A Republican bill with 16 Republican cosponsors · See all 16 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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, titled the "287(g) Cooperation Act of 2026," seeks to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would make signing a written memorandum of agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security a requirement for receiving certain federal funds. Specifically, it targets the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant program. Any State or political subdivision that fails to enter into such an agreement within 180 days of enactment would become ineligible for these grants. These changes would apply to grant applications for fiscal year 2027 and beyond.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this tighten control of the border?
The bill strengthens immigration enforcement by conditioning federal law enforcement grants on entering into 287(g) agreements.
- Scored +4
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill utilizes federal funding leverage to compel local and state law agencies to participate in federal immigration programs.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -6
Would immigrants be better off under this?
Mandatory 287(g) agreements increase the likelihood of immigrant detention and interaction with federal immigration authorities.
- Scored -4
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
Increased local law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement can disproportionately impact Hispanic communities.
- Scored -4
Does this change how police departments operate?
Tying federal community policing grants to immigration enforcement mandates limits local discretion and community-oriented priorities.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Increased cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities: The bill requires State or political subdivisions with law enforcement agencies to enter into a written memorandum of agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security (Section 2, Paragraph 10(A)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of grant eligibility for local governments: Any State or political subdivision that does not enter into a written memorandum of agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security within 180 days of the bill's enactment would be ineligible to apply for or receive any grant under the Community Oriented Policing Services program or its successors (Section 2, Paragraph 10(A)).
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? — Mandatory 287(g) agreements increase the likelihood of immigrant detention and interaction with federal immigration authorities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Increased local law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement can disproportionately impact Hispanic communities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — The bill strengthens immigration enforcement by conditioning federal law enforcement grants on entering into 287(g) agreements. Does this change how police departments operate? — Tying federal community policing grants to immigration enforcement mandates limits local discretion and community-oriented priorities. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Mandating local police collaboration with immigration enforcement can strain trust within minority and immigrant communities.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill utilizes federal funding leverage to compel local and state law agencies to participate in federal immigration programs. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — States and localities lose flexibility over federal grant funding if they choose not to enter into federal 287(g) agreements.
- 7/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/26/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/25/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 9 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Andy BiggsRepublican · Arizona
Sheri BiggsRepublican · South Carolina
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
Michael CloudRepublican · Texas
Mike CollinsRepublican · Georgia
Paul GosarRepublican · Arizona
H. GriffithRepublican · Virginia
Glenn GrothmanRepublican · Wisconsin
Brandon GillRepublican · Texas
Mark HarrisRepublican · North Carolina
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
Tom McClintockRepublican · California
Barry MooreRepublican · Alabama
John McGuireRepublican · Virginia
Chip RoyRepublican · Texas
Derek SchmidtRepublican · Kansas