The bill
Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026
HR. 7640, 119th Congress β read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.
Sponsored by
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
ID: M001177
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 7640, 119th Congress β read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 465.
March 11, 2026
π Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026" is a cleverly crafted bill designed to appease the xenophobic base while pretending to address public safety concerns. Its primary objective is to strong-arm states and local governments into cooperating with federal immigration authorities, effectively nullifying sanctuary policies.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, making it more difficult for states and localities to restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It also:
* Expands the definition of "law enforcement activities" to include inquiring about an individual's citizenship or immigration status * Prohibits states and local governments from restricting information sharing with federal authorities * Grants immunity to state and local government entities that comply with federal requests, shielding them from lawsuits
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
* States and local governments with sanctuary policies will be forced to choose between complying with federal demands or risking loss of funding * Immigrant communities will face increased scrutiny and potential deportation * Federal immigration authorities will gain more power to enforce their agenda * Law enforcement agencies will be caught in the middle, torn between following federal directives and respecting local policies
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease β the politicization of immigration policy. By pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment, lawmakers are creating a toxic environment that:
* Fosters fear and mistrust among immigrant communities * Undermines public safety by driving undocumented individuals underground * Encourages racial profiling and discriminatory policing practices * Sets a precedent for federal overreach into state and local affairs
In conclusion, this bill is a cynical attempt to exploit xenophobic fears while disguising itself as a public safety measure. It's a classic case of " legislative lupus" β a disease where politicians prioritize their own interests over the well-being of the people they're supposed to serve.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
Congress 119 β’ 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: C001118
Top Contributors
10
ID: N000026
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001096
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000478
Top Contributors
10
ID: T000165
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 54 nodes and 45 connections (43 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $163,100
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 5 harmed.
Section 2(i)(2) and (3) allow DHS Secretary to decline transfer of aliens to state/local governments that restrict immigration enforcement, potentially increasing federal detention needs and benefiting private prison contractors who house federal detainees.
Sections 2 and 3 expand authority for state/local law enforcement to inquire about immigration status, maintain records, notify federal government, and comply with detainers, increasing demand for surveillance and biometric ID tools used in immigration enforcement.
Industries like meat processing rely heavily on immigrant labor; increased interior enforcement (Sections 2-3) could disrupt workforce availability, raising costs or reducing output for firms like Tyson and JBS.
By enabling stricter interior immigration enforcement (Sections 2-3), the bill may reduce labor supply in industries reliant on immigrant workers (e.g., agriculture, construction, meat processing), potentially weakening union bargaining power in those sectors.
Construction depends on immigrant labor; heightened enforcement risks labor shortages, delaying projects and increasing costs for firms like Bechtel and Fluor.
Agribusiness (e.g., ADM, Cargill) uses immigrant labor in farming and processing; enforcement could disrupt supply chains, though impact is indirect compared to direct processing.
+ 1 more industry not shown.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022βpresent cycles. Donations are not proof of intent β they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.