The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Missouri House Bill 2524 regulates local cooperation with federal immigration authorities and mandates peace officer training
Last action · May 15, 2026: Referred: Emerging Issues(H)Sponsor: Ray Reed
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Would Do
House Bill 2524 prohibits state and local entities from restricting communication or cooperation with the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement when there is a clear public safety concern, while banning the use of state funds for discriminatory immigration enforcement. The legislation also requires annual racial profiling and constitutional rights training for peace officers and withholds state funding from local entities found to violate these cooperation provisions.
Local governments and law enforcement agencies face potential loss of state grants and funding if they maintain policies restricting communication with federal immigration authorities. At the same time, all peace officers in the state must complete mandatory yearly training on constitutional rights and racial profiling.
Who It Would Affect
Groups the bill's text would affect if enacted, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
peace officers
Peace officers must participate in annual training on racial profiling and constitutional rights.
political subdivisions
Political subdivisions are prohibited from restricting immigration status communication and face the loss of state funding if found noncompliant.
public employees
Public employees are legally protected from local restrictions when sharing immigration status information with federal, state, or local entities under public safety concerns.
Key Facts
You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can local government entities restrict employees from communicating with federal immigration authorities?
What happens if a local government maintains policies that restrict immigration communication?
Are peace officers required to receive any special training under this bill?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
Currently in committee. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Floor Vote.
Procedural history
4 actions- May 15, 2026HouseCommitteeReferred: Emerging Issues(H)
- Jan 8, 2026HouseFloorRead Second Time (H)
- Jan 7, 2026HouseIntroducedRead First Time (H)
- Dec 18, 2025HouseIntroducedPrefiled (H)
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Sponsors
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
State Funding Conditionality on Immigration Policy
The bill creates a direct enforcement mechanism where the General Assembly and Attorney General can cut off state grants to local entities maintaining policies that restrict federal immigration cooperation.
Connected Entities
Sources
house.mo.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance75How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy85Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment10Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz60Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools