CONTAINER Act
Analysis under review: This bill has generated analysis that may be too generic or incomplete. Clause-level evidence remains available below.
Summary
What This Bill Does
The CONTAINER Act allows Border States (those along the Canadian or Mexican borders) to place temporary, movable structures on Federal land for border security without getting Federal permits. Instead of requiring special use authorization from agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or Forest Service, states only need to give 45 days notice before placing these structures. The structures can stay for up to 1 year and be extended in 90-day increments if border operational control hasn't been achieved.
Who Benefits and How
Border State governments benefit significantly by avoiding Federal permitting bureaucracy that could delay or block border security projects. The 12 Border States (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) gain direct authority to act on Federal land within their borders. Construction contractors and suppliers who build border security infrastructure benefit from increased demand for temporary barriers, containers, fencing, and related equipment. Anti-immigration advocacy groups benefit from expanded state-level border enforcement capabilities.
Who Bears the Burden and How
Federal land management agencies lose authority over land use decisions on their jurisdictions near borders. The Department of Interior (managing lands through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service) and the Department of Agriculture (managing National Forest System lands) face increased risks to protected lands, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources without their normal review processes. Environmental and conservation organizations face higher risks of habitat destruction and ecological damage. Indigenous tribes whose lands are managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs may see construction on their lands with reduced tribal consultation. Immigration advocacy groups face expanded border enforcement infrastructure.
Key Provisions
- Eliminates the requirement for Border States to obtain special use authorization from the Secretary of Interior or Secretary of Agriculture before placing temporary structures on Federal land for border security
- Requires only 45 days advance notice to the appropriate Secretary before placing structures
- Allows structures to remain for up to 1 year initially
- Permits 90-day extensions approved by the Secretary in consultation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner
- Mandates extension approval if operational control of the border has not been achieved
- Applies to land managed by six Federal agencies: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service
Evidence Chain:
This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers.
At a Glance
What This Bill Does
Authorizes Border States to place temporary movable structures on Federal land along U.S. international borders without requiring special use authorization from Federal land management agencies.
Who Benefits
- Border State governments (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California for southern border; Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine for northern border)
- Border security contractors and suppliers
- Anti-immigration advocacy groups
Who Bears Costs
- Federal land management agencies (reduced authority over land use decisions)
- Environmental protection and conservation groups
- Indigenous tribes with lands managed by Bureau of Indian Affairs
Key Policy Areas
Border Security, Federal Lands Management, Immigration Control, Intergovernmental Relations
Primary Purpose
Authorizes Border States to place temporary movable structures on Federal land along U.S. international borders without requiring special use authorization from Federal land management agencies.
Policy Domains
Legislative Strategy
"Streamline border security construction by eliminating Federal permitting requirements for state-led border infrastructure on Federal lands"
Identified Gains
- Border State governments (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California for southern border; Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine for northern border)
- Border security contractors and suppliers
- Anti-immigration advocacy groups
Identified Costs
- Federal land management agencies (reduced authority over land use decisions)
- Environmental protection and conservation groups
- Indigenous tribes with lands managed by Bureau of Indian Affairs
- Wildlife and habitat protection interests
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeMrs. Blackburn (for herself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. …
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and …
Introduced in Senate
Stakeholder Effects
cui bono?How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.
Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Department of the Interior, Federal land management agencies (BIA, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, FWS, NPS)
Border State governments (TX, NM, AZ, CA, MT, ND, MN, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME)
Environmental conservation organizations, Wildlife protection organizations
Border security infrastructure contractors and suppliers
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "commissioner"
- → Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
- "border_states"
- → States adjacent to northern border (Canada) or southern border (Mexico)
- "secretary_concerned"
- → Secretary of the Interior (for BIA, BLM, Reclamation, FWS, NPS land) OR Secretary of Agriculture (for National Forest System land)
- "federal_land_management_agencies"
- → ['Bureau of Indian Affairs', 'Bureau of Land Management', 'Bureau of Reclamation', 'Forest Service', 'United States Fish and Wildlife Service', 'National Park Service']
Note: The 'Secretary concerned' has dual meaning depending on land jurisdiction: Secretary of Interior for most Federal lands vs Secretary of Agriculture for National Forest System lands
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
A State that is adjacent to the northern border or southern border
Land under the jurisdiction and management of a Federal land management agency that is adjacent to the northern border or southern border
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service
The international border between the United States and Canada
As defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109-367)
Secretary of the Interior (for land under Interior jurisdiction through BIA, BLM, Reclamation, FWS, or NPS directors) or Secretary of Agriculture (for National Forest System land through Forest Service Chief)
The international border between the United States and Mexico
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology