immigration
Senate amendment would move $420 million from ICE to youth mentoring
Senators Mazie Hirono and Chris Van Hollen offered the amendment. It would move $105 million a year to the Justice Department’s youth programs from fiscal 2026 through 2029.
A Senate amendment would redirect money from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to youth mentoring programs run by the Justice Department. The four-year transfer would total $420 million.
- $105 million a year would move from ICE to youth mentoring
- The transfer would run from fiscal 2026 through 2029
- The money would go to the Justice Department’s juvenile delinquency office
- The four-year total would be $420 million
- It trades enforcement dollars for prevention programs
A Senate amendment in Washington would steer $105 million a year from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to youth mentoring programs run by the Justice Department. The transfer would apply in each fiscal year from 2026 through 2029, turning part of an enforcement budget into prevention money.
Senator Mazie Hirono, joined by Senator Chris Van Hollen, offered the amendment. It would take the money from amounts made available to ICE and send it to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Justice Department office that runs the mentoring programs.
A four-year shift with a real price tag
Spread across four years, the transfer adds up to $420 million. That is enough to matter on both sides of the ledger. ICE would give up funds that support immigration enforcement, while youth programs would gain a steadier federal stream than many local efforts usually have.
The amendment does not name specific mentoring initiatives. It points the money to the federal office that carries out the programs, leaving the details of how the money would be spent to the Justice Department.
The tradeoff in plain English
Youth mentoring programs are built around regular contact, supervised activities and adult support before trouble deepens into court involvement. The amendment would put more federal money behind that approach instead of enforcement.
For families and communities where those programs operate, the difference is practical. More money can mean more slots, more staff and more continuity for young people who need a steady presence. On the other side, ICE would have less room in the title that funds it, which is the point of the shift.