Note from Kyle Reyes, Owner of The 1776 Project (which owns LET): This legislation that just passed in Connecticut (which Mathew breaks down about halfway into the article) is a blatant violation of federal law. We are quickly approaching the tipping point where we shouldn’t just be overturning legislation like this through the courts – we need to be arresting the “public officials” who are advancing legislation like this and charging them with treason.
—
The TRUST Act: Undermining Public Safety by Obstructing Federal-Local Cooperation
As President Trump and his administration work tirelessly to secure our borders, combat violent crime, and uphold the rule of law, they face ongoing resistance from state and local jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. This refusal not only hampers the efforts of agencies like ICE, CBP, and DHS—it jeopardizes the safety of the very communities these local governments claim to protect.
Across the country, dozens of jurisdictions have enacted policies that obstruct collaboration with federal authorities. These so-called “sanctuary” policies weaken the relationship between local and federal law enforcement and make it more difficult to apprehend dangerous individuals, including violent illegal immigrants, cartel members, gang affiliates, and human traffickers.
President Trump has assembled a trusted team of experienced leaders to address this crisis: Tom Homan, a fierce advocate for border security, now serves as Border Czar; Governor Kristi Noem leads DHS; Todd Lyons is at the helm of ICE; and Attorney General Pam Bondi ensures that all actions remain grounded in legal authority. With this team in place, America has the leadership it needs to win this fight. Unfortunately, political resistance at the state and local level continues to stand in the way.
I’ve heard it both in the media and, more importantly, directly from Attorney General Pam Bondi herself: if local jurisdictions or states refuse to cooperate with federal agencies, they will lose the federal funding they currently receive. This isn’t about retaliation—it’s about accountability. While I’m not one to support playing political games, the truth is clear: failure to cooperate on issues of national security and public safety has real consequences.
Too often, the refusal to work with federal entities seems to be driven by politics, not policy. If President Trump supports an initiative—even if it’s based on sound strategy and years of law enforcement experience—some leaders immediately oppose it for no reason other than partisan allegiance. Sadly, this mindset exists on both sides of the aisle. But when lives are on the line and the safety of the American people is at stake, there is no room for these games. Public safety must rise above politics.
I’ve seen it firsthand: local jurisdictions with more than enough detention space refusing to house individuals arrested by federal agents—not because they can’t, but because they won’t. In some cases, the decision is clearly political, driven by concern that cooperation might hurt re-election efforts.
Let’s not forget what’s at stake here. Our federal agencies are the ones conducting major investigations into violent transnational gangs, trafficking networks, and cartels moving illegal narcotics and weapons across state lines. They’re rescuing children being sold into human trafficking. They’re intercepting deadly fentanyl before it kills another innocent person. But federal agents cannot do this job alone.
When local law enforcement refuses to support these investigations—when they deny detention space or refuse to coordinate arrests—it becomes exponentially harder to take these dangerous criminals off our streets.
The bottom line is this: the safety of our communities depends on strong partnerships between local, state, and federal law enforcement. If a jurisdiction chooses to turn its back on those partnerships, it should not expect to receive the same level of federal support. That’s not punishment—that’s responsibility.
It’s time to put public safety ahead of political strategy. Americans deserve leaders who will do what’s right, even when it’s not popular. Lives depend on it.
This past week, the Connecticut House Democratic majority advanced legislation aimed at reinforcing the state’s Trust Act, originally passed in 2013 to limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. House Bill 7259, which includes a provision to strengthen compliance with the Trust Act, allows “any aggrieved person” to seek an injunction against municipalities or their agents—including police officers and school employees—who violate the law.
The bill passed the House on a largely party-line vote of 96-51, underscoring a deep partisan divide over immigration enforcement. Advocates argue the measure closes a key loophole in the original law and ensures greater accountability in protecting immigrant communities.
Expanding enforcement of Connecticut’s Trust Act through legislation like House Bill 7259 could have several negative effects on law enforcement and the broader community, especially from a public safety and operational standpoint.
1. Erosion of Law Enforcement Discretion and Authority
- Local control is weakened: Police departments may be forced to adhere to broad, inflexible mandates that limit their ability to cooperate with federal partners like ICE, even when it aligns with community safety interests.
- Risk of litigation: The bill allows “any aggrieved person” to file injunctions, potentially exposing officers and agencies to lawsuits for actions taken in good faith or in ambiguous legal circumstances.
2. Chilling Effect on Public Safety Collaboration
- Breakdown in interagency cooperation: The Trust Act already restricts cooperation with ICE; this enforcement mechanism further disincentivizes communication, which can hinder investigations involving transnational gangs, human trafficking, or fugitives.
- Loss of federal support: Local agencies could risk losing access to joint task forces, information sharing systems, or funding streams (like DHS grants) tied to cooperative enforcement.
3. Increased Operational Complexity
- Confusion and hesitancy: Officers may hesitate to act or misinterpret the law out of fear of triggering a legal challenge, complicating decisions during arrests or detention processing.
- Training and compliance burdens: Agencies would need extensive training to ensure staff understand nuanced legal requirements, stretching already limited resources.
4. Undermining Community Trust in a Different Way
- While the law is intended to build immigrant trust, it could paradoxically:
- Create perception of selective enforcement: Communities may question why certain crimes are handled differently based on immigration status.
- Frustrate victims and residents: If a known violent offender with a detainer is released, it may shake public confidence in the justice system’s fairness and safety priorities.
5. Distraction from Core Policing Duties
- Police may find themselves entangled in civil rights litigation or monitoring compliance with immigration policy mandates instead of focusing on violent crime, drug trafficking, or neighborhood safety issues.
- All of these added stressors—legal uncertainty, operational restrictions, and diminished interagency cooperation—compound the already immense challenges facing law enforcement. Across the country, police departments are grappling with a crisis in recruitment and retention, driven by low morale, increased scrutiny, and political pressure. Connecticut’s move to further enforce the Trust Act through litigation risk and restrictive mandates sends a clear signal to officers: their discretion and judgment are no longer trusted.
- This environment makes it harder to attract and retain qualified officers, particularly those committed to proactive community policing. When officers are forced to navigate complex legal minefields instead of focusing on violent crime and community engagement, the profession becomes less appealing—and public safety ultimately suffers.
State-Level Resistance: Colorado and Maine
In Colorado, Governor Jared Polis recently signed legislation that significantly limits the state’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The law prohibits jails from holding individuals solely for immigration violations and restricts information-sharing with ICE.
It also prevents federal agents from accessing nonpublic areas of government buildings without a warrant. While Polis claims this supports civil liberties, it effectively ties the hands of federal agencies trying to detain and remove individuals who pose a threat to public safety.
In Maine, Governor Janet Mills had a direct confrontation with President Trump during the February 2025 National Governors Association meeting. When warned that Maine could lose federal funding for refusing to comply with an executive order on school sports and gender identity, Mills shot back, “We’re going to follow the law, sir. We’ll see you in court.” This moment became emblematic of the growing divide between federal and state leadership—and the politicization of public safety.
The Spread of Sanctuary Policies
As of 2025, several major U.S. cities continue to operate under sanctuary policies, including:
- New York City, NY
- Los Angeles, CA
- Chicago, IL
- Philadelphia, PA
- San Francisco, CA
- Seattle, WA
- Denver, CO
- Boston, MA
- Portland, OR
- Newark, NJ
These cities refuse to honor ICE detainers and have erected barriers to information-sharing and cooperation.
Likewise, multiple states have adopted sanctuary laws at the state level, including:
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Illinois
- Massachusetts
- New Jersey
- New York
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
- Washington
These sanctuary jurisdictions all share one common outcome: compromised public safety.
The TRUST Act: A Flawed Policy
Among the most damaging of these sanctuary policies is the TRUST Act, which has been enacted in various forms in states like California and Illinois. The law prohibits local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainer requests unless an individual has been convicted of narrowly defined serious crimes. In other words, unless a person has already caused significant harm, they are often released—despite pending deportation orders or known gang affiliations.
Detainers allow ICE to request that local agencies hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release, allowing time for federal agents to assume custody. When jurisdictions ignore these detainers, ICE is forced to locate and arrest these individuals in the community—putting agents, bystanders, and officers at greater risk.
Public Safety Consequences
- Dangerous Individuals Released: Criminal aliens with prior deportation orders, violent criminal histories, or pending felony charges are frequently released instead of being turned over to ICE.
- Increased Danger to the Public: When ICE must arrest individuals in uncontrolled public settings, the likelihood of confrontation—and collateral damage—rises significantly.
- Erosion of the Rule of Law: The selective enforcement of immigration law undermines our legal system and sends the message that some jurisdictions are above federal law.
- Broken Trust Between Agencies: The TRUST Act drives a wedge between federal and local law enforcement, weakening cooperation on broader criminal investigations, including drug trafficking and gang violence.
Misguided Justifications
Supporters of the TRUST Act argue that it builds trust between immigrant communities and local police. While fostering community relationships is important, public safety cannot come at the cost of allowing dangerous individuals to avoid legal consequences. The notion that any cooperation with ICE destroys community trust is overly simplistic and out of touch with the complexities of law enforcement.
The TRUST Act and similar sanctuary policies put politics before public safety. They endanger communities by shielding violent offenders from federal law enforcement and discourage the interagency cooperation needed to address complex criminal networks. A balanced approach—one that enforces the law while respecting individual rights—is not only possible, it is essential.
Our federal, state, and local agencies should be working together, not at odds. It’s time to reject policies that prioritize ideology over safety and restore the partnerships that keep our nation secure.
