No Safe Haven for Terrorist Families Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly expands the categories of individuals inadmissible and deportable from the U.S. based on their familial relationship to certain foreign threat actors, aiming to enhance national security by denying safe haven.
What it actually does
This bill establishes new grounds for inadmissibility and deportability for individuals who are 'covered family members' of 'covered foreign threat actors,' broadly defined to include distant relatives and various categories of designated terrorists, senior officials of adversary governments, and sanctioned individuals. It mandates visa revocation for such aliens, subjects them to removal proceedings, and explicitly bars them from seeking discretionary relief from removal.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a critical national security measure, closing perceived loopholes in existing immigration law that allow individuals with close ties to hostile foreign actors to enter or remain in the United States. They contend that a broad approach is necessary to prevent adversaries from exploiting the immigration system and to protect the nation from individuals who may have access to harmful networks, resources, and influence.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill is overly broad and problematic, as it establishes a framework of 'guilt by association' by making individuals inadmissible or deportable based solely on their familial relationship, regardless of their personal involvement or knowledge of a threat actor's activities. They raise significant concerns about due process, potential for family separation, humanitarian impacts, and the broad definitions that could ensnare individuals who pose no actual threat.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a quick review, though understanding the full implications requires familiarity with existing immigration and national security law.
Section 1
Short Title
This section names the Act the 'No Safe Haven for Terrorist Families Act,' providing a concise and descriptive title for the legislation.
Supporters argue
Establishes a clear and concise name for the legislation, reflecting its purpose to enhance national security by preventing individuals with ties to foreign threat actors from finding refuge in the United States.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title itself, though the title clearly signals the bill's intent, which may be opposed by those concerned about its broad implications.
Section 2
Congressional Findings
This section outlines Congress's findings, asserting the United States' sovereign right and duty to protect national security by denying safe haven to individuals whose close family ties to 'enemies of the United States' create unacceptable risks. It states that current inadmissibility provisions are too narrow and that providing immigration benefits to such relatives undermines national security.
Section 3(a)
New Ground for Inadmissibility
This provision amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a new ground for inadmissibility (Section 212(a)(11)). Under this new rule, any alien who is a 'covered family member' of a 'covered foreign threat actor' is inadmissible to the United States. It also clarifies that this new ground does not limit the application of existing terrorism-related inadmissibility provisions.
Section 3(a)(2)(B)(i)
Broad Definition of 'Covered Family Member'
This section broadly defines 'covered family member' to include a wide range of relatives of a covered foreign threat actor. This includes current or former spouses, parents, parents-in-law, children (whether or not the relationship is current), stepchildren, siblings (including half-blood siblings), grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews.
Section 3(a)(2)(B)(ii)
Definition of 'Covered Foreign Threat Actor'
This section defines 'covered foreign threat actor' to include individuals who are or were designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorists, senior leaders of foreign terrorist organizations, senior officials (deputy minister level or higher) of state sponsors of terrorism or foreign adversaries (specifically naming Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba), or individuals sanctioned for significant corruption, kleptocracy, or human rights abuses directly tied to a hostile foreign government or regime.
Section 3(a)(2)(C)
Retroactive Application of Inadmissibility
This clause specifies that the new inadmissibility ground applies to any alien regardless of when the family relationship was formed or when the covered foreign threat actor was so designated. This means individuals could be deemed inadmissible or deportable based on relationships or designations that occurred before the bill's enactment.
Section 3(b)
Deportability for Covered Family Members
This provision amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a new ground for deportability, stating that any alien described as a 'covered family member of a covered foreign threat actor' is deportable from the United States. This means individuals already in the U.S. who meet these criteria can be removed.
Section 4
Mandatory Visa Revocation, Removal Proceedings, and No Discretionary Relief
This section mandates the Secretary of State to revoke any visa or other documentation issued to an alien inadmissible under this Act within 30 days of such determination. It subjects such aliens within the United States to removal proceedings, with the Secretary of Homeland Security prioritizing their removal. Crucially, it explicitly states that these aliens are not eligible for cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, or any other form of discretionary relief from removal, except as expressly provided in the Act.
Section 5
Implementation and Reporting
This section requires the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to implement enhanced screening procedures within 180 days of enactment to identify covered family relationships using all available intelligence, law enforcement, and sanctions databases. It also mandates an annual report to Congress detailing the number of aliens determined inadmissible, visas revoked, removals carried out, and any waivers granted under the Act.
The definition of 'covered family member' is exceptionally broad, including spouses (current or former), parents, parents-in-law, children (current or former), stepchildren, siblings (including half-blood), grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews of a covered foreign threat actor.
Section 3(a)(2)(B)(i)
Why it matters:While standard legislative practice to define terms within the section where they are used, the breadth of this definition is highly consequential and could be easily underestimated by a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad scope is necessary to capture all potential avenues through which foreign threat actors might leverage family connections to gain access or influence in the U.S., ensuring comprehensive security.
Case against: Opponents contend that this definition extends culpability too far, potentially ensnaring distant relatives who have no involvement or knowledge of the threat actor's activities, leading to unjust outcomes based on guilt by association.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the pool of individuals potentially subject to inadmissibility and deportation, affecting a wide range of extended family members globally.
The new inadmissibility ground applies to any alien regardless of when the family relationship was formed or when the covered foreign threat actor was designated, meaning it has retroactive application.
Section 3(a)(2)(C)
Why it matters:While technically placed within the relevant section, its significant impact on existing residents might be downplayed by its concise phrasing, potentially avoiding more prominent debate.
Case for: Supporters argue retroactivity is essential to prevent individuals from claiming prior status as a shield against legitimate national security concerns, ensuring the bill's effectiveness in closing all potential loopholes.
Case against: Critics argue that retroactive application undermines legal certainty and due process, potentially leading to the deportation of individuals who legally entered and established lives in the U.S. under previous laws, creating significant humanitarian issues and raising constitutional questions.
Estimated impact: Could subject a substantial number of current U.S. residents, including lawful permanent residents, to removal proceedings based on newly applied criteria.
Aliens inadmissible under this Act are explicitly made ineligible for cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, or any other form of discretionary relief from removal, except as expressly provided in the Act.
Section 4(c)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique to limit judicial review and administrative flexibility, often placed within enforcement sections, which can be less scrutinized than primary policy provisions.
Case for: Proponents argue that eliminating discretionary relief ensures the consistent and rigorous enforcement of national security provisions, preventing individuals deemed risks from exploiting legal loopholes to remain in the country through appeals.
Case against: Opponents contend that removing all discretionary relief mechanisms strips immigration judges and authorities of the ability to consider individual circumstances, leading to potentially harsh and unjust outcomes, especially for individuals who pose no direct threat or have compelling humanitarian cases.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces avenues for legal challenge or humanitarian appeal for affected individuals, streamlining their removal process but potentially at the cost of individual fairness.