The bill would authorize a new Land Port of Entry Community Infrastructure Program under the Department of Homeland Security to award grants to States, Tribes, and local governments and to not-for-profit, member-owned utility services. These grants address deficiencies in infrastructure that support land ports of entry, including transportation, utilities, and other projects located within 25 miles of a port.
The funding mechanism includes a non-Federal matching requirement and potential reimbursement for project costs, with guiding criteria and interagency coordination to prioritize improvements that enhance safety, efficiency, resilience, and the quality of life for port-area communities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary may award grants to eligible State, Tribal, and local governments and certain utility entities to fund community infrastructure that supports land ports of entry. Eligible projects fall into categories such as transportation, water/wastewater, telecom, and other utilities that modernize or support a port of entry or nearby areas within 25 miles.
Who It Affects
States, Tribal governments, local governments, and not-for-profit utilities directly receive funding or are asked to contribute non-Federal resources. Port-area communities and CBP personnel and their families stand to benefit from improved corridors, services, and working conditions.
Why It Matters
The program creates a formal pathway to fund critical border-adjacent infrastructure, aiming to improve travel and trade efficiency, border security through better-related infrastructure, and the resilience of border communities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill creates a new federal program under DHS called the Land Port of Entry Community Infrastructure Program. It authorizes DHS to grant funds to eligible State, Tribal, and local governments and certain nonprofit, member-owned utility services to address infrastructure deficiencies that affect land ports of entry.
Eligible projects span traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, water and wastewater systems, telecommunications, and other utilities that directly support a port of entry or are located within 25 miles of one and disproportionately impacted by its presence.
To determine which projects receive funds, the bill directs the Secretary to establish criteria and prioritization that include safety, efficiency, reliability of trade and travel, border security metrics, resilience, and the well-being of port-area communities. The program encourages interagency coordination, consulting with agencies including DOT, Commerce, HUD, Energy, Agriculture, and the EPA, to align with broader federal and state plans.
A key governance feature is a matching requirement: recipients must contribute non-Federal funds totaling at least 30% of project costs, with possible reductions or waivers for rural areas or homeland-security-focused projects. Reimbursement provisions allow DHS to reimburse up to 70% of documented costs if the recipient has already funded project work, subject to the matching rules.Funding is authorized as necessary for each fiscal year, and amounts remain available until expended, subject to appropriations.
The bill thus creates a predictable but competitive funding stream intended to accelerate port modernization while managing federal budget realities through matching and interagency coordination.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes a new Land Port of Entry Community Infrastructure Program within DHS to fund port-adjacent infrastructure projects.
Eligible recipients include States, Tribes, local governments, and not-for-profit, member-owned utilities, with projects within 25 miles of a port.
A baseline non-Federal matching requirement of 30% applies, with rural area or homeland security-based exceptions to reduce or waive the match.
Recipients can be reimbursed up to 70% of project costs if they have expended funds, subject to the matching rules.
DHS must standardize eligibility processes and consult with several other federal agencies to align project selection with broader infrastructure goals.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
Defines Community Infrastructure to include transportation, water/wastewater, telecom, electric, or other utilities that directly support a land port of entry, or projects within 25 miles that are disproportionately impacted by a port’s presence. It also defines Rural Area as communities with populations not exceeding 100,000 and sets Secretary as the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Funding Authorized
Authorizes the Secretary to award grants and supplement funds from other federal programs to help State, Tribal, and local governments and not-for-profit, member-owned utilities address deficiencies in community infrastructure supportive of land ports of entry.
Eligibility Criteria and Project Categories
Establishes categories for eligible projects, including safety, efficiency, and reliability of trade and travel; border security improvements; resilience; CBP personnel family quality of life; and community impact projects addressing congestion, pollution, and environmental concerns.
Additional Considerations
Requires consideration of projects identified in CBP’s 2024 modernization report, state capital plans, and metrics related to alleviating commuter workforce issues and supporting CBP personnel and dependents.
Standardization and Interagency Consultation
directs the Secretary to develop guidance to standardize project identification, validation, and prioritization, coordinating with agencies such as DOT, Commerce, HUD, Energy, Agriculture, the EPA, and others.
Matching Requirement
Implements a 30% non-Federal matching requirement for most projects, with exceptions allowing reduced or waived matches for rural areas or homeland security–related priorities.
Reimbursement
Enables reimbursement of up to 70% of costs for projects funded by state, tribal, local governments or not-for-profit utilities, provided alignment with eligibility criteria and matching rules.
Authorization of Appropriations
Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year to carry out the program, with funding availability lasting until expended, contingent on appropriations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure 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 gain access to federal funds for local infrastructure near ports of entry, enabling modernization and improved logistics.
- Tribal governments can fund critical near-port infrastructure that supports sovereignty and community needs.
- Local governments gain a funding mechanism to address traffic, safety, and environmental impacts in port-adjacent areas.
- Not-for-profit, member-owned utilities can participate as project sponsors, expanding the pool of experienced operators involved in port-area projects.
- Port-area communities and residents may experience improved mobility, reduced congestion, and better local services surrounding land ports of entry.
- CBP personnel and their families could benefit from improved working and living conditions in port-adjacent communities.
Who Bears the Cost
- State, Tribal, and local governments must provide non-Federal matching contributions (30% baseline).
- Not-for-profit, member-owned utilities may incur and justify costs as part of project execution.
- Local taxpayers and ratepayers may indirectly bear the incremental costs of supported infrastructure (e.g., increased rates or taxes defrayed by funding).
- Federal agencies funding the program must balance this initiative with other budget priorities, potentially affecting overall DHS spending levels.
- Administrative and reporting burdens shift to recipient jurisdictions to demonstrate eligibility and compliance with program requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing local cost-sharing and federal investment: a 30% matching requirement can exclude cash-strapped communities or constrain momentum in rural areas, while waivers and reductions can dilute cost certainty and comparability across projects and jurisdictions.
The bill creates a targeted program with clear benefits for border infrastructure, but it also introduces a funding mechanism that hinges on annual appropriations and non-Federal cost sharing. The reliance on a 30% match, with possible reductions, raises questions about equitable access for smaller or financially constrained jurisdictions, particularly in rural areas.
Interagency coordination and standardized processes should improve consistency, yet they may slow initial rollout as agencies align procedures and criteria across multiple bureaus. Implementation risks include project selection bias toward jurisdictions with greater administrative capacity and the challenge of measuring long-term border security and resilience gains.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.