Trust Through Transparency Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 5653
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-10-01: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-16T08:07:45Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Trust Through Transparency Act of 2025" (H.R. 5653) aims to increase accountability and public trust in immigration enforcement by requiring officers to use body cameras during interactions with the public. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to mandate recording of certain enforcement activities, with rules for footage retention and reporting to promote transparency.
Key Provisions
- Body Camera Requirements (Added as new subsection to INA Section 287):
- All "covered immigration officers" (defined below) must wear and operate a body camera during "public immigration enforcement functions," such as patrols, stops, arrests, searches, status interviews, raids, checkpoint inspections, or serving warrants. This excludes undercover or non-public operations.
- "Body worn camera" is defined as a mobile audio-video recording device worn by officers, but not for undercover work.
- "Covered immigration officer" includes officers or employees of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or others authorized under federal law to perform immigration enforcement, including those deputized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
- Footage Retention and Use:
- Default retention: 6 months by ICE, followed by permanent deletion.
- Exceptions for longer retention (at least 3 years) if footage captures use of force, events leading to an arrest (or attempted crime), or an encounter subject to a complaint.
- Extended retention (minimum 3 years) if requested by officers, superiors, or subjects (including the public, minors' guardians, or next of kin) for reasons like evidentiary value (evidence in a case), exculpatory value (evidence that clears someone), or training purposes.
- Compliance and Oversight (Section 3):
- DHS must discipline non-compliant officers through reprimands, suspensions, or other actions, in line with agency policies and labor agreements.
- Annual reports to Congress, DHS's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), and relevant committees, covering: total enforcement actions, non-compliance instances, and disciplinary measures.
- Reports must be publicly posted on DHS's website within 30 days, with possible redactions (e.g., for privacy or ongoing investigations) explained by the DHS Inspector General.
- DHS must create an independent advisory panel of experts in civil rights, privacy, technology, and law enforcement to offer non-binding recommendations on body camera policies.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This bill adds a new subsection (i) to INA Section 287, which currently outlines the powers of immigration officers (e.g., to interrogate and arrest). No prior federal mandate existed in this section for body cameras in immigration enforcement, though some local policies may apply to specific agencies like CBP or ICE.
- It introduces standardized rules for body camera use, retention, and public access in immigration contexts, filling a gap in federal law by linking recordings directly to enforcement accountability.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: DHS, ICE, and CBP will face increased operational costs for equipment, training, storage, and reporting. It may improve internal oversight and reduce complaints through better documentation, but could strain resources in high-volume enforcement areas.
- On Citizens: Individuals interacting with immigration officers (e.g., immigrants, border communities) gain potential access to footage for complaints or legal claims, fostering greater transparency. However, it raises privacy concerns for recorded subjects, balanced by retention limits and deletion rules.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic U.S. enforcement; it could indirectly affect perceptions of U.S. immigration practices by foreign governments or international observers monitoring human rights.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Immigration Enforcement Officers and Agencies: CBP, ICE, and DHS personnel directly involved in enforcement; they must adopt new technology and face discipline for non-use.
- Immigrants and the Public: Subjects of enforcement actions, who may benefit from recordings as evidence but could experience privacy intrusions.
- Civil Rights and Oversight Groups: Organizations advocating for accountability (e.g., via the advisory panel) and congressional committees receiving reports.
- Legal and Judicial Systems: Courts and complainants who may use footage in immigration or civil rights cases.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens evidentiary standards in immigration disputes by mandating recordings, potentially aiding due process claims (fair treatment under law) or defenses against misconduct allegations. Retention rules clarify access rights, reducing disputes over evidence destruction.
- Constitutional: Balances Fourth Amendment protections (against unreasonable searches, including recordings) with accountability needs; privacy safeguards (e.g., deletions, redactions) address potential overreach, but could invite challenges if footage is mishandled.
- Political: Promotes bipartisan goals of transparency in law enforcement amid debates on immigration reform, potentially building public trust but sparking discussions on implementation costs and officer burdens. The public reporting and advisory panel enhance congressional oversight without mandating broad policy changes.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Norcross, Donald [D-NJ-1]
Cosponsors (24)
Rep. Beatty, Joyce [D-OH-3], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3], Rep. Foushee, Valerie P. [D-NC-4], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6], Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2], Rep. Sykes, Emilia Strong [D-OH-13], Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9], Rep. Tran, Derek [D-CA-45], Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6], Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16]
Recent Actions
- 2025-10-01: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- 2025-09-30: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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.
- 2025-09-30: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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.
- 2025-09-30: Introduced in House
- 2025-09-30: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Trust Through Transparency Act of 2025 — issued 2025-09-30 — PDF (7 pages)