hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
DHS would assess threats from foreign visitors to state/local governments.
Introduced by Reps. Goldman (D-NY) and Thompson (D-MS).
Introduced in the House, awaiting committee review.
This bill, known as the SAFE VISITS Act, directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to regularly analyze potential threats, including terrorism, from foreign nationals who seek access to state, local, Tribal, or territorial government officials, information, facilities, programs, or systems. It was introduced by Representatives Goldman, a Democrat from New York, and Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi. Currently, it has been referred to House committees for consideration, meaning no full House vote has occurred yet.
Introduced Feb 9, 2026
This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 9, 2026. It has been referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on the Judiciary for review. Before it can move forward, these committees must consider and approve it, possibly with changes. If passed by the House, it would then go to the Senate for their process, and ultimately to the President to become law.
If this bill becomes law, the Department of Homeland Security would regularly provide threat analyses and guidance to state and local governments. This could lead to better protection for government information and facilities, potentially safeguarding your personal data if it's stored by local agencies. Local officials would receive more support and assistance from DHS in vetting foreign visitors, which aims to enhance overall security at the state and local levels. The goal is to better protect against potential homeland security and terrorism threats posed by foreign nationals seeking access to government resources.
Supporters Say
Supporters would argue this bill strengthens national security by protecting critical state and local government assets from foreign threats.
Critics Say
Potential critics might raise concerns about federal overreach into state affairs or the practicality of extensive vetting for all foreign visitors.
Those in favor would highlight the importance of safeguarding sensitive government information and systems at all levels from foreign interference or terrorism. They would emphasize the need for federal expertise to assist local entities in identifying and mitigating potential risks. Conversely, some might argue that this could create additional bureaucracy for state and local governments or that current security protocols are sufficient. Others might voice concerns about how 'foreign nationals' are identified and vetted, and whether such measures could inadvertently impact legitimate international cooperation or diplomacy at the local level.