H.R. 275 – Special Interest Alien Reporting Act of 2025; H.R. 875 – Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of 2025; H.R. 3944 – Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026; H. Res. 516 – Condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California.

2025-06-23

Loading video...

Summary

This Rules Committee meeting primarily focused on four legislative measures, H.R. 275, H.R. 875, H.R. 3944, and H.R. 516, alongside an extensive debate on presidential war powers and military actions in the Middle East. Members presented arguments for and against the proposed bills, highlighting sharp partisan divisions on issues ranging from immigration and veteran care to government oversight and international policy.

Themes

Border Security and Special Interest Aliens

H.R. 275, the Special Interest Alien Reporting Act of 2025, mandates monthly reports from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on special interest illegal aliens encountered entering the U.S. Proponents argue this transparency is crucial, citing concerns over border security under the previous administration and potential national security risks from individuals entering from adversarial nations. They emphasize that DHS does not currently publicize such data and that many individuals were released under "catch and release" policies, making this information vital for the American public. The current administration formally endorsed the bill, stating that its advisors would recommend signing it into law.

Opponents contend that the bill jeopardizes national security by publicly disclosing sensitive information about screening and interdiction locations, which could be exploited by "bad actors." They note that DHS already releases aggregate encounter data by country and has previously expressed concerns that additional details could be damaging.[ 02:32:45-02:32:47 ]

Critics questioned why the current administration would not release this information without a legislative mandate if it were truly safe and necessary.

Immigration and Drunk Driving Offenses

H.R. 875, the Jeremy and Angel Say and Sergeant Brendan Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of 2025, proposes making driving while intoxicated a ground for denying admission or deporting non-U.S. nationals. Supporters highlight tragic cases of Americans killed by undocumented immigrants driving under the influence, asserting that existing laws are insufficient and that the bill promotes safer communities. They clarified that the bill requires a conviction for deportability, ensuring due process.[ 01:49:50 ]

Conversely, opponents labeled the bill as "clickbait" and a "missed opportunity" to address drunk driving comprehensively, arguing it scapegoats immigrants. They maintain that serious DUI convictions already permit deportation and that the bill could lead to the deportation of long-term residents for minor offenses without proper nuance. Concerns were also raised about due process and the absence of data linking immigration status to drunk driving rates.

Military and Veterans Affairs Appropriations

H.R. 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2026, focuses on funding for military construction and VA programs. Proponents lauded it as a reflection of national values, providing significant funding increases for veteran healthcare, benefits, mental health, and military infrastructure, aligning with the President's budget. They noted a bipartisan compromise on advance funding for the Toxic Exposures Fund and expressed skepticism about purported widespread VA job cuts affecting critical services.

Critics expressed alarm over the bill's lack of bipartisanship, citing "partisan riders" and the administration's "illegal actions."[ 00:29:07-00:29:10 ]

They highlighted a lack of detailed budget justifications, particularly for a 67% increase in community care, which they view as a move toward VA privatization.[ 00:29:38-00:29:57 ] Objections were also raised against "poison pill riders" restricting abortion access for women veterans and preventing the VA from reporting at-risk veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), despite high veteran suicide rates involving firearms. Furthermore, concerns were voiced about VA job cuts, seen as deliberate attempts to undermine services and push privatization.

Los Angeles Riots Condemnation

H.R. 516 condemns the violent riots that occurred in Los Angeles in June 2025 and expresses gratitude to law enforcement. Supporters described the events as involving arson, looting, vandalism, and assaults on officers, attributing blame to state and local officials for failing to enforce laws. They asserted that the President acted appropriately by deploying the National Guard to restore order, contrasting it with what they described as "peaceful protests."

Opponents characterized the resolution as "clickbait" and a "fact-free partisan resolution" designed to "sow division" and divert attention from other issues. They argued that the protests were "overwhelmingly peaceful" and local authorities could handle any criminal acts, while the administration's actions, including aggressive ICE raids and military deployment, "provoked confrontation and caused chaos." Critics highlighted the significant cost of the military deployment as a "performance" rather than a necessity, and accused Republicans of "selective outrage" given their response to the January 6th Capitol riot.

Presidential War Powers and Iran Strikes

A significant portion of the debate centered on President Trump's recent military strikes against Iran. Virginia Foxx defended Trump's actions, citing similar executive decisions by past presidents (Clinton, Obama, Biden) and emphasizing Iran's history as a dangerous actor targeting U.S. forces. She asserted Trump's "broad constitutional and statutory authorities" as commander-in-chief and called for unity in condemning Iranian attacks.[ 00:14:08 ]

James P. McGovern vehemently criticized the strikes as "illegal and unconstitutional," claiming they lacked congressional authorization and evidence of an imminent threat. He compared the situation to the Iraq War, warning against another "endless war" and accusing Republicans of being "cowardly" for not debating war powers or trying to suppress related resolutions. McGovern insisted that Congress holds exclusive war-making powers and demanded a thoughtful debate and vote on a War Powers Resolution.

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting began with standard formalities but quickly devolved into a highly contentious and partisan exchange of accusations and counter-accusations. Members used strong, often accusatory language, including terms like "bait and switch," "pathetic," "cowardly," "illegal," "unconstitutional," "horrific tax scam," "abrogation of congressional oversight," "poison pill riders," "outrage," "lie," "waste of time," and "BS." Heated debates erupted over war powers, immigration, and budget provisions, reflecting deep ideological divides. While some instances of professional disagreement were noted, the overall atmosphere was one of intense opposition and mutual distrust, particularly concerning the administration's actions and congressional oversight.[ 00:30:47-00:31:01 ]