Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance accountability, transparency, and civil rights protections in federal immigration enforcement through new use-of-force standards, mandatory technology, and increased oversight.
What it actually does
This bill establishes new standards for the use of non-deadly and deadly force by federal immigration enforcement personnel, mandates body and vehicle camera usage, and requires comprehensive annual training. It also creates new reporting requirements for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ), and establishes searchable databases for incident reports and training certifications, with provisions for public and congressional access. The bill also restricts the use of certain less-lethal equipment and sets rules for officer identification.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is crucial for addressing concerns about excessive force and lack of accountability within federal immigration enforcement agencies. They contend that clear standards, mandatory training, and transparent reporting mechanisms will improve officer conduct, protect civil liberties, and build public trust in government operations, aligning federal practices with modern policing best practices.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill could unduly restrict federal immigration enforcement personnel's ability to respond effectively to dangerous situations, potentially compromising officer safety and hindering critical enforcement operations. They might also raise concerns about the significant administrative burden and costs associated with implementing new equipment, training, and extensive database requirements.
The bill is moderately complex but its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core changes within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(a)(1)
Non-Deadly Force Standard
This provision establishes strict conditions for federal immigration enforcement personnel to use non-deadly force. It mandates that such force can only be used if no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative exists, after de-escalation efforts, and the force used must be proportional to the resistance while minimizing risk to third parties. It requires consideration of factors like age, injury, disability, and size of the subject.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this standard enhances accountability, reduces incidents of excessive force, and aligns federal practices with modern policing best practices that prioritize de-escalation and proportionality.
Critics contend
Critics contend that these detailed restrictions may hinder officers' ability to make split-second decisions in dynamic situations, potentially endangering personnel or allowing subjects to escape.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between ensuring officer safety and operational effectiveness versus protecting civil liberties and preventing harm to individuals during enforcement actions.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(a)(2)
Deadly Force Standard
This provision requires any use of deadly force by federal immigration enforcement personnel to conform to the Department of Justice Policy on the Use of Deadly Force and Prohibited Restraint Techniques, specifically section 1-16.200 of the Justice Manual. This ensures a consistent and high standard for the most severe use of force.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(a)(5)
Affirmative Duty to Intervene and Provide Medical Aid
This provision establishes an affirmative duty for federal immigration enforcement personnel to intervene and prevent or stop any other federal immigration enforcement personnel from engaging in excessive force or any force violating the Constitution, federal law, or applicable policies. It also requires reporting such actions and recognizing and acting upon the duty to request and render medical aid when appropriate.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(a)(6)-(7)
Mask and Identification Requirements
This provision prohibits federal immigration enforcement personnel from wearing masks or face coverings unless a supervisory officer provides written approval for specific reasons (national security threat, covert operations, or health hazards). Additionally, it mandates that uniforms clearly display the agency name and prohibits the use of 'Police' or similar identifiers that could lead to misidentification as local police officers.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(b)
Restricted Equipment Use
This provision prohibits federal immigration enforcement personnel from using or being equipped with noise flash diversionary devices (flashbangs), rubber bullets, pepper balls, and tear gas. Exceptions apply only if personnel are trained and certified for the equipment, are carrying out specific high-threat immigration enforcement operations (e.g., arresting someone entering illegally, or targeting a public/national security threat), and have an approved tactical action plan justifying the equipment's necessity.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(e)
Body and Vehicle Camera Requirements
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security develop a directive within 180 days requiring all federal immigration enforcement personnel to use body-worn cameras and all vehicles in operations to use dashboard cameras. Cameras must be on by default, with limited exceptions. It also sets detailed rules for footage retention (1 year default, 3 years for use-of-force or complaint incidents) and grants specific individuals, including subjects of footage and Members of Congress, the right to inspect the video.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(f)
Annual Training Requirements
This provision mandates that federal immigration enforcement personnel receive annual training on use-of-force policies, de-escalation techniques, compliance with First and Fourth Amendment protections (for journalists, protesters, and against unreasonable searches/seizures), the illegality of racial profiling, the affirmative duty to intervene in excessive force, and the duty to render medical aid. It also requires training on documenting and keeping records of immigration enforcement operations.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(h)
DHS Semiannual Reporting
This provision requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit semiannual reports to Congress. These reports must detail instances of deadly or non-deadly force (including justification, improper administration, and accountability measures), assaults against federal immigration enforcement personnel, classified instances of operations without identification, and the frequency of facial covering use. This aims to provide Congress with detailed data for oversight.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(j)(2)
Public and Congressional Reports Database
This provision mandates DHS to create a searchable database containing all reports generated by federal immigration enforcement personnel, including use-of-force incidents, significant operational anomalies, and allegations of civil rights violations. It grants specific Members of Congress (representing the district of an incident or on relevant committees) unredacted access, while a redacted version of the database must be made available to the public.
This section defines 'national security threat' and 'public safety threat' as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. These definitions are crucial because they serve as triggers for exceptions to several key provisions, such as the prohibition on masks and the restrictions on using certain equipment.
Section 2, new 8 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. 287A(k)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for placing definitions at the end of a section to provide clarity on terms used throughout the preceding text.
Case for: Proponents would argue that providing the Secretary of Homeland Security with the authority to define these terms allows for necessary flexibility to adapt to evolving threats and ensures that enforcement personnel can operate effectively in genuine high-risk situations.
Case against: Critics might argue that granting broad discretion to the Secretary in defining these critical terms could lead to inconsistent application or potential for abuse, potentially undermining the bill's intent for stricter standards and increased transparency.
Estimated impact: The definitions directly affect when exceptions to transparency and force restrictions can be invoked, influencing the practical scope of the bill's reforms.
This rule of construction clarifies that nothing in the Act may be construed to require State or local authorities to assist or be involved in Federal immigration enforcement activities.
Section 3(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for clarifying legislative intent and preventing misinterpretation, particularly regarding federal-state relations.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provision is essential for protecting state sovereignty and local control, reassuring state and local governments that they are not being compelled to participate in federal immigration actions, which can be politically contentious.
Case against: Some might argue that, while protecting local autonomy, this clarification could implicitly acknowledge a separation that might hinder coordinated efforts against serious threats, though this is a less common criticism given the principle of federalism.
Estimated impact: This provision clarifies the voluntary nature of state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, which has significant implications for how federal immigration laws are enforced at the local level.