James Walkinshaw (D-VA)
Measuring Illicit Fentanyl Trafficking Act
A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
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 voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This act, known as the "Measuring Illicit Fentanyl Trafficking Act," directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take specific actions regarding illicit fentanyl. The Secretary must ensure that all Department of Homeland Security components involved in detecting, deterring, and seizing fentanyl collaborate and share relevant data. This includes identifying any barriers that prevent this information sharing. Additionally, the Secretary is tasked with establishing performance metrics for the Department and its individual components. These metrics must align with the Department's strategic objectives to combat fentanyl trafficking.
Yes· 3 of 32
- Scored +6
Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths?
The bill enhances the detection and seizure of fentanyl by improving information sharing among DHS components.
- Scored +5
Does this tighten control of the border?
The act targets the seizure of illicit fentanyl through better information sharing among DHS components, which is a core part of border security.
- Scored +3
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Targeting fentanyl trafficking is critical for communities that have been disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Information Sharing: By requiring components of the Department of Homeland Security to collaborate and share data, the act aims to improve the detection, deterrence, and seizure of illicit fentanyl (Section 2, paragraph 1A).
-
Identification of Obstacles: The requirement to identify barriers to sharing information can help resolve issues that currently hinder the fight against fentanyl trafficking (Section 2, paragraph 1B).
-
Improved Accountability through Metrics: The establishment of performance metrics ensures that the Department and its components have specific standards related to the detection, deterrence, and seizure of fentanyl (Section 2, paragraph 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are mentioned in the text.
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 Native Americans be better off under this? — Targeting fentanyl trafficking is critical for communities that have been disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural areas are heavily impacted by the opioid epidemic, and better drug seizure efforts provide relief. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas are often on the front lines of drug trafficking and the resulting crisis, which this bill aims to combat. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Reducing the impact of the opioid crisis can help mitigate one of the significant public health crises affecting various communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improved drug enforcement efforts provide broad public health benefits. Would children be better off under this? — Reducing the impact of fentanyl trafficking provides a safer social environment for children. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill targets trafficking which can help stabilize communities impacted by drug flows. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Addressing the fentanyl crisis can help reduce the societal and economic burdens on low-income communities hit hardest by drug trafficking. Would men be better off under this? — Mitigating the opioid crisis addresses a major public health threat that heavily impacts men. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Combating the opioid crisis provides better public health outcomes for the middle-aged population. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The reduction in illicit drug trafficking contributes to more stable and safer communities. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Addressing the drug epidemic can improve the overall public health environment for all vulnerable populations. Would retired people be better off under this? — Combating the drug crisis contributes to safer communities for the elderly. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reducing illicit drug trafficking contributes to safer communities for seniors. Would students be better off under this? — A reduction in the drug epidemic creates a safer environment for students. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Addressing the opioid crisis provides a safer and more stable society for veterans. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The drug crisis impacts all demographics, and improved enforcement offers broad public health benefits. Would women be better off under this? — Reducing the drug crisis can help alleviate the varied social impacts on families and women. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Targeting the fentanyl crisis can help reduce the disproportionate impact of opioid deaths on younger populations. Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill contributes to national stability through enhanced law enforcement coordination. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill aims to reduce the societal costs associated with the drug epidemic. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill contributes to general social and national stability. Would high-income households be better off under this? — A reduction in the fentanyl crisis provides broad social stability beneficial to all socioeconomic groups. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — General social stability from drug enforcement provides a stable environment for all citizens. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Increased security and law enforcement coordination can lead to more stable border and community environments. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill contributes to overall public safety and health. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill promotes overall national security and public health stability. Would union members be better off under this? — A more stable society due to drug enforcement provides broader economic security.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — The act targets the seizure of illicit fentanyl through better information sharing among DHS components, which is a core part of border security. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — By combatting fentanyl trafficking, the bill aims to mitigate the social and economic devastation caused by the opioid crisis.
- Healthcare
- Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — The bill enhances the detection and seizure of fentanyl by improving information sharing among DHS components.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The requirement to establish performance metrics increases the accountability and visibility of DHS efforts to combat fentanyl.
- 7/14/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 7/13/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-742.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 646.
- The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4398)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4398)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8535.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4398)
- Mr. Garbarino moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 6/24/2026
- Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 0.
- 4/28/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- 4/27/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
J. CorreaDemocrat · California
Michael GuestRepublican · Mississippi
Michael McCaulRepublican · Texas