HB 3827 would force political subdivisions that have policies restricting information sharing or detainer cooperation with federal immigration authorities to return federal funds not obligated that were received during the period those policies were in effect. The clawback is scoped to funds received in the fifth full fiscal year before the act’s effective date and excludes certain funds under specific provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
A grace period allows the jurisdiction to remedy its status within 15 days, suspending the clawback if the jurisdiction notifies the Attorney General and takes action to no longer be a sanctuary jurisdiction. The bill thereby creates a budgeting lever to enforce federal immigration enforcement expectations at the substate level.
At a Glance
What It Does
Section 2(a) requires any state political subdivision to return unobligated federal funds received during sanctuary periods, as defined in subsection (b). The clause is limited by timing (the fifth full fiscal year before the act’s effective date) and by an exemption for funds described in subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. A grace period in Section 2(d) provides a 15‑day remedy window.
Who It Affects
Substate governments (county/city governments) that have statutes or policies restricting information sharing or detainer cooperation; federal fund disbursal entities and agencies that administer such funds; and the federal government overseeing the clawback mechanism.
Why It Matters
It establishes a concrete fiscal mechanism to push substate actors toward federal immigration enforcement alignment, potentially altering local budgeting decisions and the distribution of federal dollars at the state and local level.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a formal policy to claw back federal dollars from localities that operate under sanctuary policies restricting information sharing or detainer cooperation. It defines sanctuary jurisdictions by statute or practice that limits government entities’ sharing information about citizenship or immigration status, or limits compliance with DHS detainers.
The clawback applies to federal funds that were received during sanctuary periods and not obligated, but only starting with the fifth full fiscal year before the act’s effective date. Certain funds are exempt, including those covered by a portion of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
If a sanctuary jurisdiction notifies the Attorney General to remedy its status and acts within 15 days to stop being a sanctuary jurisdiction, the clawback can be suspended. The measure relies on federal oversight to identify and recoup funds, creating a direct cost to sanctuary jurisdictions and a potential flow of money back to the federal treasury.
The policy centers on intergovernmental budget discipline and federal-state-local dynamics around immigration enforcement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2(a) requires sanctuary jurisdictions to return unobligated federal funds received during sanctuary periods.
The clawback applies to funds beginning in the fifth full fiscal year before the act’s effective date.
Funds under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 are exempt.
There is a grace period: if a jurisdiction remedies its sanctuary status within 15 days, the clawback can be suspended.
Remedies are administered by the Attorney General, who receives notice and actions to stop sanctuary practices.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This act may be cited as the Recouping Funds from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025. The short title provides a framing for why a broad set of federal funds to substate governments could be reconsidered if those subjurisdictions maintain sanctuary policies.
Return of unobligated federal funds
Requires political subdivisions of a state to return any federal funds not obligated that were received during any period when that subdivision was described as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The mechanism serves as a backstop to ensure federal dollars disbursed during sanctuary periods are returned if the jurisdiction later changes its policies.
Political subdivision described
Defines sanctuary jurisdiction as any state subdivision that maintains a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice prohibiting or restricting information sharing about citizenship or immigration status, or limiting compliance with DHS detainers (or notification about release) under applicable federal law.
Limitations
App applies the clawback only to funds received by a state’s political subdivision beginning with the fifth full fiscal year prior to the act’s effective date. It also excludes funds described under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, ensuring some federal grants are not clawed back.
Grace period
If a political subdivision submits a remedy notice to the Attorney General and acts within 15 days to stop being a sanctuary jurisdiction, the application of the clawback is suspended, allowing a temporary window to resolve status without financial penalties.
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. Department of the Treasury—the primary conduit for recouped funds and administrative coordination of the clawback.
- Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General—oversee remedy notices and enforcement actions tied to the clawback.
- Grant-making and federal fund-disbursing agencies—implement the policy and monitor compliance across programs.
- Federal taxpayers—benefit from the potential redirection of funds back to the federal treasury and strengthened enforcement of federal immigration policy.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sanctuary jurisdictions and their political subdivisions bear the financial consequences of returning unobligated funds.
- State governments with sanctuary policies may incur administrative and compliance costs to determine funds and facilitate remedies.
- Federal agencies administering grants may incur administrative overhead to implement, monitor, and enforce the clawback and remedy process.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between intergovernmental budgeting discipline and local autonomy: should the federal government be able to claw back funds based on substate immigration policies, and at what political and practical cost? The mechanism solves a fiscal lever for enforcing federal immigration priorities but risks fiscal disruption for localities and potential legal challenges to the scope of federal authority over substate funding.
The bill creates a heavy incentive structure for substate governments to align with federal immigration enforcement policies by tying the disbursement of federal dollars to compliance. The scope hinges on a precise definition of sanctuary jurisdiction and a careful timing rule—federal funds must be returned only if they were received during sanctuary periods and not obligated, beginning with the fifth full fiscal year before the act’s effective date.
Exemptions to the clawback, such as funds covered by a specific portion of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, limit the reach of the policy. The grace period introduces a window for policy adjustments but relies on timely action by substate governments and federal oversight.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.