The bill directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to hire, train, and assign 1,000 additional officers above current attrition each fiscal year—subject to appropriations—until staffing equals the annual Workload Staffing Model (WSM) requirements. It also authorizes CBP to add support staff for non‑law‑enforcement tasks and requires a suite of reports aimed at identifying infrastructure, detection, and safety needs at ports of entry and increasing transparency around temporary duty assignments and reimbursable service agreements.
This matters because the legislation ties policy action to operational metrics (the WSM), prioritizes opioid and precursor interdiction equipment, and forces public visibility into how CBP reallocates officers between ports. For ports, carriers, and trade stakeholders the bill creates new planning inputs (quarterly TDY data, reimbursable‑services detail, and an updated WSM report) that could change where and how inspections are staffed and funded.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires CBP, subject to funding, to hire 1,000 additional officers per fiscal year until WSM staffing needs are met; authorizes support staff hires; mandates a 90‑day ports infrastructure report focused on opioid interdiction; and imposes quarterly reporting and pre‑redeployment notice requirements for temporary duty assignments and reimbursable agreements.
Who It Affects
Directly affects CBP headquarters and field leadership, port directors at airports/seaports/land ports, DHS appropriations and authorizing committees, trade entities with reimbursable service agreements, and frontline officers and technicians who will be hired or reassigned.
Why It Matters
Shifts decisionmaking toward an annual staffing model while increasing congressional oversight of redeployments and reimbursable services; it can change operational staffing patterns at specific ports, accelerate procurement priorities for drug detection and officer safety gear, and expose costs and vulnerabilities created by temporary reassignments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill conditions an aggressive personnel expansion on appropriations: CBP must hire, train, and assign an additional 1,000 officers above attrition each fiscal year until staffing equals the level the agency’s Workload Staffing Model prescribes. The text makes clear that the WSM must use port‑level inspection data, factor seasonal and commercial forecast changes, account for pre‑pandemic baselines, and explicitly incorporate staffing needed to increase outbound inspections at land ports.
If CBP fails to meet the 1,000‑officer target in FY2026 or in any subsequent year when WSM levels remain unmet, the Comptroller General must review CBP hiring practices and report findings to relevant Senate and House committees. CBP may also hire support staff—technicians and Enterprise Services personnel—to handle non‑law‑enforcement functions tied to the new officers.On infrastructure and equipment, CBP must deliver a ports‑of‑entry report within 90 days that identifies port‑specific infrastructure changes that would improve opioid interdiction, the detection technologies needed (including for precursors and derivatives), and officer safety equipment to reduce accidental exposure.
Separately, the bill tightens reporting and transparency: quarterly reports must list temporary duty (TDY) assignments with origin/destination ports, required officer counts, durations, costs, effects on reimbursable agreements, and whether assignments supported southern border operations. CBP must give 10 days’ notice before redeploying employees between ports except in emergencies and brief staff on mitigation plans for any planned staffing reductions.Finally, the bill amends the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act reporting to require that CBP explain the factors considered before entering reimbursable service agreements—how they deliver economic and security benefits—and include locations and total hours of reimbursable services.
The WSM annual report must incorporate progress toward the hiring targets, an update to the 2017 Resource Optimization at the Ports of Entry report, and summaries of the new TDY and agreement reports. In short, the measure combines a staffing build plan with tighter operational transparency and a near‑term push to prioritize drug‑interdiction infrastructure and protective equipment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires CBP to hire, train, and assign 1,000 additional officers above current attrition each fiscal year—subject to available appropriations—until Workload Staffing Model staffing targets are achieved and sustained.
If CBP fails to meet the 1,000‑officer hiring target in FY2026 or in any later fiscal year while WSM requirements remain unmet, the GAO must review CBP hiring practices and report to Senate and House committees.
CBP must submit a ports‑of‑entry infrastructure report within 90 days identifying port‑level barriers to deploying opioid detection technology, the detection equipment needed for opioids and their precursors/derivatives, and officer safety equipment requirements.
Quarterly TDY reports to congressional committees must detail the number and duration of temporary duty assignments, officer counts, origin and destination ports, costs, and impacts on reimbursable service agreements, and CBP must give 10 days’ notice before redeploying employees except in emergencies.
The bill amends section 907(a) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act to require CBP to report the factors considered before entering reimbursable service agreements, including economic and security benefits, and to include locations and total hours of reimbursable services.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Annual hiring mandate tied to the Workload Staffing Model
This subsection instructs the CBP Commissioner to add 1,000 officers per fiscal year above attrition until the WSM staffing level is attained, but only 'subject to appropriations.' Practically, that makes the hiring requirement an authorization contingent on Congress providing funds. The provision also signals that the WSM will drive the endpoint: CBP must sustain whatever headcount the model prescribes rather than hitting a fixed statutory ceiling.
Support staff authority and WSM inputs
CBP may hire non‑law‑enforcement support staff (technicians, Enterprise Services) to free officers for inspection duties. The bill tightens how the WSM calculates needs by requiring reliance on actual inspection data, inclusion of seasonal and commercial forecast changes, reference to pre‑COVID historical baselines, and explicit accounting for outbound inspection staffing at land ports—changes that could shift staffing allocations toward commercial inspection functions and ports with high outbound traffic.
GAO review trigger and TDY transparency measures
Failure to meet the annual hiring target in FY2026 or any later applicable year triggers a GAO review of CBP hiring practices with a mandated report to multiple committees. Separately, the bill requires quarterly reporting on temporary duty assignments with granular data (origin/destination, officer counts, durations, costs, and impacts on reimbursable agreements), a 10‑day pre‑redeployment notice to impacted port directors and facilities when feasible, and mandated staff briefings to mitigate vulnerabilities caused by planned staffing reductions.
90‑day ports infrastructure and equipment report focused on opioids
Within 90 days of enactment CBP must identify port‑specific infrastructure improvements that would enhance opioid and precursor interdiction, specify detection equipment needed to identify opioids and related substances, and list safety gear to protect officers from accidental exposure. The report's port‑level framing forces CBP to link technology and facility constraints to actual interdiction gaps rather than offering only high‑level procurement wish lists.
Reimbursable services reporting and integration into the annual WSM report
The bill amends TFTEA reporting to add a required explanation of factors considered before entering reimbursable service agreements, including anticipated economic and security benefits, and to report locations and total hours of reimbursable services. It also folds the new TDY and agreement reports into CBP’s Annual Workload Staffing Model report and requires an update to the 2017 Resource Optimization at the Ports of Entry report, creating a single consolidated reporting vehicle for staffing, resources, and reimbursable activity.
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
- Ports with documented understaffing: The WSM‑based hiring goal and port‑level infrastructure report create a pathway to increased officer allocations and targeted facility investments for ports that can demonstrate need using inspection and traffic data.
- Frontline officers and support technicians: Authorized hires for both officers and non‑law‑enforcement support staff could reduce backlogs and allow officers to focus on inspections rather than administrative tasks, improving operational capacity where hires occur.
- Congressional oversight committees and policy analysts: The GAO review trigger, quarterly TDY disclosures, and amended reimbursable‑services reporting provide more transparency and data to evaluate CBP resource allocation and the security/economic rationale for reimbursable arrangements.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS/CBP budgets and appropriations bill line items: The hiring mandate is explicitly subject to appropriations, meaning DHS must obtain sustained funding to hire, train, and support the additional officers and technicians—pressuring future budgets.
- Ports that lose officers to TDYs: The new quarterly reporting acknowledges that temporary reassignments can hollow out some ports; those ports will bear operational risk and potential delays when officers are redeployed elsewhere.
- Entities funding reimbursable service agreements and CBP procurement managers: Greater reporting and scrutiny of agreements may slow negotiations or require additional staff time to justify how agreements deliver economic and security benefits; procurement will need to align with the prioritized detection and safety equipment.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between scaling frontline capacity quickly to meet measurable workload needs and preserving flexible, responsive operations across all ports: accelerating hires and weaponizing transparency can improve accountability and interdiction capacity, but without guaranteed funding, realistic training capacity, and careful management of temporary reassignments, the approach risks hollowing out some ports, creating short‑term vulnerabilities while promising long‑term gains.
The bill establishes ambitious staffing targets but leaves the crucial funding question to appropriations—so the practical effect depends on whether Congress supplies recurring funds for hiring, training, pay, and the recurring costs of additional officers (overtime, travel, benefits). Hiring 1,000 officers per year also strains CBP’s recruiting and training pipeline: background investigations, academy throughput, and field onboarding all take months and could create lag between authorization and operational impact.
The GAO review will illuminate bottlenecks, but the statute does not create remedial authorities if systemic obstacles (pay, classification, retention) are found.
Operationally, the emphasis on TDY transparency and a 10‑day pre‑redeployment notice balances oversight with the need for surge flexibility—but the exception for emergencies is broad and could swallow the notice requirement during times of sustained pressure. Reimbursable service agreements are more tightly scrutinized by requiring CBP to explain economic and security benefits, which improves accountability but could chill rapid local partnerships where speed matters.
The ports infrastructure report forces prioritization toward opioid detection and officer safety equipment, but procurement timelines, vendor availability, and integration with legacy systems are unresolved, so ports identified as needing upgrades may not see immediate improvements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.