No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
ID: M001177
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
December 2, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act of 2025" is a masterclass in grandstanding. Its primary objective is to make politicians look tough on terrorism while accomplishing nothing meaningful. The bill's sponsors want to appear strong on national security without actually doing anything that might, you know, offend their donors or the Israel lobby.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make aliens who participated in Hamas attacks against Israel inadmissible and ineligible for relief. Wow, what a bold move! It's not like this is already covered under existing law or that it's a redundant measure designed to score cheap political points.
The changes include adding "Hamas" to the list of terrorist organizations in section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and making aliens who participated in Hamas attacks ineligible for relief. Oh, and there's also a report required on participants in Hamas terrorism against Israel because, you know, Congress loves reports.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:
* Aliens who participated in Hamas attacks (yawn) * The Israel lobby (which will no doubt be thrilled with this empty gesture) * Politicians looking to score points with their constituents * Lobbyists who get paid to pretend this bill is a big deal
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be precisely zero. It's a symbolic measure designed to make politicians look good, not actually address any real issues. The only implications are that it might:
* Provide a minor PR boost for the bill's sponsors * Give the Israel lobby something to brag about at their next fundraising gala * Waste taxpayer money on redundant reports and bureaucratic nonsense
In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a cynical attempt to exploit public fears and ignorance while accomplishing nothing meaningful. Bravo, Congress! You've managed to create another masterpiece of meaningless legislation.
Diagnosis: Terminal case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an inability to do anything meaningful, combined with a desperate need for attention and praise. Treatment: None available, as the patient is too far gone.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]
ID: W000795
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24]
ID: T000478
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]
ID: W000812
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Edwards, Chuck [R-NC-11]
ID: E000246
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]
ID: H001093
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38]
ID: H001095
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Crank, Jeff [R-CO-5]
ID: C001137
Top Contributors
10
Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]
ID: L000578
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23]
ID: O000019
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Rogers, Harold [R-KY-5]
ID: R000395
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 38 nodes and 45 connections
Total contributions: $172,615
Top Donors - Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies
Introduction
— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies — xxx — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Paul Ray, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Reddan, Flexilis Forestry, LLC Jay W. Richards, The Heritage Foundation Jordan Richardson, Heise Suarez Melville, P.A. Jason Richwine, Center for Immigration Studies Shaun Rieley, The American Conservative Lora Ries, The Heritage Foundation Leo Rios Mark Robeck, Energy Evolution Consulting LLC James Rockas, ACLJ Action Mark Royce, NOVA-Annandale College Reed Rubinstein, America First Legal Foundation William Ruger, American Institute for Economic Research Austin Ruse, Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) Brent D. Sadler, The Heritage Foundation Alexander William Salter, Texas Tech University Jon Sanders, John Locke Foundation Carla Sands, America First Policy Institute Robby Stephany Saunders, Coalition for a Prosperous America David Sauve Brett D. Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Matt Schuck, American Cornerstone Institute Justin Schwab, CGCN Law Jon Schweppe, American Principles Project Marc Scribner, Reason Foundation Darin Selnick, Selnick Consulting Josh Sewell, Taxpayers for Common Sense Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance Matt Sharp, Alliance Defending Freedom Judy Shelton, Independent Institute Nathan Simington Loren Smith, Skyline Policy Risk Group Zack Smith, The Heritage Foundation Jack Spencer, The Heritage Foundation Adrienne Spero, U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security Thomas W. Spoehr, The Heritage Foundation Peter St Onge, The Heritage Foundation Chris Stanley, Functional Government Initiative Paula M. Stannard Parker Stathatos, Texas Public Policy Foundation William Steiger, Independent Consultant
Introduction
— 150 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Congress should unequivocally authorize state and local law enforcement to participate in immigration and border security actions in compliance with Arizona v. United States.11 2. Congress should require compliance with immigration detainers to the maximum extent consistent with the Tenth Amendment and set financial disincentives for jurisdictions that implement either official or unofficial sanctuary policies. l Prosecutorial discretion. Congress should restrict the authority for prosecutorial discretion to eliminate it as a “catch-all” excuse for limiting immigration enforcement. l Mandatory detention. Congress should eliminate ambiguous discretionary language in Title 8 that aliens “may” be detained and clarify that aliens “shall” be detained. This language, which contrasts with other “shall detain” language in statute, creates unhelpful ambiguity and allows the executive branch to ignore the will of Congress. Regulations l Withdraw Biden Administration regulations and reissue new regulations in the following areas: 1. Credible Fear/Asylum Jurisdiction for Border Crossers. 2. Public Charge. l T-Visa and U-Visa reform. Unless and until T and U visas are repealed, each program needs to be reformed to ensure that only legitimate victims of trafficking and crimes who are actively providing significant material assistance to law enforcement are eligible for spots in the queue. l Repeal TPS designations. l H-1B reform. Transform the program into an elite mechanism exclusively to bring in the “best and brightest” at the highest wages while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. workers are not being disadvantaged by the program. H-1B is a means only to supplement the U.S. economy and to keep companies competitive, not to depress U.S. labor markets artificially in certain industries.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.