TIMEOUT Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to compel federal agencies to withdraw their non-essential administrative presence from jurisdictions that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, thereby pressuring these localities and signaling a federal stance against 'sanctuary' policies.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that all 'covered Federal agencies' relocate their 'nonessential administrative Federal office space' from 'sanctuary jurisdictions' within 90 days of the bill's enactment. It also prohibits these agencies from establishing, acquiring, leasing, or occupying any new or renewed covered office space in such jurisdictions in the future. The Department of Homeland Security is explicitly excluded from the definition of a 'covered Federal agency'.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a necessary measure to enforce federal immigration law and ensure that taxpayer funds do not support or operate within jurisdictions that actively impede federal immigration enforcement efforts. They contend it will encourage greater cooperation from local governments and uphold the rule of law by withdrawing federal resources from non-compliant areas.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill is a punitive and unworkable proposal that would cause immense logistical and financial disruption to federal agencies, potentially harming federal employees and the communities they serve. They argue it infringes on local autonomy, could lead to significant unbudgeted costs, and targets jurisdictions whose policies are often designed to foster trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities.
The bill is very short and its core provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for a quick and informed read.
Section 2(a)
Identification of Federal Office Space in Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Within 30 days of the bill's enactment, the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and other relevant agencies, must identify all 'covered office space' located within 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' Following identification, GSA must notify the heads of the relevant agencies and provide information regarding the relocation process.
Supporters argue
This provision is crucial for initiating the bill's objectives, ensuring a comprehensive and timely inventory of federal assets in jurisdictions deemed non-compliant with federal immigration policy, which is a necessary first step for relocation.
Critics contend
The 30-day timeline for identifying all 'covered office space' across numerous federal agencies and diverse jurisdictions is extremely aggressive and likely impractical, potentially leading to incomplete data or rushed assessments that could complicate subsequent relocation efforts.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for rapid implementation of the policy with the practical challenges of conducting a thorough and accurate inventory of federal real estate holdings across a vast bureaucracy within a very short timeframe.
Section 2(b)
Mandatory Relocation of Federal Office Space from Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Any 'covered Federal agency' with identified 'covered office space' in a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' is required to relocate that office space to a location outside of a sanctuary jurisdiction. Agencies must submit their relocation plans to GSA and OMB within 60 days of receiving notification, and all identified covered office space must be fully relocated within 90 days of the Act's enactment.
Section 2(c)
Prohibition on Future Federal Office Space in Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Covered Federal agencies are explicitly prohibited from establishing, acquiring, leasing, renewing, extending, or otherwise occupying 'covered office space' in any 'sanctuary jurisdiction.' Furthermore, federal funds cannot be used for any new or renewed covered office space within such jurisdictions.
Section 2(d)
Annual Report to Congress on Relocation Status and Costs
Within one year of the Act's enactment, the GSA Administrator is required to submit a comprehensive report to Congress. This report must detail each unit of 'covered office space' identified, its current relocation status, any lease renewals, exceptions granted, and estimated costs or savings resulting from the mandated relocations.
Section 2(e)
Definitions of Key Terms
This section defines critical terms for the bill's application. 'Covered Federal agency' refers to an executive agency, specifically excluding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. 'Covered office space' means nonessential administrative Federal office space. A 'sanctuary jurisdiction' is broadly defined as any state or political subdivision with a policy or practice that restricts sharing immigration status information or complying with DHS detainer requests under specific sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The definition of 'covered Federal agency' explicitly excludes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and any of its components, directorates, or other offices. This means DHS offices, regardless of their administrative nature, are exempt from the relocation mandate and the prohibition on occupying space in sanctuary jurisdictions.
Section 2(e)(1)(B)
Why it matters:While standard for defining scope, this exclusion represents a significant political carve-out. It ensures that the primary federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement is not itself disrupted by a bill aimed at punishing jurisdictions for non-cooperation on immigration, which could be seen as a pragmatic or politically expedient decision.
Case for: Proponents would argue that DHS's mission is critical to national security and immigration enforcement, and disrupting its operations, even administrative ones, would be counterproductive to the bill's broader goals. This carve-out ensures essential functions remain unimpeded.
Case against: Critics might argue that if the principle is to remove federal presence from sanctuary jurisdictions, DHS should not be exempt, especially for 'nonessential administrative' functions. This carve-out suggests a political compromise or an acknowledgment of the impracticality of applying the rule universally, undermining the bill's stated intent.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces the number of federal offices potentially subject to relocation, particularly in areas where DHS has a substantial administrative presence, thereby limiting the bill's overall operational scope and cost.
The bill broadly defines a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' as any state or political subdivision with a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts government entities from sharing immigration status information or complying with DHS detainer requests under specific sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This expansive definition could classify many jurisdictions as 'sanctuary' even if their policies are not explicitly labeled as such.
Section 2(e)(3)
Why it matters:While standard practice for definitions, its breadth is key to the bill's reach. It is designed to cast a wide net, capturing various forms of non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, which could be seen as a strategic choice to maximize impact or as an overreach.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad definition is necessary to effectively address the range of policies and practices that impede federal immigration enforcement, ensuring no jurisdiction can evade the bill's intent through semantic loopholes or indirect measures.
Case against: Opponents would contend that this definition is overly expansive, potentially encompassing jurisdictions with policies designed to build trust with immigrant communities for public safety reasons, rather than actively obstructing federal law. It could lead to unintended consequences for local law enforcement and community relations.
Estimated impact: Determines the number of cities, counties, and potentially states from which federal offices must relocate, likely encompassing a significant portion of major urban centers and thus greatly expanding the bill's operational and fiscal impact.