This bill prevents entities that receive Federal funding under section 90005(a)(1)(B) or (C) of Public Law 119–21 from using those funds to participate in 287(g) agreements or to carry out any civil immigration enforcement during a defined period in summer 2026. The restriction applies “notwithstanding any other provision of law” and includes a limited set of exigent circumstances under which enforcement actions remain permitted.
Why it matters: the bill creates a time-limited firewall between certain federal grant dollars and local immigration enforcement during an international event, forcing grant recipients and their federal partners to change operational protocols for reporting, arrests, and information-sharing for the specified dates. That produces immediate compliance choices for grant managers and operational planners for major events that draw international visitors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars recipients of funds governed by section 90005(a)(1)(B) or (C) of Public Law 119–21 from engaging in civil immigration enforcement or participating in 287(g) programs during the period beginning 12:01 a.m. June 11, 2026 and ending 11:59 p.m. July 19, 2026, except under named exigent circumstances. It does so by invoking a 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' clause to supersede conflicting authorities for that period.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are state and local entities that received Federal funds under the specified subsections of the State Homeland Security Grant funding in Public Law 119–21, and any local law enforcement officers or agencies operating under 287(g) arrangements. Secondary effects reach event organizers, venues, and local courts that handle incidents involving noncitizen attendees.
Why It Matters
Professionals who manage federal grants, public-safety planners, and legal counsel need to reconcile grant conditions with operational policies for policing, arrest, and information-sharing during the covered period. The bill establishes a narrow, temporary model for decoupling federal homeland-security dollars from immigration enforcement at large public events.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is short and tightly focused. It imposes a temporary prohibition on the use of particular federal homeland-security grant funds for civil immigration enforcement and for participation in 287(g) during a specific window in summer 2026.
The funding hook is explicit: only entities receiving funds under the two listed subsections of section 90005 of Public Law 119–21 are covered.
The substantive bar operates broadly: recipients may not take part in 287(g) programs and may not carry out any civil immigration enforcement activity as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act for the covered days. The statute overrides other law for that window, which means existing agreements or normal intergovernmental practices must yield to the prohibition unless an exigent circumstance applies.The bill defines exigent circumstances by reference to immediate threats: imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm (including terrorism); imminent national security risks; immediate arrests or hot pursuit when the individual presents an imminent risk to public safety; and imminent risk that material evidence will be destroyed in an ongoing criminal case.
Those four categories are the only exceptions the bill articulates; the text does not create additional categories or implementation guidance.Because the bill sets specific start and end times (down to the minute) and relies on an explicit funding source, compliance will hinge on grant administrators’ ability to identify which local units received the covered funds and to document when exigent exceptions apply. The bill contains no new enforcement mechanism or penalty provision; it achieves its effect by conditioning conduct on the availability of specified federal funds.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The prohibition applies only to entities receiving funding under section 90005(a)(1)(B) or 90005(a)(1)(C) of Public Law 119–21 — not to all State Homeland Security Grant recipients.
The covered time period runs from 12:01 a.m. on June 11, 2026 through 11:59 p.m. on July 19, 2026 (inclusive of the listed start and end minutes).
The bill expressly bars two categories of conduct: participation in any 287(g) program and carrying out any civil immigration enforcement activity as defined in INA section 101.
The statutory carveout for exigent circumstances lists four narrow, specific categories (imminent risk of death/terrorism, imminent national security risk, immediate arrest/hot pursuit for imminent public safety threats, and imminent risk of destruction of evidence in an ongoing criminal case).
The restriction is enacted 'notwithstanding any other provision of law,' signaling that covered entities must follow this temporary bar even if other statutes or agreements would otherwise authorize cooperation on immigration enforcement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: 'Protect World Cup Attendees Act.' Practically this signals the bill’s targeted purpose and the temporal focus tied to the FIFA World Cup dates; the short title itself carries no operative commands but frames legislative intent.
Limitation on use of specified Federal funds — substantive prohibition
Imposes the operative restriction: recipients of Federal funds under section 90005(a)(1)(B) or (C) of Public Law 119–21 may not, except under exigent circumstances, participate in 287(g) or carry out any civil immigration enforcement activity during the covered period. For practitioners this means existing 287(g) MOUs or routine immigration-related arrests that are funded or supported by the identified grant streams must be suspended unless an exigent exception clearly applies. The 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' language gives the provision temporal preeminence over conflicting authorities for the covered dates.
Definitions — covered time period and exigent circumstances
Defines the covered time period with precise start and end times and sets the four-pronged definition of 'exigent circumstances.' Those definitions narrow when enforcement remains permitted and create operational thresholds — for example, invoking 'imminent risk' or 'hot pursuit' — that agencies must be prepared to document. The bill does not supply administrative standards, reporting requirements, or a dispute-resolution mechanism for contested exigent claims.
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
- International visitors and World Cup attendees — the temporary restriction reduces the risk that interactions with local authorities during the event will trigger civil immigration enforcement actions tied to these specific federal grants, potentially improving perceived safety and access to services.
- Local immigrant communities in host cities — the prohibition lowers the likelihood that encounters with certain grant-funded public-safety programs during the event will lead to immigration consequences, which may encourage reporting of crimes and cooperation with law enforcement for public-safety purposes.
- Event organizers, venues, and hospitality businesses — reducing the prospect of immigration-related detentions tied to local law-enforcement actions can decrease reputational and operational risks during a major international event.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local law-enforcement agencies that received the cited grant funds — they must suspend use of those funds for immigration enforcement and forego certain cooperative tools like 287(g) during the period, which can complicate operations for departments that relied on those authorities.
- Federal immigration authorities and ICE partners — the restriction temporarily curtails the ability to enlist certain grant-funded local resources for civil immigration enforcement during the window, potentially constraining investigations that rely on local cooperation.
- Grant administrators and compliance officers — they face the administrative burden of identifying covered funds and recipients, implementing temporary policy changes, and documenting any invocation of the exigent-circumstances exceptions for audit or review.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate public-policy aims: protecting safety, access, and the free movement of international attendees during a major event by temporarily insulating certain grant-funded programs from immigration enforcement, versus preserving the integrity and tools of civil immigration enforcement and long-standing federal-local cooperation. The bill resolves the conflict for a narrow window by prioritizing event-related access and safety, but it does so without providing clear mechanisms for adjudicating exigent exceptions or for tracking and enforcing compliance, leaving implementers to balance immediate public-safety decisions against broader enforcement priorities.
The bill creates a tight, time-limited policy lever but leaves key implementation questions unanswered. It ties the prohibition to two specific subsections of one public law rather than to every State Homeland Security Grant recipient; that specificity limits scope but requires careful fund-tracking at the subaward level.
Agencies will need to determine whether dollars they receive upstream or downstream fall within the named subsections and how to segregate uses during the covered times.
The exigent-circumstances exceptions are narrowly drafted but fact-dependent. Terms like 'imminent risk' and 'hot pursuit' are operationally familiar yet legally borderline — disputes can arise over when an exigency began, who made the determination, and what documentation suffices.
The statute contains no reporting, oversight, or penalty provision tied to misuse or contested invocations, which could produce uneven compliance or leave enforcement to separate grant-audit mechanisms.
Finally, the 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' language gives the provision temporal priority, but it does not reconcile preexisting 287(g) MOUs, state statutes, or mutual-aid agreements. That could create friction between federal grant conditions and state or local legal obligations, particularly where jurisdictions claim conflicting duties toward public-safety or immigration enforcement outside the covered time frame.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.