This bill prohibits using federal funds for congressional earmarks that are targeted to sanctuary jurisdictions. It provides a definition of sanctuary jurisdiction and ties the prohibition to those definitions.
The act bases its earmark prohibition on the House Rules’ definition of an earmark and takes effect in fiscal year 2026. The short title is the No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
No federal funds may be used for a congressional earmark targeted to a sanctuary jurisdiction. The term “congressional earmark” is defined by reference to the House Rules. The act also defines sanctuary jurisdiction and sets an implementation timeline.
Who It Affects
States and units of local government that have sanctuary policies are the primary subjects of the prohibition; Members of Congress who propose earmarks and the committees that consider them must apply the rule; federal funding offices evaluating earmarks must enforce the constraint.
Why It Matters
It creates a funding-based boundary around immigration-enforcement policy at the local level, signaling a alignment between earmark allocations and stated cooperation with federal immigration enforcement regimes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1 sets the act’s short title. Section 2 bars federal funds from being used for congressional earmarks that target sanctuary jurisdictions.
It relies on the House Rules to define what constitutes an earmark. Section 3 defines sanctuary jurisdiction as a state or local government that has a policy restricting information sharing about citizenship or immigration status or detainer-related cooperation with DHS.
An exception says that a jurisdiction isn’t sanctuary solely because it won’t share information or comply with detainer requests to protect crime victims or witnesses. Section 4 establishes that the prohibition applies starting in fiscal year 2026 and subsequent years.
Practically, the bill narrows where earmarked federal dollars can be directed, tying funding to jurisdictional cooperation with immigration enforcement and providing a narrow protective exception for certain victim/witness scenarios. In short, it formalizes a funding constraint tied to sanctuary policy definitions and outlines when the rule takes effect.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bans federal funds for congressional earmarks targeted to sanctuary jurisdictions.
“Congressional earmark” is defined by clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House.
A sanctuary jurisdiction is defined by policies restricting information sharing or detainer cooperation with DHS under INA provisions 8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357.
An exception exists for policies not sharing information or detainer cooperation solely to protect victims or witnesses.
The prohibition takes effect in fiscal year 2026 and applies to each subsequent fiscal year.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section names the act as the No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act. It sets the formal identification of the bill’s purpose and framing through its title.
Prohibition on sanctuary-jurisdiction earmarks
This section prohibits the use of Federal funds for congressional earmarks targeted to sanctuary jurisdictions. It explicitly ties the prohibition to the definition of “congressional earmark” as used in the House Rules. The practical effect is to block earmarked funding directed at jurisdictions that meet the sanctuary criteria.
Sanctuary jurisdiction defined
This section defines sanctuary jurisdiction as any state or political subdivision with policies that restrict sharing information about citizenship or immigration status or refuse to comply with DHS detainer requests under INA sections 236 or 287. It also provides an exception: not every policy that withholds information or detainer cooperation makes a jurisdiction sanctuary, particularly when the policy pertains to crime victims or witnesses.
Effective date
This section states that the act applies to fiscal year 2026 and all subsequent fiscal years, establishing the timeline for when the prohibition becomes enforceable.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance 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
- Congressional sponsors and allied lawmakers seeking to channel federal funds away from sanctuary jurisdictions and toward jurisdictions that cooperate with immigration enforcement.
- Non‑sanctuary state and local governments that do not fall under sanctuary policies may experience clearer boundaries for earmarks and possibly more predictable funding allocations.
- Advocacy groups supporting immigration-enforcement-focused funding policies may gain legislative support and policy alignment.
- Budget and appropriations staff will have clearer, codified rules to apply when evaluating earmarks, reducing ambiguous discretion.
- Taxpayers who favor restraint on targeted federal spending may view the measure as fiscally prudent.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sanctuary jurisdictions (states or localities with sanctuary policies) lose access to earmarks targeted at them and bear the reputational and practical impact of the policy.
- Local governments with sanctuary policies may incur compliance costs and policy adjustments to avoid being classified as sanctuary jurisdictions.
- Earmark sponsors and committee staff face increased compliance burdens to ensure proposed projects do not target sanctuary jurisdictions.
- Jurisdictions that rely on earmarks for projects could see fewer targeted funding opportunities, potentially slowing local initiatives.
- Federal agencies and the Congress may incur administrative costs to implement and monitor the rule and resolve ambiguities in defining “targeted” earmarks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is balancing the desire to restrict federal funding to jurisdictions that resist information sharing or detainer cooperation with immigration enforcement against the risk of overbroad or ambiguous definitions that could chill legitimate local governance and civil protections for crime victims or witnesses.
The bill creates a clear policy boundary around sanctuary jurisdictions, but it also relies on definitional precision that may prove challenging in practice. The term “sanctuary jurisdiction” depends on local policy actions about information sharing and detainer cooperation, which can vary in nuance and be the subject of administrative interpretation.
Questions may arise about how to classify a jurisdiction with mixed policies or evolving practices, and how to measure whether a specific earmark is effectively targeted to sanctuary status. The exception for detainer-related sharing to protect victims or witnesses introduces a potential loophole in interpretation, and there could be disputes over where that line lies.
Operationally, agencies and legislators will need robust guidance to determine eligibility for earmarks and to audit compliance across diverse jurisdictions. The interplay with existing immigration and public-safety programs could also create friction with other federal statutes or court rulings, and may invite litigation or administrative challenges as agencies implement the prohibition.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.