This bill amends 18 U.S.C. §3056 to permit the Secretary of Homeland Security to use — with the consent of the jurisdiction — state and local services, personnel, equipment, and facilities for certain Secret Service functions and to reimburse those jurisdictions for their costs. The statutory text restricts the authority to activities carried out under paragraphs (3) and (7) of §3056(a).
The measure also authorizes the Secretary to reimburse state and local governments retroactively for eligible uses that occurred between July 12, 2024, and the bill’s effective date. Practically, the change creates a formal reimbursement pathway for local governments that supply resources to support Secret Service protective operations, but it does not itself appropriate money or prescribe a payment mechanism — key implementation and funding questions remain.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsection (h) to 18 U.S.C. §3056 authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize, with consent and on a reimbursable basis, state and local services, personnel, equipment, and facilities when carrying out the Secret Service functions identified in §3056(a)(3) and (7). It also permits retroactive reimbursements for a specified prior period.
Who It Affects
Directly affects state and local law enforcement and emergency-management bodies that provide personnel, equipment, or facilities to Secret Service operations; Secret Service operational planners and DHS finance/accounting offices; and municipal finance departments that must submit and document reimbursement claims.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a statutory basis for federal reimbursement of local assets used in presidential and related protective missions, which could change how jurisdictions budget for major events and intergovernmental support. It also raises immediate questions about funding sources, claim processes, and liability handling.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new subsection into the statute that defines Secret Service functions to make clear that the Secretary of Homeland Security may use state and local resources for certain protective duties and reimburse jurisdictions for those resources. That permission is conditional: the jurisdiction must agree to the use, and reimbursement is explicitly allowed but not spelled out in terms of rates, eligible cost categories, or deadlines.
Operationally, this creates a legal basis for reimbursable work agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other cooperative arrangements between the Secret Service (via DHS) and local governments. In practice, jurisdictions will need to identify eligible costs — overtime pay, equipment rental or wear-and-tear, facility use, and administrative overhead — and supply documentation.
DHS will need accounting processes to accept, audit, and pay claims; the bill does not describe those procedures or require a particular model of reimbursement.The retroactivity clause permits the Secretary to pay for qualifying uses that already happened between July 12, 2024, and the day the law takes effect. That provision matters because many local agencies fronted costs for presidential travel and related security in that window.
But authorizing retroactive payments is not the same as guaranteeing them: reimbursements still depend on available appropriations and DHS’s execution of payment processes.Beyond finance, the change triggers several administrative and legal issues that agencies will have to resolve. State and local governments will want clarity on liability, workers’ compensation, property damage, and indemnification when their personnel operate under federal protective missions.
DHS will need guidance to standardize agreements so payments are consistent across jurisdictions and to ensure compliance with federal appropriations and audit rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds subsection (h) to 18 U.S.C. §3056 authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize and reimburse state and local services, personnel, equipment, and facilities for functions tied to §3056(a)(3) and (7).
Reimbursement is permitted only where the state or local government consents to the utilization and is expressly on a reimbursable basis; the bill does not mandate use without consent.
The statute allows the Secretary to provide retroactive reimbursement for eligible uses occurring between July 12, 2024, and the law’s effective date.
The text authorizes payment but does not appropriate funds or specify a federal payment mechanism, rate schedule, or timeframe for processing claims.
The change is narrowly tied to the functions enumerated in §3056(a)(3) and (7) and does not extend reimbursement authority to all Secret Service activities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s name — the Presidential Security Resources Reimbursement Act of 2025. This is a conventional short-title clause that does not affect substance but is used to cite the statute in future references.
Amendment to 18 U.S.C. §3056 — reimbursement authority
Adds new subsection (h) to §3056. The provision authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to use, with consent and on a reimbursable basis, state and local services, personnel, equipment, and facilities when performing specific Secret Service functions under §3056(a)(3) and (7). Practically, this creates statutory authority for DHS to enter cost-reimbursement arrangements with subnational governments; what counts as reimbursable (e.g., fringe benefits, indirect costs, equipment depreciation) is left to implementing practice and agreement negotiation.
Retroactive reimbursement window
Permits the Secretary to reimburse eligible uses that already occurred between July 12, 2024, and the bill’s effective date. This is an explicit authorization to settle past claims, not a guarantee of payment; payments remain contingent on DHS executing reimbursements and having or obtaining funds. Retroactivity will require DHS to define eligibility criteria for prior expenditures and to reconcile records from multiple jurisdictions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- State and local law enforcement agencies — can recoup overtime, deployment costs, equipment wear and tear, and facility use when supporting qualifying Secret Service protective missions, improving local fiscal planning for high-profile federal events.
- Municipal and state finance offices — gain a statutory basis to submit and justify reimbursement claims for personnel and material costs incurred at federal events, reducing reliance on ad hoc negotiations or political appeals.
- U.S. Secret Service and DHS operational planners — gain formal authority to integrate local capabilities into protection plans without creating unpaid burdens on host jurisdictions, potentially expanding operational options at large or remote events.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government (DHS / Treasury) — will face actual cash outflows for reimbursements if funds are identified and appropriated; absent dedicated funding, payments compete with other DHS priorities.
- State and local governments — while eligible for reimbursement, they may still need to front costs, invest in tracking and billing systems, and absorb administrative overhead to submit claims, which can be burdensome for small jurisdictions.
- Local payroll and collective bargaining systems — must manage overtime, special pay categories, and personnel policies to align with federal reimbursement criteria, creating payroll and labor-relations complexity for agencies and unions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing fairness and operational flexibility against fiscal control and administrative complexity: the bill makes it fairer for local governments to be paid for supporting presidential protective missions, but it risks shifting significant cost and administrative burden to DHS without clarifying funding, auditing, or liability rules — creating incentives for inconsistent implementation or hidden costs.
The bill creates an authorization without providing an appropriation or a detailed mechanism for payment. Authorization allows DHS to reimburse, but actual payments require available funds and internal payment procedures; that gap is the most immediate practical obstacle.
If DHS lacks a dedicated appropriation, reimbursements will either require reprogramming existing funds, additional appropriations, or reliance on interagency billing mechanisms — each with different legal and timing constraints.
Retroactive reimbursement introduces audit and eligibility headaches. Local agencies will need to produce contemporaneous records showing costs were incurred for those specific Secret Service functions; DHS will need consistent criteria to accept claims, or it risks disparate outcomes across jurisdictions.
The consent requirement protects local control but gives jurisdictions bargaining power that could complicate planning for time-sensitive protective operations. Liability, indemnity, and workers’ compensation remain unresolved in the statutory text: without standard intergovernmental agreements, disputes about responsibility for injuries or equipment damage could follow.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.