This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit immigration officers or agents of the Department of Homeland Security from wearing clothing or other items bearing the word 'police' while performing duties under immigration law. The prohibition applies specifically to DHS officers, including those from ICE and CBP, and covers clothing, accessories, or other items worn on the person.
The goal is to reduce confusion about who is enforcing immigration laws and to prevent the perception that DHS agents are acting as police in general policing contexts. The measure is narrowly tailored to branding behavior during immigration enforcement and does not create new penalties within the text of the bill itself, but would require DHS components to adjust uniforms and procurement practices to comply.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new subsection (i) to Section 287 of the INA, prohibiting DHS immigration officers and agents from wearing clothing, accessories, or items bearing the word 'police' while performing immigration duties.
Who It Affects
Immigration officers and agents within DHS, including ICE and CBP, as well as DHS procurement and uniform-issue processes responsible for outfitting personnel.
Why It Matters
Aims to curb deceptive branding and public confusion about who is enforcing immigration laws, potentially reducing misidentification as police in enforcement encounters.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Combating Deceptive Immigration Enforcement Practices Act of 2025 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit DHS immigration officers and agents from wearing any clothing or items that bear the word 'police' when they are performing duties under the immigration laws. This prohibition explicitly covers personnel from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The section uses broad language to include clothing, accessories, or other items worn on the person, ensuring that the restriction applies across uniforms and gear used in the field. The intent is to prevent the public from confusing DHS immigration officers with police more generally, by ensuring branding aligns with their specific enforcement role.
The bill focuses on branding rather than broad policing powers and does not introduce new enforcement mechanisms beyond mandating compliance in uniform-related matters. Agencies will need to adjust uniforms and related equipment to remove any 'police' labeling.
The measure is deliberately narrow and policy-focused, aimed at improving transparency in immigration enforcement branding without altering the core statutory authorities of DHS agencies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 287(i) to prohibit wearing the word 'police' by DHS immigration officers.
ICE and CBP are explicitly included in the prohibition.
The ban covers clothing, accessories, and other items on the person.
Compliance will require DHS to update uniforms and procurement processes.
The act is titled the Combating Deceptive Immigration Enforcement Practices Act of 2025.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Section 1 designates the act by its name: Combating Deceptive Immigration Enforcement Practices Act of 2025. It is a conventional opening provision and does not alter enforcement authority; it simply labels the statute for citation.
Uniform restriction on wearing 'police'
Section 2 adds new subsection (i) to Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, barring immigration officers and DHS agents (including ICE and CBP) from wearing any clothing, accessories, or other items on their person that bear the word 'police' when performing duties under immigration laws. This creates a branding standard intended to prevent public misperception of DHS agents as police.
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
- Immigrant communities and migrants who interact with DHS officers, who may benefit from reduced misperception and associated fear during enforcement encounters.
- Civil rights organizations and watchdog groups that monitor law enforcement branding, which will have clearer lines for evaluating compliance.
- DHS program offices and training units responsible for uniform standards, which gain clearer branding policies and easier enforcement of branding rules.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS agencies (ICE and CBP) will incur costs to replace or modify uniforms and gear that currently bear the word 'police' and to adjust procurement and training pipelines.
- Uniform and equipment vendors and contractors who supply DHS with clothing and insignia may bear transitional costs as products are redesigned or reissued to comply with the new standard.
- Local, state, and federal partners who issue uniforms or equipment to DHS personnel may face indirect costs associated with ensuring compatibility of branding across joint operations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the public’s need to distinguish DHS immigration officers from general police while maintaining officer safety and authority in the field.
The bill’s narrow focus on branding raises practical questions that compliance teams will want answered. Key implementation questions include how broadly 'clothing, accessories, or other items on their person' will be interpreted (does it include badges, patches, digital insignia, or insignia on equipment like vests and backpacks?), how to handle legacy items already in circulation, and what standard DHS will use to determine compliance.
Enforcement, oversight, and penalties are not laid out in the text, so agencies will likely rely on internal disciplinary processes or administrative guidance to handle violations. There is also a trade-off between maintaining immediate recognizability for safety and operational clarity versus the goal of eliminating misleading branding. coreTension: The central question is whether restricting the word 'police' on uniforms meaningfully reduces confusion and improves trust without hindering the display of essential authority signals in time-sensitive enforcement encounters.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.