A bill to condition certain Federal funds for States and local governments on cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement authorities, to deter illegal entry and reentry into the United States, to increase criminal penalties for crimes committed after illegal reentry into the United States, to protect Federal officers and employees from agitators using loud noises to interfere with the performance of their official duties, and to exclude organization that promote, incite, or provide material support for criminal violence from the tax benefits available under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

This bill establishes a comprehensive framework linking federal funding to immigration enforcement cooperation while simultaneously addressing criminal penalties for immigration violations, protecting federal officers from interference, and restricting tax-exempt status for organizations supporting criminal violence. The legislation represents a multi-pronged approach to immigration enforcement that leverages federal financial power to compel state and local cooperation, enhances deterrence through increased criminal sanctions, creates new protections for federal personnel performing official duties, and uses tax policy to discourage organizational support for violent activities. The bill's scope extends across immigration law, criminal justice, tax policy, and intergovernmental relations, creating interconnected enforcement mechanisms designed to strengthen federal immigration authority and protect federal operations.

The bill creates a conditional funding regime that ties federal financial assistance to state and local government cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities, fundamentally altering the relationship between federal immigration policy and state autonomy. It establishes enhanced criminal penalties specifically targeting individuals who commit crimes after illegally reentering the United States, creating a sentencing enhancement framework that treats post-reentry criminal conduct more severely than similar offenses committed by lawful residents. The legislation introduces new federal protections for officers and employees performing official duties by criminalizing the use of loud noises or similar tactics designed to interfere with federal operations. Additionally, the bill amends the tax code by disqualifying organizations that promote, incite, or provide material support for criminal violence from receiving tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, creating a new exclusionary category within the nonprofit sector.

Implementation responsibility falls primarily to the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement provisions, the Department of Justice for criminal penalty enforcement, the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status determinations, and the Office of Management and Budget for administering conditional funding requirements. Federal agencies providing grants to state and local governments must establish verification mechanisms to ensure recipient compliance with immigration cooperation requirements. The IRS must develop criteria and procedures for identifying organizations that promote, incite, or provide material support for criminal violence and revoking or denying their 501(c)(3) status. Federal law enforcement agencies must establish protocols for documenting and prosecuting interference with federal officers through noise-based tactics. The Department of Justice must implement the enhanced sentencing framework for post-reentry criminal offenses, requiring coordination with federal prosecutors and the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

State and local governments face significant financial pressure to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement or risk losing federal funding, potentially affecting billions in federal assistance across various program areas. Individuals who illegally reenter the United States and subsequently commit crimes face substantially longer prison sentences, increasing federal incarceration costs and creating deterrent effects on recidivist immigration violations. Federal officers and employees gain enhanced legal protections against interference tactics, potentially reducing disruptions to federal operations but raising concerns about First Amendment implications for protesters. Nonprofit organizations engaged in advocacy that could be construed as supporting criminal violence face potential loss of tax-exempt status, affecting their fundraising capacity and operational viability. The administrative burden on federal agencies increases substantially through new verification, enforcement, and adjudication responsibilities across immigration, criminal justice, and tax administration functions.

The conditional funding provisions rest on the Spending Clause authority, which permits Congress to attach conditions to federal grants, though they must satisfy constitutional requirements established in South Dakota v. Dole, including clear notice, germaneness to federal interests, and avoidance of coercion. The enhanced criminal penalties derive from Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause and its plenary power over immigration matters, though they may face proportionality challenges under Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The protections for federal officers against noise-based interference invoke the Necessary and Proper Clause to protect federal functions, but potentially conflict with First Amendment protections for expressive conduct and assembly rights. The tax-exempt status restrictions exercise Congress's broad taxing power but raise First Amendment concerns regarding viewpoint discrimination and associational freedoms. The bill potentially preempts state and local laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, creating conflicts with sanctuary jurisdiction policies and raising Tenth Amendment federalism questions.

The conditional funding mechanism faces constitutional challenges under the anti-coercion doctrine articulated in NFIB v. Sebelius, particularly if the amount of federal funding at stake is so substantial that states have no practical alternative but to comply. The definition of what constitutes adequate cooperation with immigration authorities remains ambiguous, creating implementation uncertainty and potential litigation over compliance standards. The enhanced criminal penalties for post-reentry offenses may face Eighth Amendment proportionality challenges, particularly if the underlying crimes are relatively minor. The noise-based interference provisions raise significant First Amendment concerns by potentially criminalizing protected expressive conduct and peaceful protest activities near federal facilities. The 501(c)(3) exclusion for organizations supporting criminal violence lacks clear definitional boundaries, creating vagueness concerns and potential for viewpoint-based discrimination in tax administration. The bill's financial impact on states and localities could be severe, forcing difficult choices between federal funding and local policy preferences regarding immigration enforcement. Implementation challenges include developing objective criteria for measuring cooperation, defining material support for violence, and distinguishing protected speech from criminal incitement.