Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2931
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Commerce
- Status
- Passed House
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-09: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-11T02:08:19Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025" aims to ensure that offices of the Small Business Administration (SBA) are not located in areas that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It requires relocating certain SBA offices from "sanctuary jurisdictions" (local governments that restrict sharing immigration status information or complying with federal detention requests) to non-sanctuary areas, promoting alignment with federal immigration laws.
Key Provisions
- Determination and Relocation Process: The SBA Administrator must identify if a "covered office" (regional, district, local SBA offices or other congressionally funded components, excluding headquarters) is in a sanctuary jurisdiction and publicly announce this. If so, the office must be relocated to a non-sanctuary location within 120 days.
- Enforcement for Delays: If relocation misses the deadline:
- The office head must submit a written explanation within 5 days.
- The office stops operations until relocated.
- Employees are reassigned to another SBA office in the same state (if non-sanctuary) or elsewhere outside a sanctuary jurisdiction.
- The Administrator must remove the office head if no explanation is provided or if reasons are deemed insufficient.
- Future Restrictions: No new covered offices can be established in sanctuary jurisdictions.
- Definitions:
- Sanctuary Jurisdiction: A city, county, or other local government entity with policies that block sharing citizenship or immigration status info with federal/state/local authorities, or that prevent compliance with U.S. Department of Homeland Security requests to detain or notify about the release of individuals under immigration laws (specifically sections 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This introduces a new mandate for the SBA to base office locations on local immigration cooperation policies, which was not previously required.
- It adds penalties for non-compliance, including operational shutdowns and leadership removals, and prohibits future placements in sanctuary areas—altering how the SBA manages its physical presence without amending broader immigration or federal agency location laws.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The SBA may face logistical challenges, costs, and disruptions in relocating offices and reassigning staff, potentially straining resources and operations in affected regions.
- On Citizens: Small business owners and entrepreneurs in sanctuary jurisdictions could lose easy access to local SBA services (like loans, counseling, or training), requiring travel to new locations. SBA employees might experience job disruptions or relocations.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it reinforces U.S. federal immigration priorities, which could indirectly affect perceptions of U.S. policy in dealings with foreign governments or immigrants seeking business support.
- Overall, it could reduce SBA efficiency in sanctuary areas while signaling stronger federal oversight of local policies.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Small Business Administration (SBA): Directly responsible for implementation, including relocations and compliance.
- SBA Employees and Office Heads: Face potential reassignments, operational halts, or job loss for leaders.
- Small Businesses and Entrepreneurs: Primary SBA users, especially in sanctuary jurisdictions like certain cities (e.g., parts of California, New York), who may need to seek services farther away.
- Local Governments in Sanctuary Jurisdictions: Could see reduced federal presence and face indirect pressure to change immigration policies to retain SBA offices.
- Federal Immigration Authorities (e.g., DHS): Indirectly supported through enforced local cooperation.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The act ties SBA operations to immigration enforcement, potentially creating disputes over what qualifies as a "sanctuary jurisdiction" and enforceable via court challenges. It relies on existing immigration statutes but expands their reach to non-immigration agencies.
- Constitutional: Raises federalism concerns, as it intervenes in local policy choices (protected under the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to states/localities), possibly leading to lawsuits claiming overreach into state affairs.
- Political: Highlights partisan divides on immigration and sanctuary policies; passed by the House in a Republican-led Congress, it could escalate tensions between federal and local governments, influencing future funding or agency autonomy debates. No direct impact on individual rights but may symbolize broader efforts to counter local resistance to federal immigration priorities.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (1)
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-09: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
- 2025-06-05: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- 2025-06-05: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 211 - 199 (Roll no. 153). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H2483) (Roll call 153)
- 2025-06-05: Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 211 - 199 (Roll no. 153). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H2483) (Roll call 153)
- 2025-06-05: On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 202 - 210 (Roll no. 152). (Roll call 152)
- 2025-06-05: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2492-2493)
- 2025-06-05: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 2931, the Chair put the question on motion to recommit and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Cisneros demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- 2025-06-05: The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- 2025-06-05: Mr. Cisneros moved to recommit to the Committee on Small Business. (text: CR H2488)
- 2025-06-05: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- 2025-06-05: DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2931.
- 2025-06-05: Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2483, H.R. 2931, H.R. 2966 and H.R. 2987. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2483 under a structured rule and for consideration of H.R. 2931, H.R. 2966, and H.R. 2987 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
- 2025-06-05: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 458. (consideration: CR H2483-2489)
- 2025-06-03: Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 458 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2483, H.R. 2931, H.R. 2966 and H.R. 2987. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2483 under a structured rule and for consideration of H.R. 2931, H.R. 2966, and H.R. 2987 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
- 2025-05-21: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 81.
Bill Versions
- Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025 — issued 2025-06-05 — PDF (8 pages)
- Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act — issued 2025-04-17 — PDF (6 pages)
- Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025 — issued 2025-06-09 — PDF (6 pages)
- Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025 — issued 2025-05-21 — PDF (8 pages)