CLEAR Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 16, 2025
Bottom line
The CLEAR Act of 2025 mandates and incentivizes state and local law enforcement to actively participate in federal immigration enforcement, backed by significant federal funding and expanded detention capacity.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the CLEAR Act of 2025, significantly expands the role of state and local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement. It reaffirms their inherent authority to apprehend and detain aliens, penalizes 'sanctuary' jurisdictions by withholding federal funds, mandates increased information sharing with federal authorities, and authorizes substantial federal resources for new detention facilities, training, and reimbursements to cooperating states and localities. The bill also grants immunity to state and local officers and agencies for actions taken under its provisions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for national security and public safety, ensuring that individuals unlawfully present in the United States, especially criminal aliens, are identified, apprehended, and removed. They contend it closes loopholes that allow 'sanctuary' jurisdictions to impede federal law enforcement efforts and provides necessary resources and legal protections for state and local agencies willing to cooperate.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill would lead to increased racial profiling, erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, and divert local resources from fighting local crime. They argue it represents federal overreach into state and local autonomy, could result in civil liberties violations, and would expand a costly and potentially inhumane detention system.
The bill is relatively concise, but its broad implications for federalism, civil liberties, and public safety warrant a careful and thorough reading beyond a quick scan.
Section 3
Federal Affirmation of State and Local Inherent Authority in Immigration Enforcement
This section explicitly reaffirms the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States for the purpose of assisting in immigration law enforcement. It asserts that this state authority has never been displaced or preempted by Congress.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision clarifies existing law and empowers local authorities to protect their communities by assisting in the removal of individuals unlawfully present, thereby enhancing public safety.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision could lead to increased racial profiling and erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, making crime reporting less likely and potentially creating a climate of fear.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the federal government's interest in comprehensive immigration enforcement with concerns about the appropriate scope of local law enforcement duties and their relationship with diverse communities.
Section 4
Withholding Funds from Non-Cooperating States and Localities
Beginning one year after enactment, states or political subdivisions that have policies or practices prohibiting their law enforcement officers from assisting or cooperating with federal immigration enforcement will lose funds allocated under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). These withheld funds will be reallocated to states and localities that do comply.
Section 5
Expansion of National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Database for Immigration Violators
This section requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection to provide information on aliens with final removal orders, voluntary departure agreements, overstayed visas, or revoked visas to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). It also amends federal law to ensure these records are collected and preserved in NCIC regardless of whether the alien received notice, if sufficient identifying information is available, or if the alien has already been removed.
Section 6
Mandatory Information Sharing by State and Local Law Enforcement
This section mandates that each state and political subdivision submit specific information about apprehended aliens believed to be in violation of immigration laws to the Secretary of Homeland Security in a timely manner. Required information includes the alien's name, address, physical description, encounter details, identification documents, vehicle information, and, if available, photos and fingerprints. States and localities will be reimbursed for all reasonable costs incurred.
Section 7
Grants for Immigration Enforcement Equipment and Facilities
The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to award grants to states and political subdivisions for the procurement of equipment, technology, facilities, and other products that facilitate and are directly related to investigating, apprehending, arresting, detaining, or transporting aliens who have violated immigration laws. Eligibility for these grants requires the state or locality to have the authority and a written policy of assisting in federal immigration enforcement, and no policy preventing inquiry about a suspect's immigration status.
Section 8
Construction of 20 New Federal Detention Facilities
This section mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security construct or acquire 20 new detention facilities in the United States, in addition to existing facilities, specifically for aliens detained pending removal or a decision regarding removal. Each facility must have a sufficient number of beds to effectuate the purposes of this Act, and their locations will be determined by the Assistant Director of the Custody Management Division of the Enforcement and Removal Directorate.
Section 9
Mandatory Federal Custody and Reimbursement for State/Local Detention
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to define 'alien who is unlawfully present' and mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security take custody of such aliens from state or local authorities within 48 hours of the conclusion of the state's charging or dismissal process, or within 48 hours of apprehension if no such process is required. DHS must also reimburse states and political subdivisions for all reasonable expenses incurred during the incarceration and transportation of these aliens.
Section 10
Development and Availability of Immigration Enforcement Training
The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to develop a training manual and a pocket guide for state and local law enforcement personnel on immigration enforcement, including investigation, identification, apprehension, detention, transfer, and identification of fraudulent documents. This training must be made available through various means, including residential, onsite, online, and DVD formats, with an e-learning portal established through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's Distributed Learning Program.
Section 11
Immunity for State and Local Law Enforcement in Immigration Enforcement
This section grants state and local law enforcement officers personal immunity from liability, to the same extent as a Federal law enforcement officer, for actions taken within the scope of their official duties under this Act. It also grants state and local law enforcement agencies immunity from claims for money damages based on Federal, State, or local civil rights law for incidents arising out of federal immigration law enforcement, unless an officer committed a criminal violation.
Section 12
Expansion of Institutional Removal Program and Authority to Detain Criminal Aliens
This section mandates the continuation and expansion of the Institutional Removal Program (IRP) to all states, requiring states that receive federal funds for incarcerating criminal aliens to cooperate with IRP officials by identifying and conveying information about criminal aliens in their prison and jail populations. It also authorizes state and local law enforcement to hold criminal aliens for up to 14 days after their state prison sentence completion or issue detainers to facilitate transfer to federal custody when the alien is removable or unlawfully present.
Requires the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to enter information on immigration violators into its database, even if the alien did not receive notice of a final order of removal, if sufficient identifying information is not available, or if the alien has already been removed.
Section 5(a)(2) and 5(b)(1)
Why it matters:This could be standard legislative drafting to ensure comprehensive data entry, but also potentially evasive as it broadens the scope of data collection without explicit safeguards for accuracy or due process, which could be politically contentious.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures the most comprehensive database possible, allowing law enforcement to identify potential immigration violators even with limited initial information, thereby enhancing public safety and national security.
Case against: Opponents would argue that including individuals without proper notice or sufficient identifying information could lead to false positives, misidentification, and significant due process concerns, potentially impacting individuals who are lawfully present.
Estimated impact: Potentially expands the number of individuals flagged in NCIC and increases the risk of misidentification or unwarranted scrutiny during routine law enforcement encounters, affecting civil liberties.
States that nothing in the Act or in any other provision of law may be construed as making any immigration-related training a requirement for, or prerequisite to, any State or local law enforcement officer assisting in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws in the normal course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such officers.
Section 10(e)(5)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to clarify intent and avoid unintended federal mandates on states, which is often a point of contention. It could also be seen as downplaying the importance of training for officers who will now have expanded roles.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides flexibility, allowing state and local officers to act on their inherent authority without bureaucratic hurdles, ensuring immediate assistance in enforcement without creating new federal mandates.
Case against: Opponents would argue that without mandatory training, officers may not be adequately prepared to handle complex immigration laws, potentially leading to errors, civil rights violations, or inconsistent enforcement due to varying levels of knowledge.
Estimated impact: Could lead to varying levels of preparedness among state and local officers involved in immigration enforcement, potentially impacting the consistency and legality of their actions and increasing the risk of errors or abuses.