A Democratic bill with 7 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
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
The Respect for Local Communities Act aims to limit how the Department of Homeland Security handles new processing sites or detention centers. It prohibits these agencies from starting new construction, acquisitions, or renovations for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities without following specific steps. Agencies must first issue a public notice that allows for a 30-day comment period. They are also required to provide information on due diligence, environmental regulations, and economic impacts. Furthermore, agencies must enter into written agreements with local officials and the State Governor. Finally, the agency must provide advance notice to several Congressional committees.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates public notices in the Federal Register and a 30-day period for public comment on new federal facilities.
- Scored +5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill requires federal agencies to enter into written agreements with State Governors and local officials before proceeding with new facilities.
- Scored +3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill mandates that agencies explain how they will comply with applicable environmental regulations and provide engineering reviews on water and waste.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this tighten control of the border?
The mandatory public comment periods and local agreements may delay the establishment of new ICE detention or processing facilities.
- Scored -1
Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive?
The procedural requirements for new ICE facilities could result in operational delays for immigration-related tasks.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Public Transparency: The bill requires the Federal Register to include a notice that is open for public comments for at least 30 days, which allows people to voice their opinions on new facilities (Section 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph A).
-
Local Economic and Environmental Awareness: Agencies must provide an economic impact analysis and an engineering review covering water usage, electrical demand, and waste exportation, which helps people understand the local impact (Section 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph E).
-
Local Government Empowerment: The bill requires the Federal agency to enter into a signed, written agreement with appropriate local government officials and the Governor of the State before proceeding (Section 3, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph B).
-
Regulatory Oversight: The notice must include information on how the agency will comply with Federal guidance, standards related to immigration detention, and applicable environmental regulations (Section 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph C).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Delays in Facility Operations: The requirement for a 30-day public comment period, the need to consider and respond to significant comments, and the mandatory 30-day waiting period after reporting to Congress could delay the operation of new processing sites or detention centers (Section 3, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3).
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 mandates public notices in the Federal Register and a 30-day period for public comment on new federal facilities. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill requires federal agencies to enter into written agreements with State Governors and local officials before proceeding with new facilities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill mandates that agencies explain how they will comply with applicable environmental regulations and provide engineering reviews on water and waste. Does this invest in rural communities? — The requirement for written agreements with local officials empowers local communities to control infrastructure development in their areas.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — Local officials and residents gain more authority to negotiate the placement and impact of federal detention facilities in their communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The requirement for economic and environmental impact analyses provides local communities more information on facility impacts.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill requires economic impact analyses for new federal facilities, providing more local economic awareness.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The procedural requirements for new ICE facilities could result in operational delays for immigration-related tasks.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — Increasing local oversight of detention centers may lead to more scrutinized and regulated immigration processing environments. Does this tighten control of the border? — The mandatory public comment periods and local agreements may delay the establishment of new ICE detention or processing facilities.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/25/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/23/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona
Maggie HassanDemocrat · New Hampshire
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Timothy KaineDemocrat · Virginia
Jon OssoffDemocrat · Georgia
Elissa SlotkinDemocrat · Michigan