A Democratic bill with 8 Democratic cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Ways and Means, 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the ICE Shootings Transparency Act. It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to share evidence with State and local law enforcement agencies. This applies when an officer or employee of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection discharges a firearm, injures, or kills another person during official duties. The officials must provide access to the incident location without unreasonable delay. They must also share and preserve all related evidence and investigatory materials as they are developed.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to share all relevant evidence and investigatory materials with local authorities.
- Scored +4
Does this change how police departments operate?
The bill mandates increased transparency and evidence-sharing by federal immigration enforcement with local law enforcement during shooting incidents.
- Scored +3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The legislation empowers state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in investigations involving federal immigration personnel.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(1) could be considered positive because it requires officials to provide State and local law enforcement agencies access to the incident location upon arrival to carry out regular investigative functions.
-
Section 2(2) could be considered positive because it requires the sharing of evidence and investigatory materials related to the incident, such as body-worn camera footage, surveillance video, radio communications, dispatch records, digital communications, photographs, forensic evidence, and witness statements.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(1) notes that the requirement to provide access to the location is subject to legitimate scene-safety or evidence-preservation needs of the Secretary and Attorney General, which could potentially delay local investigations.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to share all relevant evidence and investigatory materials with local authorities. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The legislation empowers state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in investigations involving federal immigration personnel.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill mandates increased transparency and evidence-sharing by federal immigration enforcement with local law enforcement during shooting incidents.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — Increased transparency and local oversight regarding use of force by federal immigration officers could offer greater accountability.
- 10/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/1/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Ways and Means, 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.
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Suzanne BonamiciDemocrat · Oregon
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Sylvia GarciaDemocrat · Texas
Steven HorsfordDemocrat · Nevada
Pablo HernándezDemocrat · Puerto Rico
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Mike QuigleyDemocrat · Illinois
Delia RamirezDemocrat · Illinois