H.R.1927 (CLEAR Act of 2025) reshapes the federal–state interface on immigration enforcement by incentivizing state and local cooperation and creating new operational requirements. The bill conditions certain federal incarceration assistance on state cooperation, mandates transfer and data-sharing procedures for aliens believed unlawfully present, authorizes grants and training for local agencies, directs construction or acquisition of 20 additional detention facilities, and extends legal immunities for officers and agencies that assist with immigration enforcement.
This matters for law enforcement executives, state attorneys general, corrections administrators, compliance officers, and civil-rights counsel because the measure changes funding rules (reallocating SCAAP funds away from jurisdictions that bar cooperation), creates mandatory data pipelines into the Department of Justice’s NCIC system, imposes time-driven custody-transfer and reimbursement rules, and narrows civil liability exposure for cooperating agencies. If enacted, it would materially increase detention capacity and operational obligations while shifting costs and oversight tensions between federal and sub-federal actors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill conditions SCAAP-like federal funds on state and local assistance in immigration enforcement, requires States to submit detailed information about apprehended aliens to DHS, directs CBP to supply immigration violator data to DOJ’s NCIC, funds grants for equipment and training, mandates 20 additional detention facilities, and establishes a 48-hour federal custody-transfer rule plus a 14-day post-sentence hold authority.
Who It Affects
State departments of corrections, county jails, local police and sheriffs, Governors’ offices managing SCAAP allocations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)/CBP, the DOJ NCIC system, private detention contractors, and noncitizens in custody.
Why It Matters
The bill uses federal funding and statutory mandates to expand the operational role of state and local agencies in immigration removals, increases centralized data sharing that broadens enforcement reach, and reduces civil liability risks for cooperating jurisdictions—altering incentives that have governed sub-federal engagement for decades.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The CLEAR Act starts by reaffirming that States and their law enforcement officers have inherent sovereign authority to enforce immigration laws in the course of routine duties. It then creates concrete incentives and requirements to bring that authority into routine practice: one year after enactment, any State or political subdivision that maintains a statute, policy, or practice prohibiting assistance to federal immigration enforcement becomes ineligible for SCAAP-style allocations, with those funds reallocated to cooperating jurisdictions.
On information flows, the bill directs the Commissioner of CBP to provide DOJ’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) with data on aliens who have final removal orders, voluntary departure agreements, overstays, or revoked visas within 180 days of enactment and thereafter. It also amends the federal statute governing NCIC to require the collection and preservation of immigration-violation records and instructs DOJ to implement that change within 6 months.
Separately, States and localities must submit a defined set of data elements about apprehended aliens to DHS—name, contact, encounter specifics, IDs, vehicle data, photos and fingerprints if available—and DHS must reimburse reasonable costs to jurisdictions that incur expense submitting those records.Operationally, the bill authorizes grants for equipment, facilities, and technology tied to investigating, detaining, or transporting aliens who have violated immigration laws; requires GAO audits of distributed grant funds; and mandates construction or acquisition of 20 additional detention facilities, with locations determined by ICE custody management. For aliens apprehended by state or local officers who are believed unlawfully present, DHS must take custody within 48 hours after a state charging/dismissal process concludes (or 48 hours after apprehension when no state process applies).
The bill requires detention in facilities meeting U.S. marshal-like standards when used, sets a reimbursement formula equal to the state’s average incarceration cost plus transport costs, and directs DHS to establish regular transfer circuits and to contract as necessary for transfers.The statute also expands the Institutional Removal Program nationwide, allows State authorities to hold criminal aliens up to 14 days after sentence completion to effect transfer, and prioritizes remote and e-learning training options tied to a DHS-developed manual and pocket guide. Finally, it provides personal immunity to state and local officers acting within their official duties (equal to federal officers) and limits agency liability for money damages under civil-rights laws except where a criminal violation occurred, while authorizing appropriations "as necessary" for implementation and requiring GAO audits at multiyear intervals.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A State or political subdivision that has a law, policy, or practice prohibiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement becomes ineligible for funds under section 241(i) of the INA starting one year after enactment, and those funds are reallocated to cooperating jurisdictions.
CBP must provide DOJ’s NCIC with information on aliens with final removal orders, voluntary departure agreements, overstays, or revoked visas within 180 days of enactment; DOJ must implement the NCIC statutory amendment within six months.
The Secretary must construct or acquire 20 additional U.S. detention facilities specifically for aliens pending removal, with facility locations set by the Assistant Director of ICE’s Custody Management Division.
When a State or local agency requests federal custody of an unlawfully present alien, DHS must take the alien into federal custody within 48 hours after completion of any state charging/dismissal process (or 48 hours after apprehension if no process applies), and DHS must reimburse states for incarceration equal to the state’s average incarceration cost plus transport.
The bill grants state and local law enforcement officers personal immunity comparable to federal officers for duties performed under the Act, and it immunizes agencies from money-damages civil-rights claims except where an officer committed a criminal violation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Federal reaffirmation of state authority
The bill opens by restating that states and their political subdivisions have inherent sovereign authority to investigate, arrest, detain, and transfer aliens for immigration enforcement when carrying out routine law-enforcement duties. That language does not itself create new powers but functions as a statutory assertion intended to undercut arguments that federal law preempts sub-federal participation. Practically, it signals to courts and agencies that Congress recognizes and supports active state participation in immigration enforcement.
Conditioning SCAAP allocations on cooperation
Starting one year after enactment, the statute disqualifies any State or political subdivision that maintains a law, policy, or practice preventing local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration enforcement from receiving funds otherwise allocable under INA section 241(i). The provision includes a non-substantive rule of construction protecting the reporting or arrest of victims and witnesses. Mechanically, the Treasury flow is binary: a jurisdiction either meets the cooperation test and keeps allocations or fails and has funds reallocated to cooperating jurisdictions—creating a powerful financial lever to change local policies.
NCIC immigration violators file and DOJ authority
The bill requires the CBP Commissioner to transmit immigration-violation data to DOJ’s NCIC and amends 28 U.S.C. § 534(a) to explicitly authorize NCIC to acquire and retain records of immigration-law violations even when identifying information is incomplete, notice hasn’t been given, or removal already occurred. DOJ must implement the statutory change within six months. For practitioners, this expands the scope of the NCIC index and lowers thresholds for entry, increasing risk that partial or stale records propagate across criminal-justice databases.
Mandatory state/local reporting and reimbursement
States and political subdivisions must submit a prescribed set of data elements to DHS for every apprehended alien believed to be unlawfully present, including encounter details, ID numbers, vehicle data, photos, and fingerprints when available. DHS must reimburse jurisdictions for reasonable costs of preparing and transmitting those reports, and the Secretary must publish an annual report identifying which jurisdictions complied. Operationally, smaller sheriffs’ offices face added intake and records burdens, counterbalanced by an explicit reimbursement promise whose timing and adequacy the bill leaves to DHS discretion.
Grants for equipment and authorization of appropriations
The Secretary must award grants to jurisdictions that both have the authority to assist and maintain written policies of assisting federal immigration enforcement; eligible uses include equipment, technology, facilities, and administrative costs tied directly to investigating, detaining, or transporting removable aliens. The bill mandates GAO audits of distributed funds within three years and authorizes 'such sums as may be necessary' for annual implementation and for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program moving forward, creating an open-ended budget posture for DHS program managers.
Expanded detention capacity and 48‑hour custody transfer
The Secretary must add 20 detention facilities in the United States for aliens pending removal, with bed counts set to meet the Act’s objectives and locations determined by ICE custody management leadership. For aliens apprehended by state or local officers who are believed unlawfully present, the Secretary must take custody within 48 hours after the state charging or dismissal process ends (or within 48 hours of apprehension if no process applies), and may request temporary state incarceration/transport. DHS must reimburse incarceration costs (calculated as the state’s average incarceration cost for the period held) plus transport expenses, and it must set up regular transfer circuits and may contract privately to effect transfers—placing operational scheduling, transport logistics, and budget execution squarely on ICE.
Training, Institutional Removal Program expansion, and post‑sentence holds
DHS must produce a training manual and pocket guide, provide e-learning through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s distributed learning program, and prioritize scalable, U.S.-hosted servers. The bill also nationalizes the Institutional Removal Program, requiring states receiving federal incarceration funds to identify criminal aliens in custody and convey that information to federal officials, and permits state officers to hold criminal aliens up to 14 days after sentence completion to effect transfer or to issue detainers for ICE pickup. The practical effect is to synchronize corrections populations with federal removal workflows and promote remote technology (video conferencing, live scan) for screening in remote jurisdictions.
Personal and agency immunity
State and local law enforcement officers acting within the scope of official duties receive personal immunity 'to the same extent as a Federal law enforcement officer' for actions under the Act. Agencies gain immunity from money-damages claims under Federal, State, or local civil-rights laws for incidents arising from immigration enforcement, except where an officer committed a criminal violation during enforcement. This narrows civil remedies for plaintiffs and shifts litigation risk away from agencies, while leaving criminal penalties as the primary exception to immunity.
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
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — Gains more predictable transfer windows, expanded detention capacity through 20 new facilities, and broader access to state/local arrest records and NCIC entries to support removals.
- State and local law enforcement agencies that cooperate — Become eligible for equipment and facility grants, reimbursement for reporting, training resources (including e‑learning), and expanded legal protections via personal and agency immunity.
- Private detention contractors and construction entities — Stand to gain from contracts to build, acquire, or operate the 20 additional detention facilities and associated transport/logistics contracts.
- NCIC and justice-system data users (prosecutors, fusion centers) — Receive an expanded immigration‑violators file that can be queried during criminal investigations, improving cross-system visibility of immigration status and prior orders.
Who Bears the Cost
- States and political subdivisions that bar cooperation — Face loss of allocations under INA §241(i) (SCAAP-style funds), with those funds reallocated to cooperating jurisdictions.
- Local jails and small law enforcement agencies — Must collect and transmit specified data elements (photos, fingerprints, encounter details) and absorb administrative burdens even if DHS reimbursement is delayed or disputed.
- Department of Homeland Security/ICE — Carries capital and operating responsibility for 20 new detention facilities, transfer logistics, and reimbursement obligations, increasing federal detention expenditures and management complexity.
- Noncitizen detainees — Face faster identification, broader database entries (including entries even with incomplete identifying information), longer detention windows (14‑day post‑sentence holds), and an elevated removal risk.
- Civil-rights plaintiffs and their counsel — Encounter narrower avenues for money-damages claims against agencies, as the Act immunizes agencies unless an officer committed a criminal violation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between accelerating federal removals by mobilizing state and local capacity (through funding, data mandates, detention expansion, and immunity) and preserving local autonomy, community trust, and civil‑liberties protections; the bill trades stronger removal tools and legal protections for cooperating jurisdictions against the potential erosion of community policing, accuracy and privacy of criminal-justice data, and avenues for civil accountability.
The bill stitches together funding incentives, information mandates, expanded detention, and liability protections to reallocate enforcement capacity toward removal operations, but it leaves several operational and legal questions unresolved. First, the statute requires CBP and states to share and enter data into NCIC even when identifying information is incomplete or when notice hasn’t been given; that increases the risk of inaccurate or stale records propagating into criminal-justice workflows, with limited built-in correction or appeal mechanisms.
Second, the reimbursement language obliges DHS to pay 'reasonable costs' and to match state average incarceration plus transport, but it delegates both cost determination and payment timing to DHS—creating cash‑flow risks for local facilities that must shoulder upfront incarceration and reporting costs.
On federalism and litigation, the Act uses SCAAP funding as a blunt instrument to force policy changes at the state and local level; courts could see that as a permissible exercise of spending power, but affected jurisdictions may sue over coercion or overreach, citing prior precedents limiting conditional federal grants. The immunity provisions sharply reduce money-damages exposure for agencies, which will change litigation strategy but also reduce an accountability route for systemic civil-rights harms.
Finally, the 48‑hour custody-transfer clock and the 14‑day post-sentence hold are concrete operational deadlines that assume robust transfer circuits and transport capacity; in practice, ICE will need substantial logistics, staffing, and contracting to meet those timelines without eroding normal criminal-justice processes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.