The bill establishes the Land Port of Entry Community Infrastructure Program at the Department of Homeland Security. DHS may award grants and supplement other Federal programs to fund transportation, utility, resilience, and community projects that modernize ports of entry or address impacts on nearby communities.
The statute sets eligibility boundaries (projects within 25 miles or directly supporting a port), lists five project categories tied to trade, security, resilience, CBP family quality of life, and community impacts, and imposes a default 30% non‑Federal match with waiver authority for rural or homeland‑security‑priority projects. It also authorizes reimbursements for eligible projects spent since November 15, 2021, and makes funding available “as may be necessary” until expended.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes DHS to run a competitive grant program to repair or build community infrastructure that supports land ports of entry and to top up existing federal programs. It requires DHS to create standardized guidance for identifying, validating, and prioritizing projects and to consult other agencies when evaluating proposals.
Who It Affects
State, Tribal, and local governments and not‑for‑profit, member‑owned utilities that own or serve infrastructure within about 25 miles of a land port of entry; Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as an intended operational beneficiary; and federal agencies engaged in consultation or program delivery.
Why It Matters
This creates a dedicated federal channel tying local infrastructure investment to border operations and community impacts rather than leaving those needs to piecemeal state or agency grants. The program blends security, trade facilitation, and community resilience goals and introduces a matching structure with explicit rural exceptions that will shape what projects get built.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to stand up a grant program that fills gaps in local infrastructure needed for effective land ports of entry. Eligible projects are narrowly oriented: they must modernize or directly support a port of entry or be within 25 miles and demonstrably supportive of—or disproportionately impacted by—the port.
Ownership must be by a State, Tribal, or local government or by a not‑for‑profit, member‑owned utility, which means private commercial developers are excluded as direct grantees.
DHS must promulgate eligibility criteria and standardized guidance that explain how projects are identified, validated, and prioritized. The statute enumerates five project categories—trade and travel support, border security (measured by projected impacts on metrics such as illicit drug seizures), resilience and emergency preparedness, CBP personnel family quality of life, and projects addressing environmental and congestion burdens on host communities—so applications will be judged against distinct policy aims rather than a single metric.The financial design combines a default 30 percent non‑Federal match with discretion: DHS can reduce or waive the match for rural projects or projects it deems advantageous for homeland security.
The bill also authorizes retrospective reimbursement for qualifying projects that incurred costs on or after November 15, 2021, up to 70 percent of those costs unless a reduced match applies. Finally, DHS must consult transportation, commerce, HUD, energy, agriculture, EPA, and other agencies when evaluating technical merit and viability.Appropriations are open‑ended: the bill authorizes “such sums as may be necessary” and allows funds to remain available until expended.
Practically, applicants should expect a competitive selection process informed by CBP’s 2024 Land Port of Entry Modernization report and state capital plans, and should plan for upfront capital (or request a reduced match) while documenting how projects support CBP operations or mitigate community impacts from port activity.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The program applies to projects owned by State, Tribal, or local governments or by not‑for‑profit, member‑owned utilities that are either focused on a port of entry or located within 25 miles of one.
The statute establishes five explicit project categories: trade/travel support, border security (evaluated using metrics like predicted illicit drug seizures), resilience/emergency preparedness, CBP family quality of life, and community impact mitigation.
Recipients must contribute at least 30% of project costs from non‑Federal sources by default, but DHS may reduce or waive that match for rural projects (population ≤100,000) or for projects the Secretary finds advantageous for homeland security.
DHS may reimburse up to 70% of eligible project costs already spent on or after November 15, 2021, provided the project meets the bill’s eligibility and selection criteria and subject to any adjusted matching rules.
The authorization provides 'such sums as may be necessary' and allows appropriated amounts to remain available until expended, making annual funding levels and timing discretionary.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the bill the 'Strong Ports, Strong Communities Act.' This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s dual framing: strengthening port operations and the communities that host them.
Key definitions (community infrastructure, rural area, Secretary)
Defines the universe of eligible projects and applicants. 'Community infrastructure' is defined broadly to include transportation, utilities, telecommunications, and other projects the Secretary designates as supporting ports or disproportionately impacted by them; projects must be government‑owned or member‑owned utilities. The bill fixes a 25‑mile geographic rule and treats 'rural area' as any place with ≤100,000 population—an intentionally generous ceiling that captures many smaller cities and counties.
Program authority and eligibility criteria
Gives DHS authority both to award grants and to supplement existing Federal programs administered outside DHS. DHS must establish eligibility criteria and categorize eligible projects; the statute lists example project types and requires that selection criteria match those categories. For compliance officers, that means applications should map directly to a listed category and show the project’s operational link to a port or its community impacts.
Selection considerations, standardization, and interagency consultation
Directs DHS to weigh specific sources and priorities when selecting projects: CBP’s 2024 Land Port of Entry Modernization report, state capital investment plans, and CBP family quality‑of‑life metrics tied to commuter/workforce issues. DHS must produce guidance to standardize how projects are identified and prioritized, and it is required to consult Transportation, Commerce, HUD, Energy, Agriculture, EPA, and other agencies—establishing a multiagency technical review model rather than a single‑agency checklist.
Financial terms: matching, exceptions, and reimbursement
Sets a presumptive 30% non‑Federal match with explicit waiver and reduction authority for rural or homeland‑security‑advantageous projects; this creates a two‑track financing regime. The bill also permits reimbursement of up to 70% for qualifying costs incurred on or after November 15, 2021, unless a reduced match applies—important for jurisdictions that have already spent local funds and seek retroactive federal support.
Appropriations and fund availability
Authorizes 'such sums as may be necessary' for the program and ties award authority to appropriations; it also allows appropriated funds to remain available until expended. That wording grants Congress flexibility but leaves annual funding levels undefined, so actual grant rounds will depend entirely on future appropriations decisions.
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
- Border and host communities (small cities, counties, Tribal lands) — they gain access to federal dollars to fix local roads, water, waste, and environmental problems linked to port operations that state or general infrastructure programs often overlook.
- State and local governments planning port modernization — the program ties state capital plans and CBP modernization priorities to funding, helping jurisdictions align investments and close gaps needed for larger port projects.
- Not‑for‑profit, member‑owned utilities — these utilities become direct grantees for upgrades to water, wastewater, electric, or telecom systems that support port operations or that are strained by port activity.
- Customs and Border Protection personnel and families — one project category specifically prioritizes infrastructure that improves CBP workforce commuting and family quality of life, which could ease staffing and retention pressures in remote port locations.
- Rural communities — the statute allows reduced matching or waivers for rural areas (population ≤100,000), increasing the likelihood that smaller jurisdictions can access grants.
Who Bears the Cost
- State, Tribal, and local governments — generally must provide a 30% non‑Federal match and front capital for projects unless DHS reduces or waives the match; smaller or cash‑strapped jurisdictions will feel this most.
- Department of Homeland Security — must create standardized guidance, run competitive processes, conduct interagency consultations, and manage reimbursements, adding administrative workload and budgeting obligations to DHS components.
- Federal appropriations/higher‑level taxpayers — the bill leaves funding open‑ended ('such sums as may be necessary'), so Congress or future budgets will absorb program costs if funded.
- Other federal agencies (DOT, EPA, HUD, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture) — required consultation and potential program coordination will demand staff time and could shift their grant streams or technical assistance priorities.
- Not‑for‑profit utilities that cannot meet match requirements — those unable to secure local matching funds may be excluded unless they qualify for a waiver, creating an uneven competitive field.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a program tied to homeland security metrics can equitably serve community infrastructure needs: prioritizing projects that demonstrably improve border security or CBP operations may yield clear, measurable benefits for trade and enforcement, but it risks sidelining community‑centered projects whose benefits—public health, environmental remediation, reduced congestion—are harder to monetize against security metrics. Choosing one track sacrifices clarity in the other, and DHS will need to balance technical security priorities with broader local resilience and equity concerns under uncertain funding.
The bill blends multiple policy goals—trade facilitation, border security metrics, community burdens, resilience, and CBP personnel quality of life—into a single grant program. That breadth raises allocation questions: projects that reduce truck congestion or improve wastewater systems are fundamentally different from projects whose primary metric is increased illicit‑drug seizure predictions.
The statute instructs DHS to use CBP metrics such as seizure projections, but those security projections are model‑based and may not capture community priorities like air quality, noise, or localized flooding.
Implementation will hinge on guidance design and interagency coordination. DHS must standardize identification and prioritization yet consult multiple agencies with differing missions and grant rules.
That creates real risk of procedural friction (mismatched timelines, conflicting technical standards) and potential duplication with existing federal programs (DOT, EPA, USDA). The open‑ended appropriations language leaves program scale uncertain; without a clear appropriation signal, jurisdictions may struggle to commit matching funds or plan projects around potential reimbursement—even though the bill allows retroactive reimbursement back to November 15, 2021.
Finally, the 25‑mile geographic rule, the 30% default match, and the rural exception are blunt instruments. The 25‑mile cutoff may exclude communities that experience port externalities beyond that radius, while the 30% match could block lower‑income localities unless DHS consistently uses its waiver authority.
The reimbursement provision helps jurisdictions that already spent funds, but it creates a competitive and administrative burden: applicants must document prior expenditures to federal standards to receive up to 70% reimbursement, and DHS must adjudicate those claims against program criteria and funding availability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.