The Security First Act requires the Secretary of State to deliver a formal assessment on whether several named Mexican drug cartels and the Tren de Aragua gang meet the legal criteria for designation as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. It also injects new, multi-year funding authority into the Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Stonegarden grants and creates a dedicated trust fund seeded by certain monetary instruments seized at the U.S.–Mexico border.
Separately, the bill orders a comprehensive technology needs analysis for the Southwest border, with biannual updates, and a review of DHS hiring practices from 2018–2024. The package combines near-term resource direction for state and local partners with studies intended to shape long-term procurement and workforce decisions — and ties a portion of Stonegarden’s funding to proceeds from border seizures, a fiscal design choice with operational and oversight implications.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary of State to assess whether specified cartels and Tren de Aragua meet statutory FTO criteria; authorizes multi-year funding for Operation Stonegarden and related technology procurement; creates an Operation Stonegarden Trust Fund funded by certain seized monetary instruments; mandates a DHS Southwest border technology needs analysis with biannual updates; and requires a DHS hiring practices report covering 2018–2024.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include the Department of State (FTO assessment), the Department of Homeland Security and its components (CBP, HSI, Science & Technology), state, local and Tribal law enforcement that apply for Stonegarden grants, defense and surveillance contractors competing for border technology procurements, and communities concerned about surveillance and privacy at the border.
Why It Matters
The bill links seizure-derived funds to recurring grant support, potentially stabilizing a frontline funding stream while raising oversight questions. An FTO assessment of cartels would be a major policy shift with legal and diplomatic consequences. The mandated technology study could accelerate acquisition of advanced surveillance and inspection systems and shape DHS procurement priorities for years.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Security First Act packs three distinct but connected exercises: a diplomatic/legal assessment, an appropriation and trust-fund mechanism tied to enforcement proceeds, and a set of DHS-directed studies intended to inform operations and workforce planning. On the diplomatic/legal side, the Secretary of State must report to Congress about whether several named Mexican cartels and Tren de Aragua meet the statutory definition of a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
The bill does not itself redesignate those groups; it requires an assessment and delivery of findings to specific congressional committees.
On funding, the bill authorizes renewed funding for the Operation Stonegarden grant program and creates a new Treasury trust fund whose inflows are defined as amounts in the general fund attributable to unreported monetary instruments seized by CBP at the U.S.–Mexico border. That fund is made available to DHS without further appropriations but is limited to supporting Stonegarden.
The statute codifies a specific definition of “monetary instrument” (covering currency, bearer instruments, traveler’s checks, bearer securities, etc.) and enumerates exceptions such as payable-to-order checks.The bill’s technology mandate asks DHS to produce a near-term, comprehensive needs analysis for Southwest border technology and then provide biannual updates for a multi-year period. The analysis must catalog capability gaps and assess a wide array of technologies — from manned and unmanned sensors, counter-UAS tools, and tower and mobile surveillance, to non-intrusive inspection (including advanced techniques like muon tomography), tunnel detection, communications systems, and biometrics — while explicitly considering privacy implications, interoperability, staffing impacts, and the department’s current development efforts.
Finally, the bill requires a relatively short-timed review of DHS hiring and recruitment practices covering 2018–2024 and recommendations to improve operational capacity.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary of State to deliver an FTO assessment within 60 days after enactment and specifically lists Jalisco New Generation, Sinaloa, Juarez, Tijuana, Gulf, Los Zetas, and Tren de Aragua for review.
It authorizes $110,000,000 per fiscal year for the Operation Stonegarden grant program for FY2025–FY2028 and not less than $36,666,666 per year in the same period for technology and equipment procurement.
The Operation Stonegarden Trust Fund will be seeded by annual transfers from Treasury equivalent to amounts in the general fund attributable to unreported monetary instruments seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the U.S.–Mexico border and made available to DHS without further appropriation.
DHS must submit a Southwest border technology needs analysis within one year that explicitly evaluates advanced detection systems (including muon tomography), unmanned aerial systems, counter-UAS, tower and mobile surveillance, tunnel detection, communications gear, and biometric and cloud capabilities.
The Secretary must produce a DHS hiring practices report within 120 days that covers recruitment from 2018–2024 and provides recommendations to improve the department’s operational workforce.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional findings framing the bill
Section 2 collects statistics and anecdotal operational claims that the sponsors use to justify the measures that follow — migration encounter counts, gotaways, seizures of fentanyl, and references to cartel threats and alerts. While nonbinding, these findings signal congressional intent and the operational lens through which appropriations and policy changes should be interpreted by agencies and grant recipients.
Operation Stonegarden appropriations authorization
Subsection (a) authorizes multi-year funding for Stonegarden grants and earmarks a separate minimum annual amount for procurement of technology and equipment. This is an authorization, not an immediate appropriation, but it sets clear congressional guidance on the program’s funding priorities for FY2025–FY2028 and directs recipients to expect a technology-focused element in grant disbursements.
Operation Stonegarden Trust Fund and seizure-linked transfers
Subsection (b) establishes a trust fund in Treasury that receives annual transfers equal to the amount in the general fund attributable to unreported monetary instruments seized by CBP at the southern border. The statute defines the covered monetary instruments and enumerates exceptions. Amounts in the fund are available to DHS without further appropriation but may only be used for Stonegarden, which creates a direct funding pipeline from seizure proceeds to state/local grant support and limits the use of those funds to that program.
Foreign Terrorist Organization assessment mandate
Section 4 obliges the Secretary of State to report to specified House and Senate committees regarding whether the named cartels and Tren de Aragua meet the INA’s FTO criteria. It does not itself add or remove listings; rather it requires the Department of State to analyze the groups against the existing statutory elements of the FTO definition and present findings to Congress within a calendarized window.
Southwest border technology needs analysis, updates, and considerations
Section 5 requires DHS to produce a technology needs analysis within one year, with biannual updates for four years, covering an expansive list of technologies: manned/unmanned sensors, counter-UAS, tower and mobile surveillance, advanced unattended sensors, deployable lighter-than-air systems, non-intrusive inspection (including muon tomography), tunnel detection, and communications (radios, LTE, miniature satellites). The statute directs DHS to evaluate operational gaps, development efforts by component offices, staffing impacts, interagency and cross-jurisdiction cooperation, privacy implications, and the department’s ability to measure operational control and situational awareness.
DHS hiring practices report (2018–2024)
Section 6 requires DHS to produce a report within 120 days that reviews recruitment practices from 2018 through 2024 and issues recommendations to improve operational capacity. This creates a near-term accountability product intended to feed hiring and retention planning but does not itself change hiring authorities or provide new funds.
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
- State and local law enforcement that participate in Operation Stonegarden — the bill authorizes predictable multi-year funding and a dedicated trust fund to support border-focused cooperative operations and equipment purchases.
- Defense and surveillance contractors — the mandated technology analysis and explicit procurement earmark for equipment create clearer signals and potential procurement opportunities for firms supplying drones, sensors, tower systems, non-intrusive inspection, and communications gear.
- DHS operational components (CBP, HSI, Science & Technology) — the bill directs studies and a funding stream that could expand operational capacity, acquisition authority, and access to modern surveillance and inspection technologies.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Department of State — staff and analytic resources will be needed quickly to assess FTO criteria for multiple complex transnational criminal organizations, with potential diplomatic and legal follow-on costs if the assessment leads to action.
- Privacy advocates and border communities — expanded surveillance and acquisition of persistent sensing capabilities raise privacy, civil liberties, and cross-border data-sharing costs that local communities and civil society will need to litigate or monitor.
- Federal budgets and oversight mechanisms — while the trust fund taps seizure-attributable amounts in the general fund, the approach shifts the fiscal relationship between asset forfeiture-like proceeds and appropriations and will require Treasury/DHS accounting and congressional oversight resources to track transfers and uses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill seeks to rapidly expand border security capacity and provide predictable resources to state and local partners, but it does so by tying program funding to enforcement-derived proceeds and by encouraging acquisition of intrusive technologies — a trade-off between resourcing aggressive operational measures and protecting civil liberties, sustaining stable funding, and preserving diplomatic and interagency partnerships.
The bill’s funding design links operational grant support to a revenue stream derived from seized ‘‘unreported monetary instruments’’ deposited into the general fund and then transferred back into a dedicated trust. That creates variability and accounting complexity: seizures fluctuate year to year, the definition of attributable amounts may be administratively fraught, and relying on enforcement-derived revenues to finance recurring grants risks perverse incentives and oversight gaps unless Congress and agencies establish robust reporting and controls.
The FTO assessment mandate brings thorny legal and diplomatic questions into sharper relief. Statutory FTO criteria focus on political objectives and intent to intimidate or coerce, while cartels have traditionally been prosecuted for narcotics and violent crimes.
An assessment could widen U.S. tools against cartel networks but also risk diplomatic friction with Mexico, complicate intelligence and law enforcement partnerships, and trigger legal consequences for third parties. Separately, the sweeping technology analysis invites rapid procurement of intrusive capabilities; the bill requires privacy consideration, but it does not set binding privacy safeguards, authorization standards, or independent oversight on deployments, nor does it address sustainment costs or how state/local partners will integrate and operate advanced systems.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.