Fueled by billions in congressional funding, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has significantly increased its ranks to carry out deportations under the current administration, a campaign likened to “wartime recruitment.” In response, Democratic lawmakers in several states are advancing legislation that would limit employment opportunities for individuals who join ICE.
Bills introduced in at least four Democratic-led states propose consequences for new ICE employees, potentially barring them from jobs in law enforcement, public education, and state civil service. While none of these proposals have become law and face potential legal challenges, they demonstrate a concerted effort to counter federal immigration policy.
New Jersey Assemblyman Ravi Bhalla stated, “If you’re an ICE agent, you’re signing up to engage in unlawful conduct…the separation of families and children.” He has proposed legislation barring anyone joining ICE between September 2025 and the end of the current presidential term from state employment.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, countered that the proposed bills “falsely cast federal law enforcement as villains” and that “ICE officers are heroes.”
The increase in ICE personnel – the agency now has 22,000 officers and agents – comes after Congress’s Republican leaders moved to fund the administration’s deportation goals. Still, the agency’s tactics have coincided with a recent slump in the president’s approval ratings on immigration.
The shootings of Renee Good in Minneapolis and Alex Pretti by federal agents prompted Democrats in the Senate to block funding for the DHS, demanding restrictions on ICE tactics, including a ban on masks and a requirement for judicial warrants before entering private property. The DHS subsequently shut down after its spending authorization expired, though the deportation push continues with funding from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
States with Democratic leadership are pursuing measures to address what lawmakers describe as ICE’s “brutal and indiscriminate tactics.” New Jersey’s governor has banned ICE agents from some state properties, while California lawmakers previously approved rules against agents wearing masks – a law recently blocked by a federal judge. Maryland has prohibited local law enforcement from assisting with federal immigration enforcement.
Proposed legislation in Maryland, the “ICE Breaker Act,” would prevent state police agencies from hiring individuals who worked for ICE after January 20, 2025. A similar proposal exists in Washington state. In California, the “Melt Ice” act aims to prevent those who worked for ICE during the current administration from becoming teachers or police officers.
While supporters believe these measures can withstand legal scrutiny, they anticipate amendments during the legislative process. Legal experts note the proposals raise novel issues regarding federal supremacy, but even if struck down, they would send a clear message of opposition to ICE’s actions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What consequences do the proposed state bills seek to impose on ICE employees?
The bills propose rendering individuals ineligible for jobs in law enforcement, public education, and, in some cases, all state civil service positions if they are employed by ICE.
What is the DHS’s response to the proposed state legislation?
A DHS spokesperson accused lawmakers of “falsely casting federal law enforcement as villains” and stated that “ICE officers are heroes.”
What prompted the Democratic senators to block funding for the DHS?
The shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents prompted the senators to demand restrictions on ICE tactics, including a ban on masks and a requirement for judicial warrants.
As states grapple with the implications of increased federal immigration enforcement, what role should state and local governments play in shaping immigration policy?
