PROTECT Immigration Act Strips Local Police of Power to Check Immigration Status, Centralizing All Enforcement to Feds

The newly introduced PROTECT Immigration Act of 2025 is a major shakeup to who gets to enforce immigration law in the United States. Simply put, this bill takes away the power of local and state police to check a person’s immigration status, investigate, or detain them for immigration violations. It amends Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clearly state that only federal immigration officers and authorized Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees have this authority.

The End of Local Immigration Checks

For years, many local police departments have operated under agreements, often referred to as 287(g) agreements, that essentially deputize them to act as immigration agents. This bill slams the door shut on that practice. If this passes, the police officer who pulls you over or responds to a local incident will no longer have the authority to ask about or verify your immigration status, nor can they arrest or detain you solely for an immigration violation. This is a massive shift toward centralizing enforcement authority exclusively within the federal government, specifically DHS.

Who’s In Charge Now?

This centralization means that if there's a suspected immigration violation, local police will have to call in the feds—ICE or CBP—to handle the inquiry, investigation, or arrest. For communities that previously relied on local police to handle immigration checks, this could mean slower response times and a heavier workload for federal agencies. Think of a local sheriff's department in a rural area that previously used its own resources to check immigration status during an arrest; now, they’ll have to wait for a federal agent to drive out, potentially delaying the entire process. The bill’s intent is to create a uniform application of immigration law, reducing the potential for varying enforcement standards or racial profiling that critics often associated with local police involvement.

The Fine Print: Exceptions That Create Confusion

However, the bill doesn't completely strip all local authority. It lists three specific exceptions where other entities may still retain some authority, referencing complex sections of existing law: Paragraph (10) of section 103(a) of the INA, Section 274(c) of the INA, and Section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. For the average person, these references are bureaucratic alphabet soup. For legal analysts, they create significant vagueness. These exceptions likely relate to things like prosecuting those who harbor undocumented individuals or certain antiterrorism measures, but because the bill doesn’t clearly define the scope of retained local power, there’s a real risk of legal confusion about where the line is drawn. This vagueness could lead to initial confusion among local law enforcement about what they can and cannot do.

Real-World Friction Points

For communities that have cooperative relationships between their police and federal immigration authorities, this bill could disrupt public safety operations. Imagine a city where local police regularly share information or hold detainees for federal agents; this bill mandates a complete overhaul of those procedures. On the flip side, for individuals concerned about local police overreach or being targeted based on their appearance or perceived status, this bill provides a clear boundary: only the feds can ask. This clarifies the rules of the road, but also puts the full enforcement burden squarely on DHS, which might struggle with capacity, especially in areas where local police previously provided significant backup.