Deportation Acceleration Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to expedite the removal of non-citizens with criminal convictions by enhancing inter-agency cooperation and imposing stricter enforcement measures on state and local governments.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands and accelerates the deportation process for non-U.S. citizens with criminal convictions. It mandates real-time data sharing of criminal convictions between state/local entities and federal immigration authorities, broadens the scope of offenses triggering expedited removal to include any felony or two misdemeanors, and drastically shortens appeal windows in non-asylum removal cases. Additionally, it establishes financial incentives for state and local governments that cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and imposes penalties, specifically withholding Highway Trust Fund apportionments, on 'sanctuary jurisdictions' that do not.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for public safety and national security, ensuring that criminal non-citizens are swiftly removed from the United States. They contend that it closes loopholes in current immigration law, streamlines an often-cumbersome removal process, and compels state and local governments to cooperate with federal mandates, thereby upholding the rule of law and deterring future criminal activity by non-citizens.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill raises serious due process concerns by expanding expedited removal and shortening appeal windows, potentially leading to unjust deportations for minor offenses. They argue that the provisions constitute federal overreach, coercing state and local governments to act as federal immigration agents, which could erode community trust in local law enforcement and lead to racial profiling. Critics also highlight the retroactive application of expanded deportation grounds as fundamentally unfair.
The bill is relatively short and straightforward, allowing for a quick read to grasp its core provisions and their immediate implications.
Section 2
Mandatory Real-Time Data Sharing of Criminal Convictions
This section requires the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a process within 180 days for state and local courts and law enforcement agencies to report every criminal conviction of any non-U.S. citizen to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) within 24 hours. This data sharing is to be integrated with existing federal databases. Upon receiving information about a conviction that makes a non-citizen removable, DHS is mandated to initiate removal proceedings or issue an immigration detainer.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision enhances public safety by ensuring federal immigration authorities are immediately aware of criminal convictions involving non-citizens, allowing for timely identification and removal. It improves the efficiency of immigration enforcement by closing information gaps between different levels of government.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision raises concerns about data privacy, the potential for errors in reporting, and the significant burden on state and local entities to implement real-time data integration. They also worry it could lead to increased detentions without adequate judicial review, potentially straining local resources and eroding community trust.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal government's interest in efficient immigration enforcement with concerns about state and local autonomy, resource allocation, and the potential for data privacy issues.
Section 3
Expanded Grounds for Expedited Removal
This section significantly amends Section 238 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to broaden the criteria for expedited removal. It replaces the existing standard of "aggravated felony" with "any felony or 2 misdemeanors" as grounds for expedited removal. This expansion applies to both permanent residents and non-permanent residents, allowing the Attorney General to determine deportability and issue removal orders under expedited procedures for a much wider range of criminal offenses.
Section 4
Shortened Appeal Windows and Prioritization of Criminal Removal Cases
This section amends Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to accelerate the resolution of criminal removal cases. It mandates the Attorney General to prioritize these cases on immigration court dockets and to issue regulations ensuring appeals are resolved within 120 days. Furthermore, it drastically shortens the timeframes for non-citizens to file motions to reopen or reconsider their cases, reducing the window from 180 days to 30 days for motions to reopen and from 90 days to 30 days for motions to reconsider.
Section 5
Cooperation Incentives and Highway Funds Penalties for Sanctuary Jurisdictions
This section defines a "sanctuary jurisdiction" as any state or political subdivision that prohibits or restricts government entities from sharing immigration status information with DHS or complying with DHS detainers. It authorizes $150 million annually for competitive grants to states and local governments that fully cooperate with immigration detainers and information sharing, with funds usable for detention capacity, officer training, and enforcement equipment. Conversely, it mandates that the Secretary of Transportation withhold 15 percent of Highway Trust Fund apportionments from sanctuary jurisdictions, with a 180-day grace period for compliance and an appeal process for undue hardship.
The expedited removal provisions, as amended by this Act to include any felony or two misdemeanors, shall apply retroactively, regardless of whether the acts constituting the crimes or the convictions themselves occurred before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 6
Why it matters:While defining applicability is standard legislative practice, the retroactive nature of this specific change is highly consequential and could be seen as an attempt to minimize scrutiny of its broad impact on past convictions.
Case for: Proponents argue that retroactive application ensures consistent enforcement of the new removal standards for all criminal non-citizens, regardless of when their crimes were committed. This closes perceived loopholes and ensures that individuals who committed serious offenses in the past are subject to the same deportation consequences as those who commit them in the future.
Case against: Critics contend that applying new, harsher removal consequences retroactively raises significant concerns about fairness and due process, as individuals could be deported for past actions that were not grounds for removal at the time they occurred. This can lead to instability and uncertainty for non-citizens who have already served their time or established lives in the U.S.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts a large number of non-citizens with past felony or two misdemeanor convictions who were not previously deportable under the narrower 'aggravated felony' standard, significantly expanding the pool of individuals subject to removal.