DHS Grants Accountability Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]
ID: K000402
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
December 9, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š 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 and expose the underlying disease.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The DHS Grants Accountability Act (HR 6507) claims to improve oversight, transparency, and stakeholder engagement in the administration of certain preparedness, transit, and port security grant programs. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, attempting to address the symptoms rather than the underlying rot.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:
* Requiring the Administrator of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide annual notifications to Congress regarding grant allocations. * Establishing deadlines for notice of funding opportunities and application periods for grant programs. * Increasing the period of performance for grant funds from an unspecified duration to at least 54 months.
These changes are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to create the illusion of accountability. The real purpose is to provide cover for the continued mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and the perpetuation of cronyism.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:
* DHS, which will be required to provide additional notifications to Congress. * Grant recipients, who will have more time to use grant funds (54 months instead of an unspecified duration). * Lobbyists and special interest groups, who will continue to influence the allocation of grant funds.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be negligible. It will not address the underlying issues of corruption, waste, and mismanagement that plague the grant programs. Instead, it will create more bureaucracy and provide a false sense of security for taxpayers.
The real implications are:
* Increased opportunities for cronyism and favoritism in the allocation of grant funds. * Continued waste and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. * A further erosion of trust in government's ability to manage public funds effectively.
**Diagnosis:** This bill is a classic case of " legislative lupus," where the symptoms are treated rather than the underlying disease. The real illness is corruption, cronyism, and a lack of accountability. This bill is merely a palliative measure designed to placate voters and special interest groups.
**Treatment:** The only effective treatment for this disease is radical surgery – a complete overhaul of the grant programs and the elimination of corrupting influences. However, given the entrenched interests involved, it's unlikely that such a treatment will be administered anytime soon.
In conclusion, HR 6507 is a farce, a Potemkin village designed to create the illusion of accountability while perpetuating the status quo. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars and a slap in the face to those who demand real reform.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]
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
— 566 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Consistent with appropriations from Congress, the OJP dispenses approxi- mately $7 billion in various grants. Block grants are given to a state to be awarded pursuant to federal regulations. Some funds to support law enforcement and victims of crime are awarded pursuant to block grants. But most OJP funds are awarded through discretionary grants—specific programs written into the budget by Congress. Although Congress dictates the way in which many grant awards are to be made, federal staff enjoy a tremendous amount of discretion in adding “conditions” and “priority points.” Grants operate with a carrot and a stick. To receive grant funding, a recipient must agree to certain conditions, which in many instances include the President’s priorities. For instance, under an anti–human trafficking grant during the Obama Administration (approximately $110 million in 2020), an awardee had to show a partnership with an LGBTQ organization and always have an interpreter on site. These conditions worked to change culture and overlayed President Obama’s priorities: support for the LGBTQ community and for more of the funding to go to areas with large immigrant populations. During the Trump Administration, a condition added to grants stated that an awardee had to comply with all federal law (stock language), including federal law regarding the exchange of information between federal and local authorities about an individual’s immigration status. This condition prevented law enforcement in “sanctuary cities” from receiving grant awards. While the Trump Administra- tion suffered a series of setbacks from several hostile courts, it obtained from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals a decision upholding the department’s authority to impose these conditions.92 To ensure that taxpayer-funded grants are prioritized and distributed properly, the next conservative Administration should: l Conduct an immediate, comprehensive review of all federal grant disbursals to ensure not only that the programs are being properly administered by the department, but also that the grant funding is being received and used properly by recipients. l Order an overhaul of the DOJ grant application process, to include more rigorous vetting of state, local, and private grant applicants and inclusion of more pre-application criteria to ensure baseline fitness and eligibility for federal grant dollars. This long-overdue enhancement of the grant application and issuance process will ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going only to lawful actors who support federal law enforcement and demonstrate the ability and willingness to engage in lawful activities. — 567 — Department of Justice Ensuring Proper Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration Laws. Although its role has changed over the years, most notably following the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,93 the Department of Justice plays a crucial role in the enforcement and adjudication of our immigration laws.94 Its leadership and energy, however, have not always reflected the importance placed by Congress on the execution of that crucial mission. With a few notable exceptions, successful fulfillment of the department’s responsibilities with respect to immi- gration was largely neglected until the Trump Administration. The Department of Homeland Security may be the largest federal department with immigration responsibilities, but successful fulfillment of the responsibilities prescribed by the immigration laws is not possible without bold and dedicated action by the Department of Justice. The DOJ and its leadership must intentionally prioritize fulfillment of the department’s immigration-related responsibilities in the next conservative Admin- istration. This will be no small task, as these responsibilities play out across nearly every DOJ office and component. If they hope to fulfill their responsibilities as assigned by Congress and deliver results for the American people, the department and the Attorney General should: l Issue guidance to all U.S. Attorneys emphasizing the importance of prosecuting immigration offenses,95 and immigration-related offenses. The brunt of these offenses is born by districts along the southwestern border with Mexico, but the simple fact remains that immigration and immigration-related offenses are present in every district across the country. Successfully pursuing the priorities outlined in this chapter will require creative use of the various immigration and immigration-related authorities in close partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and other appropriate federal entities depending on the situation. l Pursue appropriate steps to assist the Department of Homeland Security in obtaining information about criminal aliens in jurisdictions across the United States, particularly those inside “sanctuary” jurisdictions. l Examine and consider the appropriateness of withdrawing or overturning every immigration decision rendered by Attorney General Garland (and any successor Attorney General during President Biden’s term). The Attorney General should pick up where the Attorneys General under President Trump left off and exercise his or her authority to adjudicate cases and provide guidance in appropriate cases to
Introduction
— 566 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Consistent with appropriations from Congress, the OJP dispenses approxi- mately $7 billion in various grants. Block grants are given to a state to be awarded pursuant to federal regulations. Some funds to support law enforcement and victims of crime are awarded pursuant to block grants. But most OJP funds are awarded through discretionary grants—specific programs written into the budget by Congress. Although Congress dictates the way in which many grant awards are to be made, federal staff enjoy a tremendous amount of discretion in adding “conditions” and “priority points.” Grants operate with a carrot and a stick. To receive grant funding, a recipient must agree to certain conditions, which in many instances include the President’s priorities. For instance, under an anti–human trafficking grant during the Obama Administration (approximately $110 million in 2020), an awardee had to show a partnership with an LGBTQ organization and always have an interpreter on site. These conditions worked to change culture and overlayed President Obama’s priorities: support for the LGBTQ community and for more of the funding to go to areas with large immigrant populations. During the Trump Administration, a condition added to grants stated that an awardee had to comply with all federal law (stock language), including federal law regarding the exchange of information between federal and local authorities about an individual’s immigration status. This condition prevented law enforcement in “sanctuary cities” from receiving grant awards. While the Trump Administra- tion suffered a series of setbacks from several hostile courts, it obtained from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals a decision upholding the department’s authority to impose these conditions.92 To ensure that taxpayer-funded grants are prioritized and distributed properly, the next conservative Administration should: l Conduct an immediate, comprehensive review of all federal grant disbursals to ensure not only that the programs are being properly administered by the department, but also that the grant funding is being received and used properly by recipients. l Order an overhaul of the DOJ grant application process, to include more rigorous vetting of state, local, and private grant applicants and inclusion of more pre-application criteria to ensure baseline fitness and eligibility for federal grant dollars. This long-overdue enhancement of the grant application and issuance process will ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going only to lawful actors who support federal law enforcement and demonstrate the ability and willingness to engage in lawful activities.
Introduction
— 135 — Department of Homeland Security Unfortunately for our nation, the federal government’s 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 Left’s 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 government’s role in Americans’ 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 DHS’s 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 4 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.