District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025
Key claim: The bill prohibits the District of Columbia from adopting laws or policies that limit information-sharing on immigration status or noncompliance with DHS detainers and release notifications, with narrow exceptions for crime victims and witnesses.
Abstract
(HR2056 · 119th Congress) District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act This bill prohibits the District of Columbia (DC) from limiting its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement activities, except for certain instances involving witnesses and victims of crime. Specifically, the bill bars DC from adopting a law, policy, or practice prohibiting DC governmental entities from sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual with a federal, state, or local government entity. Further, DC may not adopt a law, policy, or practice of not complying with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release of, an individual from custody. (A detainer is a formal request from DHS that a state or locality hold an individual in custody for up to 48 hours after the individual would otherwise be released so that DHS may facilitate the individual’s removal.) The bill provides exceptions allowing DC to adopt policies of not sharing information or complying with a detainer request regarding an individual who comes forward as a victim or a witness of a crime. Latest action (2025-06-12): Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Why this matters
For DC residents without lawful status, the bill would eliminate any local shield against federal information-sharing on immigration status and would compel DC officials to honor DHS detainers and release-notification requests, narrowing protective policies to only crime victims and witnesses. Because DC is a federal district, Congress has direct preemption authority, making this a lower-friction vehicle than similar bills targeting states and a potential template for how anti-sanctuary requirements are structured elsewhere.