No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act

Bill Number: H.R. 4565
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Transportation and Public Works
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-07-21: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Last Updated: 2025-12-02T09:06:05Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act" (H.R. 4565) aims to restrict federal transportation funding to cities or states with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, by prohibiting the Secretary of Transportation from providing grants, contracts, or other funds to such "sanctuary cities" unless a waiver is granted.

Key Provisions

Funding Prohibition: The Secretary of Transportation is barred from entering into, extending, renewing contracts, or awarding grants or federal funds to any sanctuary city, regardless of other laws.
Waiver Process: The Secretary can issue a case-by-case waiver if they submit a written certification to specific congressional committees (Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) at least 15 days in advance, stating that the funding activity serves the national interest of the United States.
Definition of "Sanctuary City": Refers to any state or local government (political subdivision) with a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that:
Prohibits or restricts sharing information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status (legal or illegal) with federal, state, or local entities.
Prevents compliance with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically for detaining individuals (section 236) or assisting in enforcement actions like notifications of release (section 287).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill introduces a new, specific restriction on Department of Transportation (DOT) funding tied directly to local immigration policies, overriding any conflicting laws.
It adds a waiver mechanism with congressional oversight, which did not previously exist for this purpose in transportation funding statutes.
The definition of "sanctuary city" aligns with but expands on existing federal interpretations by explicitly linking non-cooperation to detainer requests and information sharing under immigration law.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: The DOT would face administrative burdens in identifying sanctuary cities and processing waivers, potentially delaying or reducing funding for transportation projects like highways, public transit, or infrastructure improvements.
On Citizens: Residents of sanctuary cities could experience reduced access to federal transportation funds, affecting local services such as roads, bridges, and transit systems, which might lead to higher costs or slower development in those areas.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic funding and immigration enforcement; however, it could indirectly influence U.S. credibility on immigration policy in dealings with other countries.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Local and State Governments: Sanctuary cities and states (e.g., those with policies limiting immigration enforcement cooperation) would lose eligibility for DOT funds unless waived.
Federal Agencies: Primarily the DOT and DHS, with the former handling funding decisions and the latter's requests influencing eligibility.
Citizens and Communities: Immigrants, residents, and businesses in sanctuary jurisdictions, who rely on transportation infrastructure; also, taxpayers nationwide, as funding shifts could alter resource allocation.
Congressional Committees: Gain oversight role through waiver notifications, affecting legislative influence on executive funding decisions.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal Implications: The prohibition could face challenges under anti-commandeering principles (from the 10th Amendment), as it conditions federal funds on local compliance with immigration enforcement, potentially seen as coercing states. Courts might review if the waiver process adequately balances federal spending power with local autonomy.
Constitutional Implications: Relies on Congress's authority to attach conditions to federal spending (Spending Clause), but risks lawsuits if viewed as unduly punitive toward protected local policies.
Political Implications: Highlights tensions between federal immigration priorities and local governance, likely sparking debate on states' rights versus national security; introduced by Republican representatives, it reflects partisan divides on sanctuary policies without broad bipartisan support indicated in the bill.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

Cosponsors (13)

Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2], Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3], Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. McGuire, John J. [R-VA-5], Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6], Rep. Onder, Robert F. [R-MO-3], Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6], Rep. Begich, Nicholas J. [R-AK-At Large], Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2]

Recent Actions

2025-07-21: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2025-07-21: Introduced in House
2025-07-21: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act — issued 2025-07-21 — PDF (3 pages)