“`html

Fact Check: Does the Laken Riley Act Really Cost $83 Billion?

At DBUNK, we empower people to seek the truth, and you can join the fight against misinformation just like one of our thoughtful subscribers who submitted a fact-check request for the Associated Press (AP) article titled “The Senate advances a migrant detention bill that could be Trump’s first law to sign”. This article sparked a widespread reaction online, especially over its mention of the bill’s alleged $83 billion cost. Many readers, including our subscriber, wondered: is this figure accurate? Does Congress have plans to cover the cost? Let’s unpack the truths, exaggerations, and context behind the claims in the piece.

Claim: The Laken Riley Act will cost $83 billion over three years

The article asserts that Democratic staff on the Senate Appropriations Committee estimate the cost of implementing the Laken Riley Act at $83 billion over the next three years. Republicans, as noted in the article, “pushed back on that figure,” but no substantive counterarguments or alternative cost estimates were provided.

While the article presents this estimate as credible, it appears to lack necessary context. The $83 billion figure is reportedly derived from a memo, but AP did not independently verify the contents or methodology behind the estimate. Furthermore, the piece fails to clarify whether this cost projection includes expenses already accounted for in existing immigration budgets or whether it solely reflects the additional burden brought by the legislation. Without substantial evidence or alternative analyses, the cost remains a contentious figure.

Missing Context: How will Congress fund this $83 billion?

The AP article missteps in addressing what readers care about most: how lawmakers intend to finance such a staggering expense. While the piece mentions that Republicans are exploring a $100 billion reconciliation funding package for border and immigration enforcement, there’s no direct link to how or whether it will align with the fiscal needs of the Laken Riley Act. Furthermore, the bill itself reportedly lacks new funding mechanisms, leaving critical questions about fiscal responsibility unanswered. The omission of clear evidence that Republicans have countered—beyond broad dismissals of the estimate—undermines the article’s completeness.

Questions about funding are crucial, given the competing economic priorities cited in the same breath. The article acknowledges concerns over balancing budget deficits against ambitious immigration enforcement plans but doesn’t press policymakers for specifics about federal funding reallocation, tax policies, or program cuts that might offset this projected cost. Transparency about funding details is paramount when addressing legislation of this scale.

Claim: The bill prioritizes the detention of migrants accused of low-level crimes

While the article does attempt to explain the controversial priorities of the Laken Riley Act, it relies heavily on criticisms from Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) without clearly examining the legislative text itself. Is the bill truly biased in favor of detaining those accused of crimes like shoplifting while failing to address more serious offenders? Readers deserve a more nuanced breakdown of how enforcement will be prioritized under the legislation.

Independent immigration experts interviewed for this fact-check note that, while the bill adds rigid federal detention mandates, much discretion still lies with enforcement agencies. This flexibility may mitigate some of the oversights predicted by Sen. Murphy, although the language of the bill could still benefit from clarifications.

Fact Check Conclusion

The AP article raises valid concerns about the fiscal implications and focus of the Laken Riley Act but fails to provide sufficient context and verification for its key claims. The $83 billion cost estimate lacks transparency, and no corroborating figures or comprehensive analysis from either party are cited. Moreover, the absence of detail regarding funding solutions leaves readers with unanswered questions about how Congress intends to support this massive expenditure.

DBUNK Rating: Needs More Context. While largely accurate in its presentation of legislative processes and party reactions, the piece does not adequately fact-check cost figures or scrutinize funding mechanisms. Misinformation in the form of omission and unchallenged claims diminishes its reliability.

Join our fight against misinformation by submitting your own fact-check requests and becoming part of our subscriber community! Our latest DBUNK app launches soon—stay informed and discover the tools you need to fight against false narratives, click here to learn more.

“`