Securing our Border Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 4765
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-28: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-16T08:07:50Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Securing our Border Act (H.R. 4765) aims to strengthen U.S. border security by reallocating unobligated funds originally designated for Internal Revenue Service (IRS) enforcement from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The funds are redirected to improve inspections at land ports of entry, construct a border wall along the southwest border, and provide incentives for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents. It also amends immigration procedures for individuals arriving from neighboring countries. The bill is based on findings highlighting issues like drug trafficking, migrant deaths, inspection gaps, and immigration backlogs.
Key Provisions
- Funding Reallocation for Inspections (Section 3): One-third of remaining unobligated IRS enforcement funds (as of enactment) is transferred to CBP through February 6, 2034, to deploy nonintrusive inspection systems (e.g., scanners that detect hidden items without physical searches). The goal is to achieve 100% scanning of vehicles and cargo at all northern and southwest border land ports of entry by that date.
- Funding for Border Wall Construction (Section 4): Two-thirds of the unobligated funds is transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through February 6, 2034, for building a border wall system along the U.S.-Mexico border. DHS must submit quarterly reports to congressional committees, including implementation plans to reduce illegal immigration and cost estimates.
- Bonuses for CBP Agents (Section 5): Authorizes the CBP Commissioner, with DHS Secretary approval, to offer:
- Recruitment bonuses up to $15,000 for new agents after training and a service agreement (specifying payment terms and service length).
- Annual retention bonuses up to 15% of base pay for Border Patrol agents after satisfactory service.
- Relocation bonuses up to 15% of annual base pay for agents transferring to a new station for at least three years.
- These bonuses do not count toward base pay for retirement or leave calculations.
- Changes to Immigration Processing (Section 6): Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to require that non-citizens arriving from contiguous territories (e.g., Canada or Mexico) who are subject to expedited removal must either be returned to that territory or a "safe third country" (a nation that agrees to accept them and provides protection from persecution) while awaiting removal proceedings, or be detained for asylum evaluation (including a "credible fear" interview to assess persecution risks).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Fund Reprogramming: Redirects funds from IRS enforcement (under Public Law 117-169) to border security, effectively reducing IRS resources while boosting DHS/CBP budgets without new appropriations.
- INA Amendment: Modifies Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225), shifting from discretionary ("may return") authority for handling arrivals from contiguous territories to mandatory actions ("shall return" or detain), potentially streamlining expedited removals but adding detention requirements for asylum claims.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Provides DHS and CBP with approximately $20 billion (estimated based on prior unobligated balances) for technology upgrades, infrastructure, and personnel incentives, potentially improving operational efficiency but requiring new reporting and implementation plans. This could strain IRS enforcement capabilities, leading to fewer audits or investigations of tax evasion.
- On Citizens: May enhance security by increasing drug interdiction (e.g., fentanyl seizures) and reducing illegal entries, potentially lowering overdose deaths and terrorism risks. However, it could indirectly affect taxpayers through reduced IRS funding and higher border-related costs.
- On International Relations: Strengthens U.S.-Mexico border enforcement, which might improve cooperation on drug trafficking but could strain relations if seen as overly militarized. The "safe third country" provision may impact agreements with Canada and Mexico on migrant returns.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and DHS Employees: Gain funding for tools, staffing (aiming to add ~2,700 officers), and bonuses to aid recruitment and retention amid high workloads.
- Immigrants and Asylum Seekers: Face stricter mandatory returns or detentions, potentially increasing processing times and risks for those fleeing persecution, amid a backlog of over 3.5 million immigration cases.
- Border Communities and Businesses: Benefit from better inspections to facilitate legal trade and travel (e.g., over 1 million passengers processed annually) but may experience disruptions from wall construction.
- Taxpayers and IRS: Lose access to enforcement funds, possibly leading to reduced tax compliance efforts.
- Congressional Committees: Involved in oversight through referrals to Ways and Means, Homeland Security, and Judiciary committees, with required quarterly reports.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Exercises Congress's constitutional power over appropriations (Article I, Section 9) to reprogram funds, but could face challenges if viewed as impinging on executive discretion in immigration enforcement. The INA amendment aligns with expedited removal rules but mandates detention for credible fear claims, potentially raising due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment for asylum seekers.
- Constitutional: Reinforces federal authority over borders (plenary power doctrine), but bonus provisions must comply with civil service laws (e.g., Title 5, U.S. Code) by excluding bonuses from base pay calculations.
- Political: Highlights partisan priorities on immigration and spending, reallocating "green energy" funds (from the Inflation Reduction Act) to border security, which may spark debates on fiscal responsibility and national security versus domestic enforcement needs. No direct impact on voting rights or free speech, but could influence future budget negotiations.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (3)
Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-28: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- 2025-07-25: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-25: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-25: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-25: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-25: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Securing our Border Act — issued 2025-07-25 — PDF (8 pages)