State Accountability for Federal Deployment Costs Act of 2025
Summary
The "State Accountability for Federal Deployment Costs Act of 2025" aims to require states to reimburse the federal government for costs incurred when federal military forces are deployed due to civil disturbances or security threats resulting from the state's non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This includes costs associated with temporary duty travel, housing, and transportation of personnel and equipment. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, would determine whether a state's actions hindered federal immigration enforcement.
Expected Effects
If enacted, states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement could face financial penalties. This could lead to increased cooperation from states or, alternatively, legal challenges and further political division. The federal government could recoup costs associated with military deployments related to immigration enforcement.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially reduces the financial burden on federal taxpayers by shifting costs to states that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
- May incentivize states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, leading to more effective immigration control.
- Could deter states from obstructing federal immigration operations, potentially preventing civil unrest and security breakdowns.
- Provides a mechanism for the federal government to address the financial consequences of state non-cooperation.
- May lead to a more consistent and uniform application of federal immigration laws across different states.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could strain relationships between the federal government and states, leading to legal challenges and political conflict.
- May disproportionately affect states with large immigrant populations or those with differing views on immigration enforcement.
- Could lead to a reduction in state funding for other essential services if states are forced to reimburse the federal government.
- The determination of non-cooperation by the Secretary of Homeland Security could be subject to political influence or bias.
- May not be effective in deterring states from non-cooperation if they are willing to bear the financial consequences.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill raises constitutional questions related to the balance of power between the federal government and the states, particularly concerning immigration enforcement and the deployment of federal military forces. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, but the bill asserts federal authority over immigration enforcement. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare, which could be used to justify federal intervention in cases of civil unrest. However, the deployment of federal troops within states is generally limited by the Insurrection Act and requires careful consideration of states' rights.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).