VETOED in FL: The Rapid Rise and Shocking Fall of S0002, Florida's Controversial 'TRUMP Act'

Florida's Ambitious Immigration Overhaul Halted by Veto

In the whirlwind of Florida's 2025B legislative session, Senate Bill 2 (S0002), provocatively titled the "Tackling and Reforming Unlawful Migration Policy (TRUMP) Act," charted a rapid and contentious course through the legislature, only to meet an abrupt end at the Governor's desk. This bill represented one of the most aggressive state-level attempts to influence and control immigration enforcement, explicitly aligning itself with the policies and rhetoric of the Trump administration. Its journey, marked by swift passage along party lines and significant potential impacts identified by LegiEquity analysis, culminated in a surprising veto on February 20, 2025.

What Was the 'TRUMP Act' Aiming For?

Introduced on January 27, 2025, FL S0002 sought to fundamentally reshape Florida's role in immigration matters. Its core purpose, as detailed in the enrolled version (CS for SB 2-B, 1st Engrossed), was multifaceted and far-reaching:

Centralized Power: Designate the Commissioner of Agriculture as the state's exclusive "chief immigration officer," serving as the sole liaison with federal immigration agencies.
New State Enforcement Arm: Create the Office of State Immigration Enforcement (OSIE) within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), staffed with sworn officers possessing statewide jurisdiction to aid in federal immigration law enforcement.
Funding Enforcement: Establish the Local Law Enforcement Immigration Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement Federal Participation Incentive Program (offering bonuses up to $1,000 for officers participating in federal task forces) under the new OSIE.
Enhanced Penalties: Impose stricter criminal penalties for noncitizens willfully voting and for aiding them, reclassify any misdemeanor or felony committed by an unauthorized alien to a higher degree, add mandatory minimum sentences for "dangerous unauthorized alien offenders" (defined as unauthorized aliens involved with criminal gangs, including transnational crime organizations), and mandate the death penalty for capital felonies committed by unauthorized aliens.
Restricting Access: Invalidate out-of-state driver licenses issued exclusively to unauthorized aliens, tighten proof-of-identity requirements for Florida licenses to align with REAL ID Act standards, and revise eligibility for out-of-state tuition waivers for certain students (requiring citizenship or lawful presence).
Mandating Cooperation: Require sheriffs and chief correctional officers operating county detention facilities to enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE and mandate the chief immigration officer's approval for terminating such agreements. It also empowered the chief immigration officer to sue local governments refusing to comply with immigration detainers, with potential fines for officials.
E-Verify Enforcement: Shift the responsibility for enforcing E-Verify compliance (and related economic incentive clawbacks) from the Department of Commerce to the new OSIE.
Emergency Powers: Grant the chief immigration officer authority to declare states of emergency related to immigration.
Data Collection: Expand reporting requirements for hospitals regarding patient immigration status and require sheriffs/correctional officers to provide inmate lists and immigration status information to federal agencies upon request.

The bill's extensive "WHEREAS" clauses explicitly invoked President Trump's executive orders, criticized the previous federal administration's border policies, and framed the legislation as necessary to combat illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and associated costs and security risks in Florida, building upon previous state laws like SB 168 (2019) and SB 1718 (2023).

A Legislative Blitz Followed by a Full Stop

The legislative journey of S0002 was remarkably swift, suggesting it was a high priority during the special session. Filed and introduced on January 27th, it was immediately referred to the Appropriations Committee, which approved a Committee Substitute (CS) the very same day on a 12-6 vote. By the next day, January 28th, the bill had undergone its required readings in the Senate, adopted amendments (though details on Amendment 843850 were complex, involving several failed sub-amendments), and passed the Senate floor on a 21-16 vote.

That same day, the House took up the measure, substituting it for its companion (HB 1B). After rejecting Amendment 298613, the House passed the bill 82-30. This rapid progression, clearing both chambers in just two days, underscores the political will behind the measure from its proponents.

The voting patterns clearly indicate the bill lacked bipartisan support, a fact confirmed by the hasBipartisanSupport: false flag. The Senate votes (12-6 in committee, 21-16 on the floor) and the House vote (82-30) reflect significant opposition, likely falling along party lines given the bill's sponsors – the Appropriations Committee (chaired by Republicans), Sen. Joe Gruters (R), and Sen. Randy Fine (R) – and its politically charged nature.

The bill was ordered enrolled on February 12th and presented to the Governor on February 20th. In a move that halted the bill's momentum, the Governor vetoed S0002 on the same day it was presented. The veto message was subsequently received by the Senate on February 27th and referred to the Rules committee, effectively ending its journey for the session.

LegiEquity Analysis: High Bias and Potential Impacts

LegiEquity's analysis of FL S0002 raised significant concerns, assigning it an Overall Impact score of 70% Bias with High Confidence. This indicates a strong likelihood that the bill, if enacted, would have disproportionately negative effects on specific demographic groups.

The analysis highlighted key areas:

Race: 80% Bias, with particularly high scores for Latinx (LX: 85% Bias) and Asian/Pacific Islander (AP: 75% Bias) communities. Provisions like increased enforcement focus, mandatory 287(g) agreements, stricter driver license rules, E-Verify enforcement, and enhanced penalties for unauthorized aliens could lead to increased profiling, fear within immigrant communities, workforce disruptions, and disparate treatment within the justice system.
Age: 60% Bias, specifically noting potential impacts on Children/Youth (CY: 65% Bias). This could stem from provisions affecting families, such as increased detention and deportation risks for parents, potential impacts on mixed-status families, and the revision of the out-of-state tuition waiver which could affect access to higher education for undocumented youth who graduated from Florida high schools (though the final version required citizenship/lawful presence for the waiver).

The bill's focus on enforcement, detention, and increased criminalization, coupled with the centralization of power under a politically aligned figure (Commissioner of Agriculture), likely contributed to the high bias score. The mandatory death penalty provision for capital offenses committed by unauthorized aliens, added in the enrolled version, represents an extreme measure with profound ethical and legal implications, further contributing to the bill's controversial profile.

The Story's End: A Veto Changes the Narrative

Despite its rapid legislative success fueled by proponents aiming to enact a stringent state-level immigration enforcement regime aligned with specific federal policies, FL S0002 ultimately failed. The Governor's veto represents a significant check on the legislative action. While the specific reasons for the veto require examining the official veto message, potential factors could range from concerns about specific provisions (like the mandatory death penalty or the broad reclassification of crimes), potential federal preemption issues, unintended economic consequences, the high bias potential identified, or broader political calculations.

The journey of FL S0002 serves as a stark example of the intense debate surrounding immigration policy at the state level. It highlights the tension between state and federal authority, the significant real-world consequences legislative actions can have on communities, and the power dynamics within the legislative process, including the finality of a gubernatorial veto. While this particular bill did not become law, the issues it sought to address remain central to political discourse in Florida and across the nation.

LegiEquity analyzes proposed legislation to determine its potential impact on various demographic groups. Our goal is to provide objective insights into how laws may affect different communities.