The Grant Integrity and Border Security Act conditions eligibility for any Federal grant on a written certification that the applicant has not violated, is not violating, and will not violate section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act — the statute that prohibits bringing in, harboring, or concealing certain noncitizens. The certification covers the previous 10 years and extends through the grant term.
If an agency head determines a grantee is in violation, the agency must withhold grant funds; that determination may rely on information from the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General’s disclosures to the Office of Management and Budget Director, employee convictions or admissions tied to grant duties, or any other credible information. The Attorney General also must report convictions, admissions, or completed investigations under INA §274(a) to the OMB Director within 90 days.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires every applicant for a federal award to certify no violation of INA §274(a) within the prior 10 years, no current violation, and a promise of no violation during the grant. Agencies get authority to withhold funds from grantees found in violation based on specified sources of information or other credible evidence.
Who It Affects
All entities that apply for federal grants as defined by 31 U.S.C. §6401 — including state and local governments, nonprofits, universities, and contractors — plus federal agencies that administer grants and OMB as the recipient of DOJ reporting.
Why It Matters
This bill ties immigration-enforcement standards directly to federal grant eligibility and funding flows, creating a compliance pathway that reaches many grant recipients and shifts fact-finding and reporting responsibilities to DOJ, DHS, and OMB.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core compliance obligation is simple on paper: any applicant for a federal grant must submit a certification about section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That certification is threefold — a lookback for the prior 10 years, a present-state claim of no violation, and a pledge not to violate the statute during the grant term.
Because the definition of “Federal grant” borrows the federal award definition in 31 U.S.C. §6401, the requirement applies to the broad universe of grants and cooperative agreements across agencies.
If an agency head decides a grantee is in violation, the bill requires withholding of funds. The statute gives the agency latitude on proof: the agency can rely on notifications from DHS and the OMB Director, convictions or admissions by employees (if tied to official duties), or “any other credible information.” That phrase is intentionally broad and leaves significant discretion with individual agencies about what constitutes sufficient evidence to interrupt funding.The bill formalizes an information flow from the Department of Justice to OMB: when DOJ records a conviction, an admission, or completes an INA §274(a) investigation, it must send related information to the OMB Director within 90 days.
OMB’s role is effectively to centralize DOJ reporting for grant administrators, though the bill does not create a separate adjudicative process inside OMB or the agencies. Finally, the statute supplies statutory cross-references for “agency” (5 U.S.C. §551) and “federal grant” (31 U.S.C. §6401), which anchors the compliance obligation to established administrative definitions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The certification obligation covers three periods: the previous 10 years, the present, and the entire grant term.
Agency heads must withhold grant funds from any grantee they determine is in violation; withholding may follow information from DHS, the OMB Director, employee convictions/admissions tied to official duties, or any other credible information.
The Attorney General must provide DOJ information about convictions, admissions, or completed INA §274(a) investigations to the OMB Director within 90 days.
The bill incorporates statutory definitions by reference: “agency” uses 5 U.S.C. §551 and “Federal grant” uses the “Federal award” definition in 31 U.S.C. §6401.
The text contains no procedures for notice, appeal, or reinstatement of withheld funds and does not define the evidentiary standard for ‘credible information.’.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Grant Integrity and Border Security Act
This short-title provision simply names the Act. It sets no substantive obligations but frames the legislative purpose on its face: linking grant integrity to border-security-related immigration offenses.
Certification requirement tied to INA §274(a)
This subsection requires each agency head to demand that any federal-grant applicant certify they have not violated INA §274(a) in the prior 10 years, are not currently violating it, and will not violate it during the grant. Because the bill adopts the federal award definition, the requirement reaches the full range of federal grants and cooperative agreements, not only competitive discretionary grants.
Agency authority to withhold funds and permissible bases
Agency heads must withhold funds from grantees they determine are in violation. The statute lists permissible bases for that determination: information from DHS and the Director (OMB), convictions or admissions by current or former employees when tied to official duties, and any other credible information. The provision vests substantial fact-finding discretion in agencies and allows employee misconduct to trigger funding consequences for the entire recipient organization.
DOJ reporting duty to OMB
This subsection obligates the Attorney General to forward information about convictions, admissions, or the completion of investigations under INA §274(a) to the OMB Director within 90 days. The provision creates a formal reporting channel from DOJ into the executive-branch budget office, which agencies can then cite when making withholding decisions.
Definitions
The statute defines key terms by cross-reference: “agency” per 5 U.S.C. §551, “Director” as the OMB Director, and “Federal grant” via the “Federal award” definition in 31 U.S.C. §6401. Those references determine the scope of applicability and the responsible offices.
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 grant administrators and OMB — the bill centralizes information flows from DOJ and gives agencies clear statutory authority to cut funding when brushfires of alleged INA §274(a) misconduct arise, improving their leverage to address suspected harboring or transport violations.
- DHS and DOJ enforcement priorities — the statute formalizes reporting pathways and increases the practical consequences of INA §274(a) convictions or admissions, amplifying enforcement tools beyond criminal penalties.
- Competing grant applicants — organizations that can document compliance may gain a competitive advantage if agencies treat the certification and related records as part of grant fitness evaluations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonprofits, universities, and local governments that receive federal grants — they must add INA §274(a) diligence to grant compliance, monitor employee conduct, and face the risk of emergency withholding based on broad standards of information.
- Federal grant-making agencies — they inherit a new, open-ended duty to investigate, evaluate ‘credible information,’ and manage withheld funds without the bill specifying procedural safeguards or resourcing.
- OMB and DOJ — OMB must receive and potentially act on DOJ reports and DOJ must produce timely reports; both face increased administrative workload and potential litigation over reporting content and timeliness.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill advances a clear enforcement objective — use federal funding as leverage to prevent harboring or transport of unauthorized noncitizens — but it does so by creating broad, discretionary withholding powers tied to loosely defined evidentiary triggers and without procedural safeguards; the central dilemma is between maximizing enforcement reach and preserving predictable, legally defensible grant administration for organizations that depend on federal funding.
The bill gives agencies wide discretion to withhold funds while offering few procedural protections. It does not set a standard for what constitutes ‘credible information,’ nor does it prescribe notice, opportunity to contest, or timelines for agencies to reinstate funds once withheld.
That creates legal and operational uncertainty: grantees may face abrupt funding interruptions based on opaque evidence or third-party allegations, and agencies will have to develop internal processes from scratch.
The statute also blurs organizational and individual liability: an employee’s conviction or admission while performing official duties can trigger withholding from the employer recipient, even if the employer had no knowledge or active participation. The reporting duty from DOJ to OMB centralizes facts but does not define the data scope, redaction standards, or privacy protections.
Those omissions raise questions about fairness, potential overreach into grant program administration, and collision with existing debarment, suspension, and misconduct rules under federal grant law.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.