ensure the swift return of all unaccompanied alien children (UACs) to their country of origin if they do not meet specific criteria (i.e., are not victims of trafficking and do not have a credible fear of return). It removes the distinction between contiguous and non-contiguous countries for repatriation. It also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to provide information about UAC sponsors to DHS, which must then initiate removal proceedings against unlawfully present sponsors not already in proceedings.
Sec. 601, Title VI, Division B
Expanded Penalties for Visa Overstays
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish new criminal and civil penalties for visa overstays. An alien who overstays their nonimmigrant status for an aggregate of 10 days or more is in violation. First-time violators face fines or imprisonment up to 6 months, or both; subsequent violations or prior illegal entry convictions lead to fines or imprisonment up to 2 years, or both. Additionally, civil penalties range from $500 to $1,000 per violation, doubling for repeat offenders.
Sec. 701, Title VII, Division B
Immigration Parole Reform
This section significantly restricts the Secretary of Homeland Security's parole authority. Parole can only be granted on a strict 'case-by-case basis' (not for entire classes of recipients) for 'urgent humanitarian reasons' or 'significant public benefit,' with specific, narrow definitions for these terms. Urgent humanitarian reasons are limited to medical emergencies, organ donation, imminent death of a family member, funeral attendance, or urgent medical conditions for adopted children. Significant public benefit is limited to assisting government law enforcement matters. Parole duration is capped, and employment authorization is restricted.
Sec. 801, Title VIII, Division B
Mandatory Employment Eligibility Verification Process (E-Verify)
This section mandates a phased implementation of the E-Verify system for all employers in the United States. Employers must use the system to verify the identity and employment eligibility of new hires, and for reverification of individuals with limited work authorization. The implementation schedule is staggered based on employer size, with the largest employers starting in 6 months and the smallest in 24 months. Agricultural employers receive a 36-month delay. The system requires employers to attest under penalty of perjury, examine documents, and make inquiries to the verification system.
Sec. 805, Title VIII, Division B
Preemption and States Rights for Employment Verification
This section establishes that federal E-Verify provisions preempt any state or local laws related to hiring, continued employment, or status verification for employment eligibility. However, it allows states to enforce federal E-Verify provisions at their own cost, provided they follow federal regulations and penalty structures. States may also use business licensing laws as a penalty for non-compliance. It clarifies that an employer cannot be subject to enforcement by both a federal agency and a state for the same violation.
The Secretary of Homeland Security is granted authority to waive all legal requirements necessary for the expeditious design, testing, construction, installation, deployment, integration, operation, and maintenance of physical barriers, tactical infrastructure, and technology under this section. Such waivers are effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Sec. 103(c)(1), Division A
Why it matters:This is a highly consequential provision that significantly streamlines border wall construction by bypassing environmental reviews, land acquisition processes, and other regulatory hurdles. Its placement may be intended to reduce immediate public scrutiny of this expansive executive power.
Case for: Proponents argue that this waiver authority is essential to overcome bureaucratic delays and legal challenges that have historically stalled critical border security projects, ensuring rapid deployment of necessary infrastructure to address urgent security needs.
Case against: Critics contend that such broad waiver authority undermines fundamental environmental protections, tribal rights, and due process, leading to irreversible damage to natural resources and communities without adequate oversight or accountability.
Estimated impact: Potentially billions of dollars in construction costs and significant environmental and social impacts along the border, with reduced avenues for legal challenge.
The Commissioner shall hire, train, and assign a sufficient number of Border Patrol agents to maintain an active duty presence of not fewer than 22,000 full-time equivalent Border Patrol agents, who may not perform the duties of processing coordinators.
Sec. 107(b), Division A
Why it matters:This detail is crucial for understanding the intended operational shift for Border Patrol. It aims to ensure agents are focused on enforcement rather than administrative tasks, which has been a point of contention. Its specific inclusion addresses a perceived policy failure without drawing undue attention to the operational constraints it imposes.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures Border Patrol agents are dedicated to their primary mission of securing the border, rather than being diverted to administrative duties that can be performed by other personnel, thereby maximizing enforcement effectiveness.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this restriction could exacerbate processing backlogs if alternative personnel are not adequately provided, potentially leading to longer detention times or other operational inefficiencies.
Estimated impact: A shift in the functional responsibilities of Border Patrol agents, potentially impacting processing efficiency and enforcement focus.
The requirement to issue a waiver for polygraph examinations for certain CBP hires (current law enforcement, federal law enforcement, military/veterans) shall terminate if CBP meets its personnel levels, but if personnel levels fall below requirements, the waiver application 'shall waive' again until levels are met. This is referred to as a 'snap-back' provision.
Sec. 108(b), new Sec. 3(c) of Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010
Why it matters:The provision aims to balance the desire for expedited hiring (by waiving polygraphs) with the long-term goal of maintaining high standards once staffing targets are met. The 'snap-back' ensures flexibility in hiring during crises while retaining the polygraph requirement as a default. Its technical nature might obscure the policy's dynamic impact.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides necessary flexibility to quickly staff critical border security positions during personnel shortages, while ensuring that polygraph requirements for integrity are reinstated once staffing goals are achieved.
Case against: Critics might argue that waiving polygraphs, even temporarily, compromises the integrity of CBP hiring, and that the 'snap-back' mechanism could lead to inconsistent application of hiring standards.
Estimated impact: Potential for faster hiring of up to 22,000 Border Patrol agents, with a conditional waiver of polygraph requirements.
The Department of Homeland Security may use the CBP One Mobile Application or any other similar program, application, internet-based portal, website, device, or initiative only for inspection of perishable cargo.
Sec. 122, Division A
Why it matters:The CBP One app has been a central tool for the current administration to manage migrant processing. This provision is a direct and significant policy reversal, effectively shutting down its use for migrant scheduling. Its concise phrasing and placement might be a tactical choice to avoid extensive debate on this specific, highly controversial policy change.
Case for: Proponents argue that the CBP One app has been misused to facilitate unlawful entry and that limiting its use to perishable cargo restores its intended purpose, thereby discouraging illegal immigration.
Case against: Opponents contend that restricting the app's use for migrant processing will eliminate an orderly pathway for asylum seekers, leading to increased chaos and dangerous crossings at the border.
Estimated impact: A complete cessation of the CBP One app's use for migrant processing, potentially shifting thousands of daily appointments and impacting border management strategies.
Grants the Secretary of Homeland Security discretionary authority to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of aliens inadmissible under certain sections (related to misrepresentation or lack of valid documents) at any international land or maritime border if necessary to achieve 'operational control' of that border.
Sec. 201(e), Title II, Division B
Why it matters:This provision grants the Secretary broad, almost emergency-like, powers to shut down parts of the border to certain inadmissible aliens. Its technical phrasing and placement might obscure the significant discretionary authority it confers, which could be controversial if more prominently featured.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides a critical tool for the Secretary to manage border flows and restore order when operational control is compromised, allowing for rapid responses to surges in irregular migration.
Case against: Critics contend that this grants excessive, unchecked power to the Secretary, potentially leading to arbitrary closures of the border and denial of access to protection for vulnerable individuals without due process.
Estimated impact: Potential for significant, discretionary restrictions on entry at land and maritime borders, impacting thousands of individuals and international relations.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, judicial determination, consent decree, or settlement agreement, no State may require that an immigration detention facility used to detain children under 18 or families be licensed by the State or any political subdivision thereof.
Sec. 401(d), Title IV, Division B
Why it matters:This provision directly preempts state authority over federal immigration detention facilities, particularly those housing children and families. Such preemption is often controversial, as states may seek to impose higher standards for care. Its placement and phrasing might be intended to avoid drawing immediate attention to this federal assertion of power over states.
Case for: Proponents argue that federal immigration detention facilities should operate under federal standards, free from potentially conflicting or burdensome state regulations, ensuring consistent national policy and efficient operations.
Case against: Opponents contend that state licensing provides a crucial layer of oversight and accountability for the welfare of children and families in detention, and that federal preemption removes these vital protections.
Estimated impact: Eliminates state oversight and licensing requirements for federal family detention facilities, potentially impacting standards of care and state-federal relations.
Amends the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, changing the language regarding unaccompanied alien children (UACs) who meet certain criteria (not victims of trafficking, no credible fear) from 'may return such child' to 'shall return such child' to their country of origin.
Sec. 502(a)(1)(B)(ii), Title V, Division B
Why it matters:This change fundamentally alters the treatment of UACs, making repatriation mandatory rather than discretionary for a large category of children. This is a significant policy shift that could be highly controversial. Its subtle nature in the bill text might be intended to avoid drawing immediate attention to the mandatory aspect of repatriation.
Case for: Proponents argue that making repatriation mandatory for UACs who do not qualify for protection removes an incentive for children to make dangerous journeys to the border, thereby protecting them from exploitation by cartels.
Case against: Opponents contend that removing discretion in these cases could lead to children being returned to unsafe conditions or situations where their best interests are not fully considered, potentially violating international child protection standards.
Estimated impact: A significant increase in the mandatory repatriation of unaccompanied alien children, potentially affecting thousands of individuals annually.
Redefines 'case-by-case basis' for parole to mean that 'the facts in each individual case are considered and parole is not granted based on membership in a defined class of aliens to be granted parole. The fact that aliens are considered for or granted parole one-by-one and not as a group is not sufficient to establish that the parole decision is made on a case-by-case basis.'
Sec. 701, new section 212(d)(5)(G) of INA
Why it matters:This redefinition directly targets and prohibits the use of 'categorical parole' programs, which have been a significant tool for recent administrations to manage migrant flows. By explicitly stating what 'case-by-case' is not, it closes a perceived loophole. Its technical nature might obscure its profound policy impact.
Case for: Proponents argue this clarifies the original intent of parole as an extraordinary, individualized measure, preventing its misuse for mass entry programs and restoring legislative control over immigration policy.
Case against: Opponents contend that this overly rigid definition removes necessary flexibility for the executive branch to manage large-scale migration events or humanitarian crises efficiently, potentially leading to increased chaos at the border.
Estimated impact: Eliminates the ability of DHS to implement categorical parole programs, impacting thousands of migrants and requiring individualized processing for all parole requests.
With respect to an employee performing agricultural labor or services, the mandatory E-Verify requirement shall not apply until 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, providing a significant delay compared to other employers.
Sec. 801(b)(1)(D)(iii), Title VIII, Division B
Why it matters:The agricultural sector has historically relied on a workforce that includes unauthorized immigrants, and a rapid E-Verify mandate could cause significant labor shortages. This delay is a political concession to a powerful industry, likely included to mitigate opposition from agricultural interests. Its technical placement within the implementation schedule might make it less conspicuous.
Case for: Proponents argue this delay provides the agricultural sector with necessary time to adjust to the E-Verify mandate, find alternative labor sources, and avoid immediate economic disruption to a critical industry.
Case against: Critics might argue that this delay creates an unfair exemption for one industry, prolonging the employment of unauthorized workers and undermining the overall goal of a fully legal workforce.
Estimated impact: Delays the full implementation of E-Verify for a significant portion of the agricultural workforce for three years, potentially preserving existing labor practices in the interim.