HB 318 would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend the entry of certain aliens at U.S. land and maritime borders when doing so is necessary to achieve operational control over those borders. The suspension can be exercised in whole or in part for a period deemed necessary to reach the stated objective, notwithstanding other law.
The bill also creates a mechanism for enforcement by states, authorizing state attorneys general to bring actions in federal court to obtain injunctive relief on behalf of their residents if the Secretary’s actions raise concerns under the act. Finally, the bill defines key terms such as “covered alien” and “operational control” to align with existing immigration and border-security frameworks.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of Homeland Security may prohibit the entry of “covered aliens” at international land or maritime borders for the period needed to achieve “operational control” over the border, using authority that supersedes other laws.
Who It Affects
Covered aliens seeking entry, DHS border agencies (CBP, ICE), and state governments that may sue for injunctive relief on behalf of residents.
Why It Matters
This creates a formal, law-based tool to pause entry for border-control purposes, while enabling state-level litigation as a check on federal action and tying the suspension to detention and processing prerequisites.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Border Safety and Security Act of 2025 consolidates a border-control tool into a single, explicit authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend entry of certain aliens when doing so is necessary to achieve operational control over the border. This authority applies at international land and maritime borders and can be exercised for as long as the Secretary deems necessary, even if other laws would normally govern entry.
A key provision links suspension to the Department’s ability to detain or place individuals under specific sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act; if the Secretary cannot detain under INA 235(b)(1)(B) or place entrants into a program under INA 235(b)(2)(C), entry must be suspended for the period during which those constraints cannot be met. The act also empowers States to bring lawsuits in federal court to secure injunctive relief if they believe the Secretary’s implementation affects their residents.
Definitions anchor the terms “covered alien” (inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)) and “operational control” (as used in the Secure Fence Act). In short, the bill provides a legally defined mechanism for temporarily halting entry to preserve border control, while creating a federal-state enforcement pathway and tying the process to existing detention obligations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend entry of covered aliens at international borders for the period necessary to achieve operational control.
Suspension is triggered when the Secretary cannot detain under INA 235(b)(1)(B) or place entrants in a program under INA 235(b)(2)(C).
States can sue the Secretary in federal court for injunctive relief on behalf of residents if the suspension affects them.
“Covered alien” is defined as an alien inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7); “operational control” uses the Secure Fence Act definition.
The Act is titled the Border Safety and Security Act of 2025.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section codifies the act’s name as the Border Safety and Security Act of 2025. It provides the formal label that will be used in all references and enforcement discussions. The naming aligns with the bill’s core purpose: to enhance border safety through a defined suspension authority.
Suspension of Entry of Aliens
Section 2 grants the Secretary of Homeland Security discretionary power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the entry of covered aliens at land or maritime borders for the period deemed necessary to achieve operational control. The suspension operates notwithstanding other laws and is conditioned on the Secretary’s ability to detain such aliens under INA 235(b)(1)(B) or to place them in a program under INA 235(b)(2)(C). The section also permits state attorneys general to seek injunctive relief in federal court on behalf of their residents if the suspension affects them, enforcing the act’s provisions at the state level. Definitions anchor the terms used in this section, including “covered alien” and “operational control.”
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
- DHS and its border-security components (CBP, ICE) gain a legally defined tool to manage border flow and enforce operational control during border surges.
- States with border-adjacent populations benefit from a formal mechanism to challenge or support DHS actions through injunctive relief, protecting residents’ interests.
- Border communities and local stakeholders in states with international borders gain clarity on enforcement posture and potential reductions in cross-border strain during periods of heightened control.
Who Bears the Cost
- Covered aliens face entry suspension, which restricts their ability to enter the United States under the defined conditions.
- DHS and related agencies bear operational and detention costs associated with implementing suspensions and ensuring compliance with the act’s prerequisites.
- State governments and their court systems incur costs related to enforcing the act through litigation and potential broader litigation surrounding border policy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing rapid, discretionary border-entry suspensions aimed at operational control with constitutionally rooted rights, detention capacity, and potential disparities in application across states and border communities.
The bill hinges on the concept of “operational control” and relies on existing detention and processing structures under INA 235(b). This creates a policy tension between an executive-branch tool for border control and the practical realities of detention capacity, asylum processing, and due process obligations.
The reliance on state-level enforcement via AGs introduces a federal-state dynamic that could complicate uniform application and raise questions about venue, standing, and the scope of injunctive relief. Additionally, the act’s definitions tie into longstanding border-security frameworks, but the absence of a detailed procedural floor for how suspensions are actually implemented raises questions about consistency, targeting, and rights protections under due process.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.