How exactly did the One Big Beautiful Bill define allowable uses for the billions allocated to ICE and CBP?
Executive summary
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA / H.R.1) directed unprecedented multiyear sums to DHS and its enforcement components and defined allowable uses in a mix of specific line items (hiring, facilities, detention, transport, technology, wall construction) and large lump‑sum or broadly worded pots that give agencies wide discretion (including a new $10 billion border fund) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and advocacy groups disagree over exact totals attributed to ICE—some fact sheets highlight a $29.9 billion enforcement lump sum while other outlets and committee statements describe as much as $75 billion to ICE overall—so the definitional picture is both numerically and legally contested [4] [2] [5].
1. What the bill allocated in headline terms
Congress placed hundreds of billions of dollars into border and immigration enforcement across multiple captions: CBP received huge multiyear authorizations (CBP totals reported as roughly $64.7 billion in one congressional summary), ICE received tens of billions explicitly for enforcement and detention (figures reported variably as $29.9 billion for enforcement operations in some analyses and as part of a larger $74.85–$75 billion ICE total in others), and the package included separate billions for border wall construction, detention capacity, and a $10 billion broadly worded border fund [1] [2] [6] [3].
2. How the bill defined allowable uses for ICE funds
For ICE the bill names classic enforcement and removal categories as allowable: personnel expansion (hiring up to 10,000 new ICE agents in some descriptions), transportation and removal operations, detention capacity and beds, immigration attorneys for government representation, and specialized enforcement activities; in several summaries these authorities were packaged as a single lump sum for ICE enforcement and operations, which grants the agency flexibility to allocate across those categories rather than being rigidly earmarked line by line [4] [2] [7] [8].
3. How the bill defined allowable uses for CBP funds
CBP’s funding includes explicit line items and programmatic buckets: massive border infrastructure and wall construction, hiring and retention bonuses for agents and officers, vehicles and fleet expansion, facilities and checkpoints, and separate appropriations for surveillance and technology procurement (biometric/AI systems, sensors, and “cutting‑edge” surveillance). The reconciled totals cited by the congressional summary allocate tens of billions to border infrastructure (nearly $46.55 billion for wall systems in that breakdown) plus several billion for hiring and operational technology [1] [9] [7] [8].
4. Legal drafting and mechanisms that broadened agency discretion
Multiple reporting and advocacy sources flag two drafting features that expand DHS discretion: (a) the use of large lump sums (especially in the Senate version) that list allowable categories but do not tightly earmark dollar amounts to each activity, and (b) creation of a $10 billion fund available to the DHS Secretary “for any border enforcement purposes,” which critics call a de facto slush fund because it carries few statutory guardrails on specific use [2] [3] [9]. Congressional and executive press materials emphasize hiring and capacity targets, while watchdogs warn that the statutory language and multi‑year availability through 2029 make reprogramming and transfers easier [7] [10].
5. Contested interpretations and implications
Advocacy groups and legal analysts characterize the allowed uses as enabling a dramatic expansion of detention, deportation, surveillance, and contractor markets—warning of a durable “deportation‑industrial complex”—while DHS and administration statements frame the same provisions as targeted hires, technology upgrades, and border security infrastructure to stem illegal entry [9] [7] [11]. Because some reporting labels the ICE figure as $29.9 billion for enforcement while other committee or news accounts aggregate higher totals to ICE (e.g., $75 billion), any precise accounting depends on whether one counts only explicitly titled enforcement lumps or the broader mix of DHS accounts and transfers described in the bill and committee summaries [4] [5] [1]. Available sources document the categories the law permits but differ on totals and on whether statutory language supplies adequate restrictions—this analysis relies on those public summaries and acknowledges that detailed agency implementation and any subsequent reprogramming will determine final uses [2] [3] [1].