RIPPLE Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 9, 2025
Bottom line
The RIPPLE Act of 2025 authorizes federal reimbursement to state and local governments for the salaries and overtime of their employees who perform federal immigration enforcement duties under 287(g) agreements.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize the Attorney General to reimburse state and local governments for the costs of wages and overtime pay for their employees who perform federal immigration officer functions under existing 287(g) agreements. These agreements allow trained state and local law enforcement officers to act as federal immigration agents.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill alleviates the financial burden on state and local governments that assist in federal immigration enforcement, thereby encouraging more participation in 287(g) programs and enhancing overall border security and interior enforcement efforts. They contend it acknowledges the shared responsibility and costs of immigration enforcement.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill further incentivizes local law enforcement to engage in federal immigration duties, potentially diverting resources from local policing needs, fostering distrust within immigrant communities, and increasing the likelihood of racial profiling. They may also contend it shifts federal responsibilities and costs onto local agencies, with federal taxpayers ultimately bearing the financial burden.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for quick and comprehensive understanding by any informed reader.
Section 2
Reimbursements to States and Localities for Performance of Immigration Functions
This provision amends Section 287(g)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly allow the Attorney General to reimburse a State or political subdivision for the wages and overtime compensation of its officers or employees. These reimbursements are specifically for costs incurred while these local personnel perform functions under a 287(g) agreement, which deputizes them to act as federal immigration officers.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision removes a significant financial barrier for states and localities willing to assist in federal immigration enforcement, thereby strengthening overall border security and interior enforcement efforts. They believe it acknowledges the shared responsibility and costs, making these partnerships more sustainable and attractive.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision further incentivizes local law enforcement to engage in federal immigration duties, potentially leading to racial profiling, diverting resources from community policing, and eroding trust between immigrant communities and local police. They might also argue it shifts the financial burden of federal responsibilities to taxpayers without clear accountability.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between enhancing immigration enforcement through local partnerships and concerns about the federalization of local police functions. It also involves a tradeoff between local financial autonomy and federal financial support for shared enforcement goals, with potential implications for community relations and resource allocation.