The RIPPLE Act of 2025 would permit the Attorney General to reimburse states and localities for wages and overtime paid to officers who perform immigration enforcement functions under formal agreements under INA 287(g)(1). The reimbursements would cover wages as defined by the Internal Revenue Code and overtime as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, tied to performance of duties under the agreement.
The bill frames these reimbursements as limited, creating a federal funding mechanism that offsets local costs of immigration enforcement in participating jurisdictions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends Section 287(g)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize the Attorney General to reimburse states or political subdivisions for wages and overtime paid to officers performing immigration functions under an agreement under this subsection.
Who It Affects
State and local law enforcement agencies that operate immigration enforcement under 287(g) partnerships, including the officers employed by those agencies.
Why It Matters
Shifts some cost burden of immigration enforcement to the federal government, potentially enabling more jurisdictions to participate in 287(g) programs and affecting budgeting and staffing decisions 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 RIPPLE Act introduces a new funding mechanism to help pay for the salaries and overtime of state and local officers who perform immigration functions under formal 287(g) partnerships. The reimbursements would be provided by the Department of Justice’s Attorney General and would cover wages defined under the Internal Revenue Code and overtime defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for work carried out under an agreement created under INA 287(g)(1).
The bill does not create a broad expansion of enforcement powers; rather, it offsets some local costs already incurred by participating agencies. Because the reimbursements come from the federal government, the bill creates a direct federal-state funding relationship around immigration enforcement at the local level.
This could influence which jurisdictions participate and how they staff these roles, with budgetary implications for both state/local governments and federal appropriations. The measure is narrowly targeted and hinges on existing 287(g) partnerships, without establishing new enforcement authorities at the state level.
Overall, it shifts a portion of the cost burden of these functions to the federal level while preserving the current framework for state-local participation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends INA 287(g)(1) to authorize reimbursements for wages and overtime under immigration enforcement agreements.
Wages reimbursed are defined under IRC 3121(a); overtime is defined under FLSA section 7.
Reimbursements are provided by the Attorney General for costs incurred under eligible agreements.
The act labels these reimbursements as limited, but does not specify funding caps.
The RIPPLE Act is the short title for the bill, officially named the Reimbursements for Immigration Partnerships with Police to allow Local Enforcement Act of 2025.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Titles
Sec. 1 establishes the act’s official short title, the Reimbursements for Immigration Partnerships with Police to allow Local Enforcement Act of 2025 (RIPPLE Act of 2025). This section is purely definitional and does not modify enforcement authority; it sets naming conventions that frame the rest of the bill.
Reimbursements to States and Localities for Immigration Functions
Sec. 2 amends Sec. 287(g)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by authorizing reimbursements to states or political subdivisions for costs incurred for wages (as defined in IRC 3121(a)), including overtime remuneration (as defined in FLSA 7), or salary paid to an officer or employee for performing a function under an agreement under this subsection. The mechanism formalizes a federal funding pathway to offset local costs associated with immigration enforcement carried out under a 287(g)-style partnership.
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
- States and political subdivisions that operate immigration-enforcement functions under 287(g) or similar agreements, through offsetting wage and overtime costs.
- Local police departments and sheriff’s offices participating in immigration-enforcement partnerships, reducing net payroll expenditures.
- Officers employed by participating state/local agencies who receive reimbursement for wages and overtime, improving budget predictability for positions tied to immigration duties.
- State budget offices and eligible agencies may experience reduced pressure on local funds, enabling continued participation in partnerships where costs are otherwise a barrier.
Who Bears the Cost
- The federal government would assume a portion of local payroll costs, via reimbursements authorized for costs under an agreement.
- Federal administrative costs to administer the reimbursement program, including verification and auditing of wages and overtime claimed.
- Possible budgetary pressure on DOJ appropriations to fund the reimbursements, particularly if participation expands beyond current levels.
- State and local agencies may incur administrative costs to document and claim reimbursements and to maintain compliance with program requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Should federal reimbursements offset local costs for state-led immigration enforcement, potentially expanding the footprint of immigration policing at the local level, while maintaining federal control and oversight without explicit funding limits or guardrails?
The bill creates a federal reimbursement pathway for wages and overtime tied to state and local immigration enforcement functions, but it raises questions not settled in the text. There is no stated cap or funding envelope, leaving the program potentially open-ended in the absence of future appropriations.
Oversight, eligibility criteria, and compliance requirements are not specified in detail, which could affect administrative burden and the risk of misallocation if not clearly implemented. The interaction with existing 287(g) agreements would need careful alignment to avoid duplicative funding or gaps in oversight.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.