This bill conditions Department of Transportation funding on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It would bar the Secretary of Transportation from providing contracts, extensions, renewals, awards, or any Federal funds to jurisdictions characterized as "sanctuary cities," while allowing a case-by-case waiver.
The measure uses the funding power to press local compliance with federal immigration information-sharing and detainer requests. If enacted, it would attach immigration-policy criteria to DOT grants and contracts, creating new administrative responsibilities for DOT and immediate financing risk for affected local transportation projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
The statute forbids the Secretary of Transportation from awarding, extending, or renewing any contract, grant, award, or other Federal funds to a locality designated as a "sanctuary city," subject only to a case-by-case waiver. It defines "sanctuary city" by local limits on sharing immigration status information or by refusal to honor certain DHS detainer or notification requests.
Who It Affects
State governments and political subdivisions (cities, counties) that have policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, state and local transportation agencies that receive DOT funding, and DOT itself as the administering agency. Contractors and transit operators in affected jurisdictions will face downstream funding uncertainty.
Why It Matters
The bill uses DOT funding as leverage to enforce immigration cooperation, raising practical questions about how DOT will identify covered jurisdictions, process waivers, and handle formula or multi-jurisdictional grants. It also creates immediate fiscal exposure for local infrastructure projects that rely on federal transportation dollars.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes a blunt funding condition: the Secretary of Transportation may not provide any grant, award, or Federal funds to a jurisdiction the statute labels a "sanctuary city." The prohibition is broad on its face — it covers entering into new contracts, extending or renewing existing contracts, and awarding grants or other Federal funds administered by DOT. The text also begins with a "notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause, which signals Congress intends this condition to override conflicting statutory authorities that might otherwise require or authorize DOT to provide funds.
The bill creates a single, limited pathway for relief from the bar: the Secretary may waive the prohibition on a case-by-case basis, but only after submitting a written certification that the activity for which the waiver is sought is in the national interest. That certification must be delivered to two congressional committees — the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure — not later than 15 days before the activity would occur.
The text ties the waiver to a short pre-notification window and an explicit congressional oversight channel, rather than establishing objective criteria for waivers.The statute defines "sanctuary city" to mean any State or political subdivision that has a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that either (a) prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with other government entities information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status, or (b) prohibits or restricts complying with a DHS request under sections 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act — cited in the bill as 8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357 — which govern pretrial detention and immigration enforcement detainers and notifications. The definition therefore reaches both information-sharing rules and noncooperation with specific federal requests.Practically, the bill raises a set of administrative and legal questions that DOT would have to resolve if it were enacted.
DOT would need a process to determine which States or localities meet the statutory definition, decide whether and how to withhold funds tied to multi-jurisdictional grants or formula programs, and operationalize the 15-day waiver notice across the agency. The measure does not create a new enforcement office or administrative adjudication process inside DOT; it relies on DOT's grant administration and committee notification to effect compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bars the Secretary of Transportation from providing any grant, award, or Federal funds to a jurisdiction designated as a "sanctuary city," including entering into or renewing contracts.
The Secretary may waive the prohibition on a case-by-case basis only after submitting a written certification to two congressional committees that the activity is in the national interest, delivered no later than 15 days before the activity.
The statutory definition of "sanctuary city" covers any State or political subdivision whose statute, ordinance, policy, or practice restricts exchanging immigration- or citizenship-status information with government entities.
The definition also captures local laws or practices that restrict complying with DHS requests under INA sections 236 or 287 (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357), i.e.
certain detainer and notification requests.
The bill contains no administrative standard or procedural mechanism for designating a jurisdiction a "sanctuary city," nor does it create an appeal process or specific penalty other than withholding DOT funds.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill the public name "No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act." This is purely formal, but the short title signals the statute's enforcement tool: federal transportation funding.
Funding prohibition — scope
Imposes an across-the-board bar on DOT-provided grants, awards, or Federal funds to a covered jurisdiction and prohibits entering into, extending, or renewing contracts with such jurisdictions. The language is broad and transactional: it reaches awards, contracts, and other "Federal funds" administered by DOT without distinguishing between competitive grants, discretionary awards, formula allocations, emergency relief, or in-kind support. That breadth will force DOT to decide how to implement the prohibition across program types and whether to treat multi-jurisdictional or pass-through grants differently.
Case-by-case waiver with committee notice
Authorizes the Secretary to waive the prohibition in individual instances but conditions the waiver on a short, specified process: the Secretary must send a written certification to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee not later than 15 days before the activity. The waiver standard in the text is a single phrase — "in the national interest" — without more granular criteria or an administrative record requirement, leaving substantial discretion to the Secretary but also establishing an explicit congressional oversight mechanism tied to timing.
Definition of 'sanctuary city'
Defines the covered entity as any State or political subdivision that has statutes, ordinances, policies, or practices that (1) prohibit or restrict government entities or officials from sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging information on citizenship or immigration status with other government entities, or (2) prohibit or restrict complying with DHS requests under INA sections 236 and 287 (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357) related to detainers and notifications. The definition reaches both informational limits (data sharing) and operational noncooperation (detainer compliance), but it leaves open who determines whether a local rule rises to the statutory threshold and what evidence will satisfy that determination.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation 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
- Department of Homeland Security and immigration enforcement actors: The funding condition gives DHS and related federal enforcement entities leverage to encourage local cooperation without changing immigration law directly.
- Non‑sanctuary local governments and regions: Jurisdictions that already cooperate with federal immigration authorities may gain relative advantage in DOT competitive grants and political goodwill tied to infrastructure funding decisions.
- Members of Congress seeking oversight: The requirement to notify the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee centralizes congressional visibility and creates a formal role for those committees in waiver decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sanctuary jurisdictions (cities, counties, possibly states): These local governments risk losing DOT grants and contract awards they rely on to fund highways, transit, and safety projects, creating budget shortfalls or project delays.
- State and local transportation agencies and transit operators: Projects that cross municipal boundaries or rely on pass-through funding may face interruptions, matching-fund gaps, or renegotiation costs if a partner jurisdiction is designated a sanctuary.
- Department of Transportation: DOT will incur administrative costs to develop compliance procedures, determine which recipients meet the definition, and administer waiver certifications under a tight 15-day window.
- Residents and commuters in affected areas: Ultimately, withholding DOT funds can delay or cancel infrastructure and transit projects, hitting riders, motorists, and the local economy even where projects are unrelated to immigration policy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between using federal spending to achieve uniform immigration cooperation and preserving local autonomy and public-safety policy choices: the bill strengthens federal leverage over localities that limit immigration information-sharing, but it does so by threatening infrastructure funding that serves broad public needs, potentially harming the very communities the policy aims to change and raising hard legal questions about federal power and administrative fairness.
The bill's legal and operational contours are under-specified in ways that will likely produce litigation and administrative friction. First, the definition of "sanctuary city" is broad and fact-dependent: what qualifies as a "policy or practice" that "restricts" information exchange or detainer compliance can range from formal ordinances to internal guidance.
The statute does not create a transparent designation process, evidence standard, or appeal right, so DOT would face immediate pressure to develop criteria and procedures that could themselves be challenged as arbitrary or procedurally deficient.
Second, the measure does not distinguish among types of DOT programs. Formula grants, emergency relief, and multi-jurisdictional projects present distinct legal and practical problems: withholding formula funds for a single city may indirectly penalize statewide allocations or regional systems.
The narrow waiver — a written certification sent 15 days before an activity — provides limited flexibility but raises timing and confidentiality concerns and does not resolve who bears financial responsibility during the waiver review. Finally, the statute's "notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause invites constitutional and statutory litigation about conditional spending, commandeering, and the limits of federal power to reallocate program dollars based on local policy choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.