Drain ICE Act of 2026

Bill Number

H.R. 7346

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Immigration

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-02-04: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-06-24T08:09:27Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "Drain ICE Act of 2026" (H.R. 7346) seeks to eliminate federal funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for immigration enforcement, detention, and deportation. It does this by targeting specific appropriations in a prior law, based on congressional findings that highlight concerns about inhumane detention practices, unlawful arrests, and misallocation of resources under recent immigration policies.

Key Provisions

• Findings Section: Outlines 10 congressional statements criticizing ICE operations, including reports of poor detention conditions, unlawful detention of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, a sharp rise in detaining people without criminal records, profit-driven private contractors, and diversion of DHS resources from other priorities like counterterrorism and anti-trafficking. It also cites public disapproval of immigration handling.
• Repeal of Funding Sections: Repeals Sections 90003 and 100052 of Public Law 119-21 (the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"), which are presumed to contain appropriations for ICE activities.
• Rescission of Unobligated Funds: Cancels any remaining unspent money from those repealed sections, ensuring no further allocation for ICE-related purposes.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill amends Public Law 119-21—a reconciliation act passed in a prior session—by repealing two specific sections that provided funding for ICE. This would reverse or nullify those funding authorizations, marking a direct cut to ICE's budget without affecting other parts of the law. Previously, these sections likely supported expanded immigration enforcement, detention expansion, and related operations.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: ICE and DHS would face immediate budget shortfalls, potentially leading to reduced enforcement activities, staff cuts, facility closures, and scaled-back detention operations. This could shift resources back to other DHS priorities like counterterrorism or drug enforcement.
• On Citizens and Immigrants: Fewer detentions and deportations might reduce family separations and improve conditions for asylum seekers, refugees, and legal residents, but could also weaken border security and immigration processing. U.S. citizens wrongly detained in the past might see fewer similar incidents.
• On International Relations: Reduced enforcement could signal a softer U.S. stance on immigration to other countries, potentially easing diplomatic tensions over deportations but raising concerns among allies about border management and human trafficking prevention.
• Broader Effects: Private detention operators might lose contracts, leading to economic impacts in regions reliant on these facilities, while oversight and civil rights groups could see improved accountability in immigration practices.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Immigration Enforcement Agencies: Primarily ICE and DHS, which would lose funding and operational capacity.
• Immigrants and Vulnerable Groups: Undocumented individuals, asylum seekers, families, children, refugees, and legal immigrants, who may experience less aggressive enforcement but ongoing uncertainty.
• U.S. Citizens: Particularly those in immigrant communities or wrongly targeted in past enforcement actions.
• Private Sector: Detention facility operators and contractors, facing revenue loss from canceled contracts.
• Civil Society and Oversight Bodies: Advocacy groups, media, and watchdogs monitoring human rights, who could benefit from reduced detention but might need to address enforcement gaps.
• Taxpayers and Congress: The public through rescinded funds (potentially saving money), and lawmakers debating immigration policy.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: The repeal and rescission could trigger lawsuits from affected parties, such as contractors seeking compensation for lost revenues or challenges under administrative law for abrupt funding cuts. It relies on Congress's power of the purse (Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution), which allows control over appropriations, but might face scrutiny if seen as undermining executive immigration authority.
• Constitutional Implications: Raises questions about balancing federal enforcement duties under the Constitution's immigration powers (shared between Congress and the executive) with human rights protections in the Bill of Rights, such as due process and protection from cruel punishment. The findings reference constitutional violations in past practices, potentially strengthening arguments for reform.
• Political Implications: Introduced by a group of Democratic lawmakers, it reflects partisan divides on immigration, critiquing a prior administration's policies. Passage could intensify debates in a divided Congress, influence midterm elections, and set precedents for using reconciliation (a fast-track budget process) to alter enforcement funding without broader debate.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3]

Cosponsors (53)

Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Frankel, Lois [D-FL-22], Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8], Rep. Grijalva, Adelita S. [D-AZ-7], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Ivey, Glenn [D-MD-4], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6], Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4], Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ-8], Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2], Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37] and 3 more

Recent Actions

• 2026-02-04: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2026-02-04: Introduced in House
• 2026-02-04: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Drain ICE Act of 2026 — issued 2026-02-04 — PDF (4 pages)