Rules Committee · Jun 11, 2025
H.Amdt. 33: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
With no one objecting, no names recorded
Clay Higgins (R-LA)
District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025
H.R. 2056 · House bill Immigration
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 224–194
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
This Act is known as the "District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025." It aims to require the District of Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws. The bill specifically prohibits the District of Columbia from having statutes, ordinances, policies, or practices that restrict government entities or officials. This includes restrictions on exchanging information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status. Additionally, it prevents the District from restricting compliance with certain requests made by the Department of Homeland Security.
Yes
- Scored +6
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill increases federal oversight by restricting the District of Columbia's autonomy over immigration enforcement policies.
- Scored +5
Does this tighten control of the border?
The bill strengthens border security and enforcement by requiring cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -7
Would immigrants be better off under this?
The bill reduces protections for immigrants by mandating the exchange of their personal information with federal authorities.
- Scored -5
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
The bill's focus on immigration status enforcement may disproportionately impact Hispanic communities.
- Scored -5
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
The mandate to exchange status information curtails individual privacy rights concerning immigration status.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 224 yes · 194 no
06/12/2025 · Roll call 171 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 205 yes · 215 no
06/12/2025 · Roll call 170 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Information Sharing: The bill allows District government entities or officials to send, receive, maintain, or exchange information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status with Federal, State, or local government entities (Section 2, Subsection 1).
-
Law Enforcement Cooperation: The District may comply with lawful requests made by the Department of Homeland Security to comply with a detainer or to provide notification about the release of an individual (Section 2, Subsection 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Information Exchange: The bill prevents the District of Columbia from maintaining any statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that restricts the exchange of information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status (Section 2, Subsection 1).
-
Compliance with DHS Requests: The bill prevents the District from restricting its officials from complying with requests from the Department of Homeland Security regarding detainers or release notifications (Section 2, Subsection 2).
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill reduces protections for immigrants by mandating the exchange of their personal information with federal authorities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill's focus on immigration status enforcement may disproportionately impact Hispanic communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Immigrant populations often comprise low-income households that may be negatively impacted by increased enforcement cooperation. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The residents of the District may face increased surveillance and enforcement within their urban environment.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The bill limits the District's ability to maintain privacy policies regarding the exchange of citizenship information.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases federal oversight by restricting the District of Columbia's autonomy over immigration enforcement policies. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The mandate to exchange status information curtails individual privacy rights concerning immigration status. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The requirement to comply with detainers may negatively impact due process for individuals in local custody. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — This act limits local jurisdictional authority rather than expanding state or local rights.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — Mandating the exchange of immigration status information may increase the scope of domestic surveillance for non-citizens.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — The bill strengthens border security and enforcement by requiring cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials. Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — The bill potentially complicates the security of immigrant populations by mandating information sharing with federal authorities.
- 6/12/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 194 (Roll no. 171). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: 6/11/2025 CR H2634)
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 194 (Roll no. 171). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: 6/11/2025 CR H2634)
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 205 - 215 (Roll no. 170).
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2808-2810)
- 6/11/2025
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 2056, the Chair put the question on the motion to recommit and announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Lynch demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- Mr. Lynch moved to recommit to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (text: CR H2638-2639)
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2056.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 884, H.R. 2056, H.R. 2096 and S. 331. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 884, H.R. 2056, H.R. 2096, and S. 331 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate for each bill. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 884, H.R. 2056, and H.R. 2096, and one motion to commit on S. 331.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 489. (consideration: CR H2634-2639)
- 6/9/2025
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 489 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 884, H.R. 2056, H.R. 2096 and S. 331. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 884, H.R. 2056, H.R. 2096, and S. 331 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate for each bill. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 884, H.R. 2056, and H.R. 2096, and one motion to commit on S. 331.
- 6/3/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 119-131.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 100.
- 4/1/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/25/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 21.
- 3/11/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-S-1522: District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act
- 119-HRES-489: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 884) to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia and to repeal the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2056) to require the District of Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2096) to restore the right to negotiate matters pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement officers of the District of Columbia through collective bargaining, to restore the statute of limitations for bringing disciplinary cases against members or civilian employees of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 331) to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes.
Barry MooreRepublican · Alabama