Senate Parliamentarian Strikes Key Immigration Provisions From Trump Budget Bill
Senate referee strips immigration crackdown from budget bill, citing violation of reconciliation rules.
WASHINGTON — The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth Macdonough, has removed several controversial immigration provisions from the sweeping budget reconciliation bill known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” striking down attempts to expand state enforcement powers, limit immigrant access to public benefits, and restrict judicial review of federal immigration policy.
The guidance, issued throughout the last week, deals a significant blow to the bill’s immigration enforcement framework, which critics had warned amounted to a backdoor overhaul of federal immigration law through fiscal legislation.
Among the provisions stripped from the Senate version of the bill:
State and Local Immigration Enforcement: A section (90005(b)) that would have allowed states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement—traditionally exclusive federal responsibilities—was removed for violating the Byrd Rule, which limits non-budgetary policy changes in reconciliation bills.
Sanctuary City Grant Restrictions: Language in Section 154 that would have blocked certain grant funding to so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” was struck. The Parliamentarian ruled that conditioning funds on immigration policy compliance is a policy change unrelated to budgetary outcomes.
Expanded Arrest Powers for Local Officials: Section 155, which would have created a fund allowing local officials to arrest individuals suspected of being in the U.S. unlawfully, was rejected in its entirety. The provision, modeled after controversial Trump-era enforcement partnerships, was deemed an impermissible policy expansion.
SNAP Benefit Restrictions for Immigrants: A provision in Section 10108 that would have barred most non-citizens from receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits was removed. The Parliamentarian said the measure disproportionately targeted immigrants and did not meet the strict budgetary relevance required under reconciliation rules.
Judicial Bond Requirement: Section 203, which would have forced plaintiffs challenging immigration policy to post large financial bonds before obtaining temporary restraining orders or injunctions, was also eliminated. Legal analysts had warned the measure would severely restrict access to the courts.
The decision comes amid mounting criticism from immigration advocates who argue the bill—passed by the House in May—weaponizes fiscal policy to pursue hardline immigration goals. The now-removed provisions were part of a broader enforcement vision that included over $75 billion for increased ICE operations, expanded detention, and hundreds of miles of new border barriers.
Despite the removals, the bill retains core funding priorities for border infrastructure and immigration agencies. The Senate is expected to continue debating the bill in the coming weeks. Lawmakers may attempt to reintroduce the provisions through standalone legislation or attach them to future appropriations bills—though those efforts would require bipartisan support and face a more traditional legislative process.
We’ll keep you updated if any more immigration provisions from the Bill are being taken out as the week progresses.