Save Sba From Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2931. This bill is not about improving the SBA or expanding support for small businesses. It is about punishing cities for their politics and dragging a vital agency into another culture war.

Earlier this year, the SBA administrator abruptly announced that six regional offices located in cities like New York, Chicago, and Seattle will be relocated. These are some of the most diverse, economically important cities in the country. They are also home to thousands of small businesses that rely on these offices for support.

The decision was made without consultation, without any clear plan, and without even a basic briefing to Congress. In fact, 24 of my colleagues and I sent a letter to the administrator demanding answers. Myself and my colleagues still haven't received an adequate response; just rhetoric.

Now this bill will lock in that same reckless approach and expand on it. It strips regional, district, and local SBA offices out of so- called sanctuary cities, despite there being no legal definition and no justification for such a move.

This isn't about immigration enforcement. It is about politics. This administration wants to punish some of our larger cities because they have the nerve to vote Democratic. It is important to note all of the cities comply with the Federal laws.

Who will this bill hurt? It will not hurt politicians or city officials. It is the small business owners and their employees who will suddenly have to navigate SBA programs without the support they have relied on for years.

At the same time, the SBA is already in crisis. Huge numbers of staff have been fired or forced out. Customer service has plummeted. Small business owners are calling, and no one is there to answer. Now, in the middle of all of that, my Republican colleagues are talking about uprooting even more offices.

This bill doesn't fix anything. It adds more confusion and disruption for the people that are supposed to be helped. It wastes taxpayer dollars to carry out a political agenda, and it ignores the real economic challenges small businesses are facing.

Let's not forget, entrepreneurs across the country are already dealing with higher prices caused by tariffs. That is a direct result of this administration's trade policies. These added costs are squeezing margins and making it harder for small businesses to stay afloat. The last thing they need is less support from the very agency that is supposed to help them. They also don't need to be spending hours traveling to offices to get assistance.

If my colleagues really wanted to support the small businesses, they would be talking about access to capital. They would be looking at how to rebuild SBA policy, not gut it further. They would be focused on lowering costs, expanding outreach, and getting more entrepreneurs the tools they need to grow.

Just maybe, my colleagues could stop playing games and pass a bill exempting small businesses from the pain of this administration's on- again, off-again tariffs.

Instead, Members here are debating a bill that makes things worse. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, stand up for small business owners in every ZIP Code and restore the SBA mission as a nonpartisan advocate for America's entrepreneurs.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is quite rich to come to the House floor and talk about rule of law. At least on this side of the aisle, we don't have anyone who pardoned 1,500 felons.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record two news articles about DHS sanctuary jurisdiction lists removed from their website given the fact that their local sheriffs were opposed to the lists, as well as a Third Way article highlighting that the red State murder rate was 33 percent higher than the blue State murder rate, which can be found at: https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-21st- century-red-state-murder-crisis. [From Chicago Tribune, June 1, 2025] List of ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions'' Removed From US Government Website Following Criticism

Washington--A widely anticipated list of ``sanctuary jurisdictions'' no longer appears on the Department of Homeland Security's website after receiving widespread criticism for including localities that have actively supported the Trump administration's hard-line immigration policies. The department last week published the list of the jurisdictions. It said each one would receive formal notification the government deemed them uncooperative with federal immigration enforcement and whether they're believed to be in violation of any federal criminal statutes. The list was published Thursday on the department's website but on Sunday there was a ``Page Not Found'' error message in its place.

What is a `sanctuary jurisdiction' and how was the US list of them made?

The list was part of the Trump administration's efforts to target communities, states and jurisdictions that it says aren't doing enough to help its immigration enforcement agenda and the promises the president made to deport more than 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal authorization. The list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly, a DHS senior official said.

``Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,'' the official said in a statement.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Fox News' ``Sunday Morning Futures'' that there had been anger from some officials about the list. However, she didn't address why it was removed.

``Some of the cities have pushed back,'' Noem said. ``They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.''

The list, which was riddled with misspellings, received pushback from officials in communities spanning from urban to rural and blue to red who said the list doesn't appear to make sense.

In California, the city of Huntington Beach made the list even though it had filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration sanctuary law and passed a resolution this year declaring the community a ``non-sanctuary city.''

Jim Davel, administrator for Shawano County, Wisconsin, said the inclusion of his community must have been a clerical error. Davel voted for Trump as did 67% of Shawano County.

Davel thinks the administration may have confused the county's vote in 2021 to become a ``Second Amendment Sanctuary County'' that prohibits gun control measures with it being a safe haven for immigrants. He said the county has approved no immigration sanctuary policies. ____ [From NPR, June 2, 2025] Homeland Security Pulls Down List of `Sanctuary' Cities and Counties After Backlash (By Ximena Bustillo)

The Department of Homeland Security removed a list of ``sanctuary jurisdictions'' days after the agency posted it on its website.

The list included dozens of cities and counties across 37 states and the District of Columbia that DHS said were in noncompliance with federal statutes.

``DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens,'' the DHS page stated.

The list, which posted late last week and came down on Sunday, was supposed to be the latest step in the Trump administration's effort to push back against local municipalities that it believes are obstructing its goals to increase immigration-related arrests and deportations. Since the start of the administration, mayors and governors of cities seen as ``sanctuary'' have been called to testify in Congress and federal agencies have looked into curbing federal resources from these areas.

In practice, sanctuary jurisdictions prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration officials on immigration-related operations.

But the list quickly faced intense criticism from mayors and law enforcement confused as to why they had been included. Over the weekend, the National Sheriff's Association President Sheriff Kieran Donahue accused DHS of lacking transparency and accountability in how the list was compiled.

``This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation. Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label,'' Donahue said, calling on DHS to remove the list. ``This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.''

Local leaders across the country also raised issues with their inclusion on the list. Mayors from Boise, Idaho, and San Diego, for example, were surprised to see their cities named. Colorado leaders also raised concerns; Aurora was removed before the list was posted.

President Trump issued an executive order on April 28 that directed the department and the attorney general to publish a list of states and local jurisdictions ``obstructing federal immigration law enforcement and notify each sanctuary jurisdiction of its non-compliance, providing an opportunity to correct it.''

``Some of the cities have pushed back. They think that because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify but they do qualify,'' DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Fox's Sunday Morning Futures.

The list, a senior DHS official said in a statement to NPR, is constantly reviewed, can be changed at any time and will be ``regularly'' updated.

``Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,'' the official's statement said.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken steps to retaliate against jurisdictions it considered ``sanctuary.'' For example, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ended coordination on naturalization ceremonies with ``sanctuary cities that restrict the ability of law enforcement to cooperate with DHS--in defiance of the rule of law--to enforce immigration laws and keep American communities safe from illegal and violent aliens,'' according to USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser.

The administration has vowed to review federal disaster aid and other assistance that goes to ``sanctuary jurisdictions.'' The withholding of funding prompted lawsuits from 16 jurisdictions. A judge blocked the move.

The administration has also taken cities to court over policies it says limit cooperation with immigration authorities.

I include in the Record letters of opposition from the Democracy Defenders Action, UnidosUS, and the Small Business Majority, all organizations that raise concerns that the bill will deny small businesses access to critical support.

I am writing on behalf of Democracy Defenders Action (DDA), a non-partisan organization committed to safeguarding our democracy against rising authoritarian threats. We respectfully urge you to oppose the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 2931.

The Save SBA from Sanctuary CMes Act is a blatant attempt to coerce cities into abandoning their values and violating the Constitution in service of Trump's unpopular, unlawful deportation agenda. Cities must have the freedom to protect their citizens, and the data is clear: cities with welcoming policies are safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

If passed, this bill would essentially turn small businesses into collateral damage in Trump's political war on immigrants--cutting off critical SBA support to entrepreneurs based solely on where they live. Ultimately, it will be small business owners, many of whom are already struggling in Trump's economy, that will be most harmed by the uncertainty and service gaps prompted by the bill.

Congress must vote NO. Stand with local leaders. Stand with small businesses. Stand on the right side of history. Best, Diamond Brown (she/her), Senior Policy Counsel, Democracy Defenders Action. ____

Dear Hill Colleague, On behalf of UnidosUS, we urge Members to vote NO on both the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 2931) and the American Entrepreneurs First Act (H.R. 2966).

H.R. 2931 represents an unacceptable politicization of the Small Business Administration (SBA), proposing to strip vital SBA resources from so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. This would deny millions of small businesses, especially those in underserved communities, access to essential services such as loans, disaster relief, and technical assistance, simply based on where they are located. These are businesses already navigating high prices and ongoing economic instability caused by the chaotic policies of the administration. Punishing them because their local governments instituted policies to draw a line between local law enforcement responsibilities and federal immigration enforcement will only deepen inequities and disrupt local economies.

H.R. 2966 adds insult to injury by imposing sweeping new restrictions on SBA loan eligibility, explicitly excluding entrepreneurs with certain immigration statuses--including asylees, refugees, DACA recipients, visa holders, and undocumented individuals. Many of these individuals are lawfully present in the U.S. and are creating jobs, paying taxes, and helping their communities thrive. Shutting them out of SBA programs undermines entrepreneurship, limits innovation, and weakens our long-term economic competitiveness.

Immigrant entrepreneurs open businesses at higher rates than native born Americans and Latino-owned businesses contribute almost $800 billion to the nation's economy. And as we noted in our 2024 analysis on Latina Equal Pay Day, Latinas are key drivers of the U.S, economy. Their economic output exceeds $1.3 trillion, surpassing the GDP of Florida, and they own over a quarter of all Latino-owned businesses. Yet despite these contributions, Latinas face profound structural barriers, earning just 58 cents for every dollar earned by non-Hispanic white men, and with nearly two-thirds lacking access to employer-based benefits. These challenges would be compounded by H.R. 2931 and H.R. 2966, which threaten to strip away the limited federal support many Hispanic entrepreneurs and workers can access.

By excluding entire categories of immigrant entrepreneurs, these bills risk driving more individuals into the shadow economy, undermining transparency and accountability. States and localities have a strong interest in knowing which businesses are operating in their communities, including street vendors and other informal enterprises. Instead of supporting these efforts, the legislation would make it harder to identify and engage such businesses, ultimately hindering local economic development and effective regulation,

Together, these bills are part of a broader effort to scapegoat immigrants, even when doing so comes at the direct expense of American small businesses and working families. We urge Members to reject this harmful and short-sighted agenda by voting NO on H.R. 2931 and H.R. 2966. ____

I'm reaching out on behalf of Small Business Majority to urge your office to vote NO on H.R. 2931, the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025, which would penalize and strip SBA resources away from hundreds of thousands of small businesses at a time in which uncertainty on Main Street is skyrocketing.

H.R. 2931 would require the SBA to relocate any regional, district, or local office located in a ``sanctuary jurisdiction,'' without any consideration for the cost or process of determining a new location for these offices. The bill follows the SBA's March announcement that it would relocate six regional offices from major entrepreneurial hubs, including New York City, Denver, and Chicago. As a result, hundreds of thousands of small businesses in these cities now stand to lose access to vital SBA personnel and resources--simply because the agency is prioritizing a political statement over the needs of entrepreneurs.

A statement from Small Business Majority Founder and CEO John Arensmeyer is below:

``The federal government should do everything it can to meet small businesses where they are, which is why H.R. 2931 is an example of a policy proposal that would be ineffective at best and harmful at worst. The bill, which would require the U.S. Small Business Administration to relocate any regional, district or local SBA office housed in a `sanctuary jurisdiction', ignores the fact that millions of small businesses are located in or near cities that could be designated as a `sanctuary jurisdiction.' Moving offices farther away from the small businesses they were intended to support certainly would not facilitate SBA better servicing these small firms. What's more, there is no evidence to even suggest that a city's policy toward immigrants has any relationship to its ability to effectively meet the needs of local small businesses. With that in mind, we strongly encourage members of the House of Representatives to ignore distractions like H.R. 2931 and focus on policies that would actually benefit America's entrepreneurs.''

In addition to ongoing efforts to shutter regional offices, with no detailed or communicated plans as to where those offices will be relocated, SBA has also slashed its workforce by 43%, further restricting the agency's ability to meet the growing demands of today's small businesses. Recent national polling found that 78% of small business owners are concerned about cuts to the SBA and its programs. Nearly 8 in 10 small business owners report having used SBA programs for their business.

We urge your office to vote NO on H.R. 2931 which would continue to undermine the SBA's capacity to carry out its mission and strip resources away from hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs for politically charged reasons.

Thank you for your consideration and please let me know if you have any questions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the SBA is supposed to serve American small businesses, full stop--not just in certain cities, not just when it is politically convenient, but everywhere for everyone.

This bill doesn't meet that standard. It will rip support away from small businesses in the economic centers of this country because of the political party that runs their city. It creates disruption, wastes money, and puts politics ahead of supporting the American economy.

Politicians love to say that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. I ask, why target millions of them by supporting this bill? We should be supporting these businesses, not tearing them down.

The entrepreneurs I hear from aren't talking about asking for this. They are asking for better access to capital, more outreach, and a stable SBA that is there when they need it.

This bill moves us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source