The bill restores an explicit 25-mile geographic limit on the exercise of authority under 8 U.S.C. 1357 (section 287 of the INA) by U.S. Border Patrol employees, defines who counts as a Border Patrol employee, and prohibits delegation or deputization to operate beyond that boundary except in narrowly defined emergencies or a Presidential Stafford Act disaster declaration. It also directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to develop a checkpoint performance model and to publicly report checkpoint encounters and interior arrest data, including agent counts, training records relating to Fourth Amendment searches and seizures, and the disposition of encounters disaggregated by citizenship status.
This is operational and accountability legislation: it rewrites where Border Patrol may act, limits the agency’s interior enforcement footprint, and creates specific transparency requirements for checkpoints and interior arrests. For DHS, local law enforcement, compliance officers, and civil-rights counsel, the bill alters jurisdictional lines, data obligations, and the practical division of enforcement responsibility inside the United States.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars immigration officers and Border Patrol personnel from exercising section 287 authorities beyond a 'reasonable distance'—defined as 25 miles—from any U.S. international land border or territorial sea. It forbids delegations of that authority except for (1) a lawful state or local emergency request, or (2) a Presidential Stafford Act major disaster declaration. Separately, CBP must build and publish a checkpoint performance feasibility model and regularly post data on checkpoint encounters and interior arrests, including agent counts and training information.
Who It Affects
U.S. Border Patrol employees (including contractors and detailees), CBP leadership and analysts charged with compliance and reporting, state and local law enforcement agencies that currently cooperate with Border Patrol, immigration attorneys and civil-rights organizations monitoring interior enforcement, and noncitizen communities subject to checkpoints and interior encounters.
Why It Matters
By re-fixing a geographic limit on Border Patrol authority and creating mandatory reporting, the bill narrows interior enforcement options and increases visibility into checkpoints and arrests. That reallocation of power could reduce Border Patrol activity in interior policing, shift responsibility back to ICE and state/local actors, and trigger operational and training changes within DHS.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 3 of the bill is the core operational change. It provides three working definitions—who counts as a Border Patrol immigration officer or employee (explicitly including contractors and detailees), what 'reasonable distance' means (a hard 25-mile metric), and then applies that metric to limit the exercise of authorities under section 287 of the INA.
In practice, that stops Border Patrol personnel from conducting searches, seizures, and arrests under section 287 outside the 25-mile zone unless a statutory exception applies. The statute is written as a categorical prohibition rather than a discretionary guideline.
The statute also contains a separate, targeted prohibition on delegation: it forbids deputizing or granting authority to Border Patrol personnel to operate beyond 25 miles unless either a state or local official makes a lawful emergency request under state or local law to assist when lives are in immediate danger, or the President declares a major disaster under the Stafford Act. Those narrow exceptions preserve the option for temporary cooperation in actual emergencies but do not create a broad cooperative enforcement exception for routine operations.Section 4 imposes concrete transparency and analytic obligations on the CBP Commissioner.
Within 90 days of enactment CBP must establish milestones for a checkpoint performance model that can estimate the level of unlawful cross-border activity slipping past checkpoints, post findings and supporting data at least annually, and create internal controls governing data quality. Separately, within 30 days CBP must begin publishing the number of Border Patrol agents operating in the interior, provide detailed training records tied to Fourth Amendment searches and seizures, and report encounter dispositions (arrested, detained, stopped, charged) disaggregated by citizenship status.
The reporting obligations are focused on public disclosure rather than creating new criminal penalties.Together, the geographic limitation and the transparency requirements change both practice and oversight. Operationally, Border Patrol will need new processes to determine whether an activity falls inside the 25-mile zone, and CBP will need data systems and documentation to meet the tight reporting timelines.
The law does not itself reassign responsibilities to ICE or state and local police, but by constraining Border Patrol it implicitly shifts routine interior enforcement back to other agencies and creates a higher public bar for doing so.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines 'reasonable distance' as a fixed 25 miles from any U.S. international land border or territorial sea and applies that limit to Border Patrol exercise of authority under 8 U.S.C. 1357 (section 287).
It expressly includes contractors and detailees in the definition of 'immigration officers and employees of U.S. Border Patrol,' so the 25-mile restriction covers noncareer staff performing Border Patrol assignments.
Border Patrol personnel may not be delegated, deputized, or granted authority to operate beyond 25 miles except when (a) an appropriate state or local official makes a lawful emergency request to assist with an imminent life‑threatening situation, or (b) the President declares a major disaster under the Stafford Act.
Within 90 days CBP must establish milestones and feasibility criteria for a checkpoint performance model, publish findings and supporting data at least annually, and implement internal controls to ensure checkpoint data accuracy and completeness.
Within 30 days CBP must publicly report the number of agents operating in the interior, provide detailed information on each such agent’s training relevant to Fourth Amendment searches and seizures, and disclose the disposition of each interior interaction disaggregated by U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or other alien.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act's name as the 'Keeping Our Agents on the Line Act.' This is administrative but signals the bill’s focus: curbing interior activity of Border Patrol and increasing accountability.
Findings
Lists congressional findings that motivated the statute: complaints from Border Patrol about non-border administrative tasks, assertions that Border Patrol has operated with nationwide interior arrest authority in 2025, concerns about insufficient training for interior criminal investigations, and incidents involving arrests without judicial warrants. These findings frame the bill as a response to perceived mission creep and training gaps, and they support the legislative choice to impose a geographic limit rather than incremental reforms.
Definitions and 25-mile restriction on section 287 authority
Defines the covered population—any employee, contractor, or detailee performing services for U.S. Border Patrol—and establishes 'reasonable distance' as no greater than 25 miles from a land border or territorial sea. Subsection (b) then prevents those covered individuals from exercising any authority granted under 8 U.S.C. 1357 (the INA section commonly relied on for searches, seizures, and interior arrests by immigration officers) beyond that 25-mile limit. Practically, agencies will need to map operations against the 25-mile radius and add legal clearance steps before any action outside the zone.
Prohibition on delegation with narrow exceptions
Prohibits delegation, deputization, or grants of authority to Border Patrol personnel to operate beyond the 25-mile zone except in two narrowly defined scenarios: a lawful request from an appropriate state or local official in an immediate-life-or-death emergency under state/local law, or a Presidential Stafford Act major disaster declaration. This creates a statutory boundary that preserves emergency cooperation while removing broader delegation pathways that might have allowed routine interior enforcement.
Checkpoint performance model and interior arrest reporting
Directs the CBP Commissioner to develop a feasibility and milestones plan for a checkpoint performance model that estimates undetected illegal activity passing through checkpoints and to post findings and supporting data at least annually. CBP must also implement internal controls over checkpoint data and publicly report the total number of individuals subject to encounters at Border Patrol checkpoints, disaggregated by citizenship status. Separately, within 30 days CBP must document and publish the number of agents operating in the interior, provide detailed training information related to Fourth Amendment searches and seizures for those agents, and report the outcome of interior encounters (e.g., stopped, detained, arrested, charged) broken down by citizen, LPR, or alien status. These obligations require CBP to develop or repurpose tracking systems, quality controls, and public-facing dashboards or repositories.
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
- Noncitizen communities and civil‑rights groups: The 25‑mile limit reduces the chance Border Patrol will operate as a nationwide interior policing force, which may lower the number of interior stops and arrests by Border Patrol and improve Fourth Amendment protections for residents.
- State and local governments seeking clarity on jurisdiction: The statute creates a clearer dividing line between Border Patrol and local law enforcement authority, reducing ambiguity around who should respond to interior immigration matters outside the 25‑mile zone.
- Legal observers and accountability organizations: Mandatory, public checkpoint and arrest data—agent counts, training records, and disposition data disaggregated by citizenship status—gives oversight groups new material for audits, litigation, and policy evaluation.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Border Patrol and individual agents: The agency’s operational reach is curtailed, requiring changes to patrol patterns, possible reallocation of responsibilities to ICE or local agencies, and operational adjustments to respect the 25‑mile limit.
- CBP headquarters and data teams: The reporting and modeling requirements create near-term administrative and IT costs—designing a checkpoint performance model, creating internal controls, collecting training documentation, and publishing frequent public reports.
- State and local law enforcement: Outside the 25‑mile zone, state and local agencies may see increased responsibility for immigration‑adjacent incidents and could face resource pressure if Border Patrol presence is reduced, particularly in jurisdictions that previously relied on Border Patrol support.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between restoring a clear geographic limit to protect civil‑liberties and local prerogatives, versus preserving flexible, cross‑jurisdictional law enforcement capacity in the face of real operational needs; tightening the boundary protects constitutional interests but reduces instantaneous national enforcement flexibility and shifts operational burdens and costs onto other agencies.
The bill uses a bright‑line 25‑mile metric rather than a functional or case‑by‑case approach. That clarity helps enforcement predictability but may clash with the operational realities of pursuing suspects, multi‑jurisdictional criminal investigations, or evidence that crosses the boundary.
The two narrow delegation exceptions (imminent life‑threatening emergency by state/local request and Presidential Stafford Act declarations) preserve limited flexibility but do not address routine cooperative arrangements such as task forces or joint investigations. Absent additional interagency protocols, some common practices—like Border Patrol participation in multi‑agency task forces that operate well beyond 25 miles—could be disrupted.
On data and transparency, the bill sets short deadlines (30 and 90 days) and demands granular disclosure (agent counts, training details, and encounter dispositions disaggregated by immigration status). That will require CBP to stand up or reconfigure data systems and raises privacy and operational-security questions about how much agent‑level or encounter‑level detail should be published.
The statute does not create enforcement penalties or an independent compliance mechanism for failures to report; oversight would therefore rely on congressional enforcement and public scrutiny rather than administrative sanctions. Finally, the bill treads into an area of statutory interpretation: court decisions and Department of Justice guidance that have shaped section 287’s reach could produce litigation about whether the new statutory prohibition conflicts with existing authorities or the executive branch’s national‑security prerogatives.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.