Enforce Immigration or Lose Transportation Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 4, 2026
Bottom line
This bill leverages federal highway funding to compel states to adopt stricter immigration enforcement measures related to driver's licenses and cooperation with federal authorities.
What it actually does
This bill conditions a portion of federal highway funding on states complying with federal immigration enforcement policies. Specifically, states must not restrict information sharing with federal immigration authorities, must require proof of lawful presence for driver's license issuance, and must cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers. Non-compliant states face a 5% withholding of highway funds in the first year, increasing to 10% in subsequent years.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill enhances national security and road safety by ensuring all licensed drivers are legally present and properly vetted, and by closing loopholes that allow individuals without lawful status to obtain state identification. They contend it promotes uniform application of federal immigration laws and incentivizes states to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts, thereby reducing risks associated with unverified operators and strengthening the rule of law.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill federalizes immigration enforcement at the state level, potentially leading to racial profiling and undermining community trust in local law enforcement. They could also contend that withholding transportation funds would jeopardize critical infrastructure projects, disproportionately affecting states with large immigrant populations, and that linking immigration enforcement to highway safety is an overreach of federal power under the Spending Clause.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for a quick review.
Section 3(b) of the bill, amending 23 U.S.C. 155(b)
Conditional Withholding of Federal Highway Funds
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Transportation will withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that do not comply with specified immigration enforcement policies. The withholding starts at 5% of apportioned funds in the first year of non-compliance and increases to 10% for each subsequent year. Funds can be restored if a state comes into compliance before the end of the fiscal year.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this mechanism provides a strong incentive for states to align their policies with federal immigration enforcement goals, ensuring national security and road safety. They contend that the conditional nature of the funding is a legitimate exercise of congressional power to promote the general welfare.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue that this constitutes federal coercion, forcing states to adopt policies that may conflict with their own priorities or values. They might also contend that withholding transportation funds punishes state residents by hindering essential infrastructure development, regardless of their views on immigration policy.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal interest in immigration enforcement with state autonomy and the need for robust transportation infrastructure. It creates a tension between federal policy objectives and state-level governance.
Section 3(c)(1) of the bill, amending 23 U.S.C. 155(c)(1)
Mandating Information Sharing with DHS
This provision requires states to ensure that no statute, regulation, policy, or practice prohibits or restricts state or local officials from sharing information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status. This is explicitly tied to compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373.
Section 3(c)(2) of the bill, amending 23 U.S.C. 155(c)(2)
Lawful Presence Requirement for Driver's Licenses
This provision mandates that states must require evidence of lawful status, as defined by the REAL ID Act of 2005, before issuing driver's licenses or identification cards. States that issue licenses without this requirement would be deemed non-compliant.
Section 3(c)(3) of the bill, amending 23 U.S.C. 155(c)(3)
Mandating Cooperation with ICE Detainers
This provision requires states to cooperate with detainers issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under 8 U.S.C. 1357(d), specifically by not refusing to honor such detainers for individuals in state custody. Non-cooperation would lead to a determination of non-compliance.
States are deemed non-compliant if they violate 8 U.S.C. 1373, which generally prohibits state and local governments from restricting their employees from sending or receiving immigration status information to/from federal authorities.
Section 3(c)(1)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to incorporate existing law by reference rather than reprinting it.
Case for: Supporters argue that referencing existing law ensures consistency and avoids redundancy, relying on established legal frameworks for information sharing.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external statutory references makes the bill less transparent for a casual reader, who might not fully grasp the extent of the information-sharing mandate without consulting the referenced law.
Estimated impact: Reinforces existing federal mandates on information sharing, potentially impacting states with "sanctuary" policies.
States are deemed non-compliant if they issue driver's licenses without requiring evidence of lawful status as described in the REAL ID Act. This means requiring proof of U.S. citizenship, lawful permanent residency, or other authorized legal presence.
Section 3(c)(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to incorporate existing law by reference.
Case for: Supporters argue that this ensures consistency with federal standards for identification documents, enhancing security and preventing fraud.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the specific requirements of the REAL ID Act, when applied to driver's licenses, create undue burdens or exclude certain populations, which might not be immediately apparent without consulting the referenced law.
Estimated impact: Forces states that currently issue licenses to undocumented individuals to cease this practice, aligning with REAL ID standards.
States are deemed non-compliant if they fail to cooperate with ICE detainers issued under 8 U.S.C. 1357(d). This section of the INA provides authority for immigration officers to issue detainers.
Section 3(c)(3)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to incorporate existing law by reference.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that states understand their obligation to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement tools, which are already legally established.
Case against: Critics might argue that the legal complexities and controversies surrounding ICE detainers (e.g., whether they require judicial warrants) are obscured by a simple reference, making it harder for a reader to grasp the full implications for civil liberties and state legal exposure.
Estimated impact: Compels states to honor ICE detainers, impacting individuals in state custody.