This bill establishes a $200 million fund to provide grants to small businesses that suffered at least a 25% revenue loss due to recent federal immigration enforcement actions in their area.
Edward "Ed" Markey
Senator
MA
This bill establishes the Small Business ICE Disruption Fund with $200 million to provide grants to small businesses. These grants are specifically for eligible small businesses that suffered at least a 25% revenue loss due to disruptions from a federal immigration enforcement action in their area within the last year. The Administrator of the SBA will manage the fund, ensuring grants are awarded based on verified revenue loss, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 per business.
The Small Business ICE Disruption Fund Act proposes a $200 million safety net for local shops and services caught in the crossfire of federal immigration enforcement. Starting in fiscal year 2026, the Small Business Administration (SBA) would be authorized to issue grants to small businesses that can prove a federal immigration action—like a workplace raid or neighborhood enforcement—caused their revenue to drop by at least 25%. For a local grocery store or a construction firm, this means if an enforcement action clears out their customer base or disrupts their workforce to the point of a major financial hit, the government could cut a check to cover those specific losses up to $500,000 per location.
To get a piece of the fund, a business has to meet some pretty specific 'Goldilocks' criteria: not too big, but significantly hurt. Under Section 1, the business must be located in an area where an enforcement action happened within the last year and must prove their 'immigration enforcement-related revenue loss' through tax returns and receipts. The bill draws a hard line at size, excluding any company that is publicly traded or operates more than 15 locations. This ensures the $200 million isn't swallowed up by national chains, focusing instead on the 'mom and pop' shops that lack the capital to weather a sudden 25% dip in sales.
While the bill aims to stabilize local economies, there is some gray area in how the SBA will actually calculate the damage. Section 2 gives the Administrator the power to choose a 'comparable period' to measure lost revenue against. For a seasonal business, like a landscaping company or a holiday boutique, choosing the wrong months for comparison could make their loss look smaller than it actually is. Additionally, the bill uses the phrase 'disruptions from that enforcement action' without a strict definition. This leaves it up to bureaucrats to decide if a loss was directly caused by the raid or just a general economic slump, which could lead to inconsistent approvals depending on who is reviewing the file.
Because the grants are awarded in the order applications are received (Section 3), there is a high-stakes race for the $200 million. Once the money is gone, it’s gone. This 'first-come, first-served' approach might favor business owners who have an accountant on speed dial over the solo entrepreneur who is too busy running the register to navigate federal paperwork. While the bill includes fraud checks like verifying Employer Identification Numbers, the real-world challenge will be for the SBA to process these claims fast enough to keep a struggling business from closing its doors while waiting for the check to arrive.