The Grant Integrity and Border Security Act requires federal grant applicants to certify compliance with immigration laws prohibiting the harboring or transporting of certain aliens and mandates the withholding of funds for violations.
Virginia Foxx
Representative
NC-5
The Grant Integrity and Border Security Act requires federal grant applicants to certify that they have not violated, and will not violate, federal laws prohibiting the harboring or transporting of illegal aliens. The bill mandates that agencies withhold grant funding from any recipient found to be in violation of these immigration statutes. Additionally, it establishes a reporting process for the Attorney General to notify the Office of Management and Budget of any individuals or entities investigated for or convicted of such violations.
Federal Grant Integrity Act Mandates 10-Year Immigration Compliance Check for All Applicants
The Grant Integrity and Border Security Act introduces a major new hurdle for anyone seeking federal funding. Under this bill, every federal agency must require grant applicants to certify that they haven’t violated laws against bringing in, transporting, or harboring certain undocumented individuals—not just currently, but at any point in the last 10 years. If a recipient is found in violation, the agency is directed to immediately pull the plug on their funding. This isn't just about border-specific grants; it applies to the entire spectrum of federal awards, from medical research to local infrastructure projects.
The 10-Year Paperwork Trail
This bill creates a significant look-back period that could trip up long-standing organizations. To get a grant, an applicant must swear they’ve been in compliance with Section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for a full decade. For a university researcher or a local non-profit, this means their eligibility is now tied to the past actions of their staff and the organization’s history. If an employee is convicted of or even admits to a violation while on the job, the agency head can withhold all grant money. The Attorney General is also tasked with reporting anyone investigated for these violations to the Office of Management and Budget within 90 days, creating a centralized "red flag" list for federal agencies.
Broad Discretion and the "Credible Information" Trap
One of the most concerning parts of this bill for everyday grant seekers is how a violation is determined. Beyond actual court convictions, an agency head can decide to withhold funds based on "any other credible information" they receive (Section 2). This is a vague standard that could lead to a lot of headaches. Imagine a small community health center that loses its federal funding because of an unverified tip or a misunderstanding of how they transport patients in a border town. Because the term "credible information" isn't strictly defined, it opens the door for funding to be denied based on allegations rather than proven legal violations, potentially leaving organizations in a lurch without a clear way to defend their budget.
High Stakes for Local Services
While the bill aims to ensure federal dollars don't go to those breaking immigration laws, the practical fallout could hit close to home. Non-profits, schools, and construction firms that rely on federal grants now face a new layer of legal liability. For example, a non-profit providing disaster relief might worry that transporting a group of people including someone with an irregular immigration status could be interpreted as "transporting or harboring," putting their entire federal budget at risk. This shift forces organizations to become de facto immigration screeners just to keep their lights on, potentially diverting time and money away from their actual work—like fixing roads or conducting cancer research—and into complex legal compliance.