Tren de Aragua Border Security Threat Assessment Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Knott, Brad [R-NC-13]
ID: K000405
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đ Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đ 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 masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Tren de Aragua Border Security Threat Assessment Act is a laughable attempt to address the "threat" posed by Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal organization. The bill's primary objective is to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a threat assessment and develop a strategic plan to counter this alleged menace.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates a comprehensive threat assessment within 180 days, which will include an identification of current and potential threats, descriptions of Tren de Aragua's origins, aims, methods, funding sources, leadership structure, and growth in the United States. The Secretary must also submit a strategic plan within one year, outlining efforts to mitigate these threats.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: the Department of Homeland Security, the intelligence community, Federal departments and agencies, state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies. Oh, and let's not forget the congressional committees that will receive these reports â because they clearly have nothing better to do.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "security theater." It's a thinly veiled attempt to justify increased funding for border security measures, while providing a convenient distraction from more pressing issues. The real impact will be on the taxpayers' wallets, as they foot the bill for this bureaucratic exercise.
Now, let's get to the root of the disease:
* This bill is a symptom of the "Fear-Mongering Syndrome," where politicians exploit public anxiety about border security to justify their own agendas. * The sponsors of this bill are suffering from "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder," as they focus on trivial matters while ignoring more pressing issues, like corruption, inequality, and systemic injustices. * The voters who elect these politicians are afflicted with "Civic Hypochondria," where they obsess over perceived threats to national security while neglecting the real problems that affect their daily lives.
In conclusion, this bill is a farcical attempt to address a manufactured threat. It's a waste of time, resources, and taxpayer money. But hey, at least it provides a convenient distraction from the real issues plaguing our society.
Related Topics
đ° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Knott, Brad [R-NC-13]
Congress 119 ⢠2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Knott, Brad [R-NC-13]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 21 nodes and 20 connections
Total contributions: $66,000
Top Donors - Rep. Knott, Brad [R-NC-13]
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
â 89 â Section 2: The Common Defense The solution to this problem is strong political leadership. Skinner writes, âThe next Administration must take swift and decisive steps to reforge the department into a lean and functional diplomatic machine that serves the President and, thereby, the American people.â Because the Senate has been extraordinarily lax in fulfilling its constitutional obligation to confirm presidential appointees, she recommends putting appointees into acting roles until such time as the Senate confirms them. Skinner writes that State should also stop skirting the Constitutionâs trea- ty-making requirements and stop enforcing âagreementsâ as treaties. It should encourage more trade with allies, particularly with Great Britain, and less with adversaries. And it should implement a âsovereign Mexicoâ policy, as our neighbor âhas functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country.â In Africa, Skinner writes, the U.S. âshould focus on core security, economic, and human rightsâ rather than impose radical abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives. Divisive symbols such as the rainbow flag or the Black Lives Matter flag have no place next to the Stars and Stripes at our embassies. When it comes to China, Skinner writes that âa policy of âcompete where we must, but cooperate where we canââŚhas demonstrably failed.â The Peopleâs Repub- lic of Chinaâs (PRC) âaggressive behavior,â she writes, âcan only be curbed through external pressure.â Efforts to protect or excuse China must stop. She observes, â[M]any were quick to dismiss even the possibility that COVID escaped from a Chinese research laboratory.â Meanwhile, Skinner writes, â[g]lobal leaders includ- ing President Joe BidenâŚhave tried to normalize or even laud Chinese behavior.â She adds, âIn some cases, these voices, like global corporate giants BlackRock and Disneyââor the National Basketball Association (NBA)ââdirectly benefit from doing business with Beijing.â Former vice president of the U.S. Agency for Global Media Mora Namdar writes in Chapter 8 that we need to have people working for USAGM who actually believe in America, rather than allowing the agencies to function as anti-American, tax- payer-funded entities that parrot our adversariesâ propaganda and talking points. Former acting deputy secretary of homeland security Ken Cuccinelli says in Chap- ter 5 that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a creation of the George W. Bush era, should be closed, as it has added needless additional bureaucracy and expense without corresponding benefit. He recommends that it be replaced with a new âstand-alone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet levelâ and that the remaining parts of DHS be distributed among other departments. Former chief of staff for the director of National Intelligence Dustin Carmack writes in Chapter 7 that the U.S. Intelligence Community is too inclined to look in the rearview mirror, engage in âgroupthink,â and employ an âoverly cautiousâ approach aimed at personal approval rather than at offering the most accurate, unvarnished intelligence for the benefit of the country. And in Chapter 9, former acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Max â 90 â Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Primorac asserts that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) must be reformed, writing, âThe Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systematic racism.â If the recommendations in the following chapters are adopted, what Skinner says about the State Department could be true for other parts of the federal gov- ernmentâs national security and foreign policy apparatus: The next conservative President has the opportunity to restructure the making and execution of U.S. defense and foreign policy and reset the nationâs role in the world. The recom- mendations outlined in this section provide guidance on how the next President should use the federal governmentâs vast resources to do just that.
Introduction
â 89 â Section 2: The Common Defense The solution to this problem is strong political leadership. Skinner writes, âThe next Administration must take swift and decisive steps to reforge the department into a lean and functional diplomatic machine that serves the President and, thereby, the American people.â Because the Senate has been extraordinarily lax in fulfilling its constitutional obligation to confirm presidential appointees, she recommends putting appointees into acting roles until such time as the Senate confirms them. Skinner writes that State should also stop skirting the Constitutionâs trea- ty-making requirements and stop enforcing âagreementsâ as treaties. It should encourage more trade with allies, particularly with Great Britain, and less with adversaries. And it should implement a âsovereign Mexicoâ policy, as our neighbor âhas functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country.â In Africa, Skinner writes, the U.S. âshould focus on core security, economic, and human rightsâ rather than impose radical abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives. Divisive symbols such as the rainbow flag or the Black Lives Matter flag have no place next to the Stars and Stripes at our embassies. When it comes to China, Skinner writes that âa policy of âcompete where we must, but cooperate where we canââŚhas demonstrably failed.â The Peopleâs Repub- lic of Chinaâs (PRC) âaggressive behavior,â she writes, âcan only be curbed through external pressure.â Efforts to protect or excuse China must stop. She observes, â[M]any were quick to dismiss even the possibility that COVID escaped from a Chinese research laboratory.â Meanwhile, Skinner writes, â[g]lobal leaders includ- ing President Joe BidenâŚhave tried to normalize or even laud Chinese behavior.â She adds, âIn some cases, these voices, like global corporate giants BlackRock and Disneyââor the National Basketball Association (NBA)ââdirectly benefit from doing business with Beijing.â Former vice president of the U.S. Agency for Global Media Mora Namdar writes in Chapter 8 that we need to have people working for USAGM who actually believe in America, rather than allowing the agencies to function as anti-American, tax- payer-funded entities that parrot our adversariesâ propaganda and talking points. Former acting deputy secretary of homeland security Ken Cuccinelli says in Chap- ter 5 that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a creation of the George W. Bush era, should be closed, as it has added needless additional bureaucracy and expense without corresponding benefit. He recommends that it be replaced with a new âstand-alone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet levelâ and that the remaining parts of DHS be distributed among other departments. Former chief of staff for the director of National Intelligence Dustin Carmack writes in Chapter 7 that the U.S. Intelligence Community is too inclined to look in the rearview mirror, engage in âgroupthink,â and employ an âoverly cautiousâ approach aimed at personal approval rather than at offering the most accurate, unvarnished intelligence for the benefit of the country. And in Chapter 9, former acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Max
Introduction
â 135 â Department of Homeland Security Unfortunately for our nation, the federal governmentâs newest department became like every other federal agency: bloated, bureaucratic, and expensive. It also lost sight of its mission priorities. DHS has also suffered from the Leftâs wokeness and weaponization against Americans whom the Left perceives as its political opponents. To truly secure the homeland, a conservative Administration needs to return the department to the right mission, the right size, and the right budget. This would include reorganizing the department and shifting significant resources away from several supporting components to the essential operational components. Prior- itizing border security and immigration enforcement, including detention and deportation, is critical if we are to regain control of the border, repair the historic damage done by the Biden Administration, return to a lawful and orderly immi- gration system, and protect the homeland from terrorism and public safety threats. This also includes consolidating the pieces of the fragmented immigration system into one agency to fulfill the mission more efficiently. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a DHS com- ponent that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections at the expense of securing the cyber domain and critical infrastructure, which are threat- ened daily.2 A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission. The bloated DHS bureaucracy and budget, along with the wrong priorities, provide real opportunities for a conservative Administration to cut billions in spending and limit governmentâs role in Americansâ lives. These opportunities include privatizing TSA screening and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHSâs grant pro- grams, and removing all unions in the department for national security purposes. A successful DHS would: l Secure and control the border; l Thoroughly enforce immigration laws; l Correctly and efficiently adjudicate immigration benefit applications while rejecting fraudulent claims; l Secure the cyber domain and collaborate with critical infrastructure sectors to maintain their security; l Provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness;
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.