AB 18, titled the California Secure Borders Act of 2025, largely does three things: it repeals the 2017 sanctuary law (SB 54); it bars use of state funds for a range of welfare, health, housing, and other services for undocumented immigrants; and it requires new information disclosure, law-enforcement training for cross-deputization with federal immigration authorities, and standards for sending the State Guard to the border.
For public agencies, healthcare and housing providers, and local law enforcement, the bill creates immediate operational and compliance questions: who verifies immigration status, what state-funded programs must change eligibility rules, which offices must collect and publish data, and how to train and authorize local officers for federal immigration tasks. The provisions raise legal and logistical issues that agencies would need to resolve before any implementation can begin.
At a Glance
What It Does
Repeals California’s SB 54 sanctuary law and prohibits state funds from being used to provide specified welfare, health, housing, and other services to undocumented immigrants. It also requires disclosure of data on the impacts of illegal immigration, mandates cross-deputization training for local law enforcement to support federal enforcement, and establishes standards for deploying the State Guard to the border.
Who It Affects
State agencies that distribute or oversee welfare, health, and housing funds; counties and cities that run shelters, clinics, and public-benefit programs; local police and sheriff’s departments that would receive cross-deputization training; and the California Military Department for State Guard deployments.
Why It Matters
The bill would move California from a policy of limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to active coordination and funding restrictions — shifting compliance burdens onto public-service providers and local governments and creating new data and operational duties for state agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill opens by declaring legislative intent to "combat illegal immigration and secure the border" and names repeal of the 2017 sanctuary law (SB 54) as a primary step. Repeal resurrects the authority for local law enforcement and state agencies to share certain detention and release information with federal immigration authorities and to transfer individuals to federal custody without the SB 54 constraints that currently prohibit some types of cooperation.
AB 18 then bars the use of state funds for a broad set of services for undocumented immigrants, listing welfare, health, housing, and other state-supported programs. That prohibition forces state and local administrators to determine which programs are state-funded and how to verify or document recipients’ immigration status — a practical classification task that will cascade into eligibility rules, intake procedures, and recordkeeping.Separately, the bill requires public disclosure of information on the impact of illegal immigration on crime rates and on the use of state and local services.
Although the bill text does not specify an exact reporting format, the mandate will require agencies to collect and publish data or analyses that link immigration status to service utilization and crime statistics, creating new reporting workflows and data-sharing questions, including privacy and accuracy concerns.Finally, the bill directs training and operational coordination: it requires cross-deputization training for local law enforcement so they can support federal border-security actions and it provides standards for deploying the State Guard to the border. Those components create duties for training budgets, intergovernmental agreements, and the California Military Department to develop deployment criteria and rules of engagement consistent with state law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals Senate Bill 54 (Chapter 495 of the Statutes of 2017), removing statutory limits on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
It prohibits use of state funds for identified welfare, health, housing, and other services for undocumented immigrants, shifting eligibility and verification tasks to administering agencies.
AB 18 requires public disclosure of information on the impact of illegal immigration on crime rates and on state and local services, creating new reporting obligations for state agencies.
The bill mandates cross-deputization training for local law enforcement so officers can support federal border-security actions, formalizing coordination with federal immigration authorities.
It establishes standards for deploying the State Guard to the border, directing the California Military Department to adopt criteria and procedures for such missions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Identifies the act as the "California Secure Borders Act of 2025." This is a conventional opening but signals the bill’s framing: public safety and border security are the governing policy objectives that courts and agencies will use to interpret more operational provisions.
Repeal of SB 54 (sanctuary law)
Directly repeals the statutory provisions that limit state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Practically, this restores authority for agencies and law enforcement to provide release dates and custody information and to transfer individuals to federal custody where federal authority applies. Repeal removes statutory barriers but does not itself create federal authority; implementation will depend on agency policies, memoranda of understanding, and constitutional constraints.
Prohibition on use of state funds for services to undocumented immigrants
Bars state funds from being used for specified categories of services — welfare, health, housing, and other state-supported programs — for undocumented immigrants. Agencies that administer or allocate state funds will need to reinterpret eligibility rules, build verification steps into intake processes, and alter contract terms with providers to prevent use of state dollars for ineligible recipients. The provision raises immediate questions about mixed funding streams, federal funding overlaps, and whether nongovernmental contractors must perform status checks.
Public disclosure of impacts on crime and services
Requires state disclosure of information on how illegal immigration affects crime rates and demand for state and local services. The bill does not specify format, timing, or metrics; implementing agencies will have to decide which datasets to use, what methodologies are acceptable, and how to address data quality and privacy concerns. This requirement can prompt new data-collection mandates for local jurisdictions and service providers.
Cross-deputization training for local law enforcement
Directs training programs for local police and sheriffs to enable support for federal border-security actions. That implies curriculum development, certification standards, and potential formal agreements with federal agencies. Local agencies will face choices about participation, scope of authority granted to deputies, and liability protections for officers executing federal immigration tasks.
Standards for State Guard deployment
Requires the development of standards governing when and how the State Guard may be deployed to the border. The California Military Department will need to articulate mission parameters, command and control relationships, and logistical requirements — including funding, training, and rules of engagement — consistent with state law and existing emergency-response frameworks.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal immigration enforcement agencies (ICE, CBP): The repeal of SB 54 and mandated cross-deputization training lower barriers to local cooperation and give federal agencies greater access to local detention and transfer processes.
- Local law-enforcement agencies that choose to cooperate: Those agencies gain formal training, clearer statutory backing for participating in federal operations, and potential access to federal support during joint actions.
- State policymakers focused on reduced state-funded expenditures for noncitizens: Prohibiting state funds for specified services aligns state outlays with the bill’s stated border-security priorities and gives fiscal policymakers a tool to limit eligibility.
Who Bears the Cost
- Undocumented immigrants: They stand to lose eligibility for state-funded welfare, health, housing, and other services identified by the bill, increasing barriers to care and assistance.
- State and local program administrators and service providers: Agencies must redesign eligibility systems, add verification and recordkeeping, and possibly refuse or redirect service delivery — actions that create administrative costs and operational disruption.
- Public hospitals, community clinics, and housing providers: Providers that rely on state funding or state-administered programs will face revenue and compliance impacts if clients lose eligibility or if contracts require new verification duties.
- California Military Department and State Guard budgets: The department must produce deployment standards, training, and logistics for border missions, likely requiring absorbed or reallocated resources if the law imposes new operational duties.
- Local jurisdictions wary of community policing: Cities and counties that value trust with immigrant communities may shoulder indirect costs from increased policing, lower reporting of crimes, and greater legal exposure from coordination with federal immigration enforcement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate objectives: asserting state control to restrict immigration-related public spending and support federal enforcement, and preserving the public-service, public-health, and civil‑liberties functions of state and local governments; the bill’s broad prohibitions and coordination mandates address the first objective while creating operational, legal, and community-trust costs that undercut the second.
The bill sets broad policy directions but leaves many operational details unspecified. For example, it prohibits state funding for a wide set of services without defining precise program-by-program boundaries or addressing mixed funding streams where state and federal dollars co-fund a program.
Agencies will need to determine whether a program is ‘‘state funded’’ in whole or in part, how to treat recipients with mixed immigration status in a household, and whether contractors and nonprofits must institute status checks. Those choices carry administrative costs and legal risk.
The disclosure and training mandates create additional frictions. Requiring publication of the "impact" of illegal immigration on crime and services forces agencies into methodological choices about attribution and data linkage; poor methodology could produce misleading public reports and litigation.
Cross-deputization training and State Guard deployment standards increase coordination with federal actors, but they also raise liability, privacy, and civil-liberties concerns that the bill does not resolve — for example, whether officers acting under cross-deputization gain federal legal protections or whether State Guard missions will be strictly non‑law‑enforcement support or include direct enforcement roles.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.