June 2026: The ‘Secure America Act’ — Budgetary Legislation for Strengthened Enforcement and Practical Preparations
On June 10, 2026, President Trump signed a bill allocating approximately $70 billion to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection). The Senate passed the bill with a 52-47 vote in the early hours of June 5, and the House passed it 214-212 on June 9. A budget reconciliation process was used to bypass the filibuster, and there was not a single Democratic vote in support. This bill codifies three years of enforcement budgets into law, extending through fiscal year 2029, which marks the end of Trump's term. As this is a decision that will affect daily life and businesses regardless of immigration status, it is helpful to understand the bill's content and practical implications in advance.
The bill's allocated budget and its intended use
“The American Immigration Council (AIC) estimates that the combination of last year's large budget law and this latest bill would allow for the operation of up to 116,000 detention beds. This represents an increase of approximately 308 percent compared to the detention budget for fiscal year 2024.”
ICE alone was allocated approximately $38 billion, and CBP received approximately $26 billion. The ICE budget includes approximately $7 billion to $7.5 billion allocated to its Homeland Security Investigations (HSI — an organization that investigates serious crimes such as human trafficking and drug smuggling). The CBP portion will be used for hiring personnel and expanding border surveillance technology and equipment. The total amount, including these items, plus approximately $5 billion in Homeland Security discretionary funds, is approximately $69.5 billion. The period is through fiscal year 2029.
A significant budget has also been allocated for the operation of detention facilities. The American Immigration Council estimates that the annual detention budget will be approximately $10.6 billion by combining existing budget laws and this bill, which would allow for the operation of up to 116,000 detention beds. This is more than three times the level of detention in fiscal year 2024, according to the analysis. Although this is an analysis based on budget allocation rather than figures directly stated in the bill, it shows that the expansion of detention is the central pillar of this budget. This budget is not simply for covering operational expenses for this year. It solidifies the financial foundation through legislation to maintain or increase the scale of enforcement at current levels for the remainder of the term. Attempts to cut the budget through congressional procedures are unlikely to have a substantial effect for the time being.
Issues surrounding the bill—the outcome of the issue fund and the oversight gap
“The Democratic Party's demands for mandatory body cameras, restrictions on enforcement in sensitive areas like schools and hospitals, and strengthened reporting to Congress were not included at all.”
The biggest sticking point that delayed the passage of this bill for months was the so-called ‘anti-weaponization fund’ of approximately $1.8 billion. This fund would have allowed the Department of Justice to compensate individuals who claim to have been unfairly prosecuted by the previous administration, a move strongly opposed by Democrats. Democrats proposed an amendment to permanently ban the fund, but it was defeated 49 to 50. However, the final bill itself did not include this fund, and the Department of Justice officially announced it would abandon efforts to establish the fund. While the creation of the fund was not explicitly written into law, a provision prohibiting it was also not enshrined in the law. This leaves open the possibility that similar attempts could be pursued again in the future at the discretion of the administration.
There are also controversies surrounding oversight mechanisms. Provisions demanded by the Democratic Party, such as mandating body cameras for enforcement officers, restricting enforcement in sensitive areas like schools and hospitals, and strengthening regular reporting to Congress, were all excluded from the final bill. This creates a situation where a large budget has been approved without formalizing substantial external oversight of enforcement agencies. Concerns are being raised that avenues for legal challenge may be limited after the fact, even if procedural issues arise during enforcement. This makes proactively preparing for contact situations practically more important.
Background of the Bill's Passage — January Deaths and Months of Lockdown
“Two U.S. citizens died from federal agent gunfire on January 7, 2026, and January 24, 2026, respectively.”
The bill was blocked for months. On January 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot a U.S. citizen in a vehicle during an immigration enforcement operation. On January 24 of the same month, CBP agents fired at another U.S. citizen. In both incidents, reporting indicated significant discrepancies between the government's account of the situation and witness and video records. Democrats cited these events as reasons to demand policy changes and blocked the budget review, leading to a months-long stalemate. During this period, the Department of Homeland Security's budget execution was reportedly interrupted at times. Republicans eventually passed the bill through a budget reconciliation process with a simple majority, ending the blockade.
The number of people currently in ICE detention is at an all-time high. As of January 2026, official records show it has surpassed 70,000 for the first time, with some reports mentioning over 73,000 individuals. Of these, approximately 74% are reported to be individuals who have not been convicted of a criminal offense. There is also analysis indicating that about 92% of the increase in detentions consists of people with no prior criminal record.
Expanding Local Police Partnership Programs and Everyday Changes
“The 287(g) program, an agreement allowing local police to cooperate with immigration enforcement agencies, has seen its participating agencies increase by over 900 percent year-over-year as of early 2026, spanning 39 states.”
This bill also includes budget support for the 287(g) program. 287(g) is a program in which local police or sheriff's offices enter into agreements with ICE to cooperate in immigration enforcement. The agreements operate in three main forms. The first is the Task Force Model, where local police officers can investigate and arrest for immigration law violations directly during their daily duties, such as patrols and traffic stops. The second is the Jail Enforcement Model, where the immigration status of individuals detained at correctional facilities can be verified and handed over to ICE. The third is the Warrant Service Officer, which is to execute ICE administrative warrants within correctional facilities.
Participation varies greatly by state. Texas and Florida legally mandate that local law enforcement agencies enter into agreements, while states like California, Illinois, Oregon, and New Jersey prohibit or restrict participation through state law. Depending on whether agreements exist in your area, the likelihood of routine police contact, such as traffic stops, leading to immigration status checks changes. The fact that the number of participating agencies has increased so much in one year also means that such situations have become a reality in more areas. With the budget legally fixed, law enforcement agencies can pursue hiring and facility expansion as medium-term plans. Until now, operational scales could fluctuate based on annual budget negotiations, but that uncertainty has now been reduced.
Impact on Business - Employment Document Review
“Reports indicate that I-9 audit notifications for workplaces are being sent out significantly earlier than during the previous administration.”
Increased enforcement budgets can also lead to workplace inspections. In addition to street enforcement, ICE is responsible for workplace employment audits, and reports indicate that the pace of sending workplace audit notices has significantly quickened in 2025 compared to the previous administration. I-9 is a document employers complete to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. Once an audit begins, employers must submit all their I-9 forms. Even minor errors in the forms can result in fines of hundreds to thousands of dollars per violation. If it's confirmed that employees hired knowingly without authorization, the fines can reach up to approximately $28,600 per violation.
It is generally known that if you receive a Notice of Inspection (NOI) from ICE, you must submit all I-9 forms within three business days. Therefore, it is practically important for business owners to review their existing I-9 forms in advance, before receiving a notice. Minor errors such as incorrect hiring dates, missing document types, or omitted signatures can lead to disadvantages during an audit. For employees, it is helpful to accurately confirm the contents when requested by their employer to re-verify documents or when they receive immigration-related notices, and to seek review from an immigration attorney if necessary.
Closing remarks
With the signing of this bill, the scale and direction of immigration enforcement are likely to be fixed at their current levels. Here's a summary of things that would be helpful to check now.
First, reconfirm your immigration status and documents. It is advisable to check not only your own visa expiration date, permanent resident card validity, and re-entry permit period, but also those of your family members. In a situation where the scope of crackdowns has expanded to include ordinary residents with no prior offenses, understanding the status of your documentation is itself the starting point for preparation.
Second, check whether your area has a 287(g) agreement. If your local police have an agreement with ICE, your immigration status may be checked during routine police interactions. It's helpful to find out about local agreements through non-profit immigrant organizations or legal aid services.
Third, prepare your legal rights in advance. Your rights when an enforcement officer approaches, the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel apply regardless of your immigration status. Having emergency contacts and information for an immigration lawyer readily available will be helpful in a real situation.
Fourth, if you are a business owner, organize your employment documents. Errors or omissions on I-9 forms can immediately lead to fines during an audit. It is safer to verify the accuracy of your existing documents and rectify any deficiencies in advance.
Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.
Law Offices of Jin Dong Cho
NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354
(t) 718-353-2699 (f) 718-353-8132
NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(t) 201-449-0009
