Across the United States, the debate over immigration enforcement and the role of local authorities in federal immigration policy has reached a fever pitch, with new legislation and policy changes emerging in multiple states. On February 19, 2026, lawmakers in New Jersey, Illinois, and Indiana each took decisive steps—albeit in very different directions—reflecting the complexity and contentiousness of America’s ongoing immigration debate.
In New Jersey, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced three significant immigration-related bills aimed at strengthening protections for migrants and curbing the influence of federal immigration agents in the state. The trio of measures, which had already cleared an Assembly panel the previous week, includes a proposal to codify the Immigrant Trust Directive—a 2018 order from the state’s attorney general that restricts when local and state police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities, according to reporting by New Jersey Monitor.
Senator Britnee Timberlake (D-Essex), one of the bill’s sponsors, emphasized the broader stakes: “This is an American issue, and I’m here because I believe deeply in our country and in upholding our Constitution, which, again, also protects citizens as well as immigrants.” The bills also aim to restrict law enforcement from wearing masks in certain situations—a move meant to increase transparency—and to bolster privacy protections for information that immigrants share with public entities and health care facilities.
Yet, not everyone is satisfied with the latest version of the legislation. Activists and immigrant advocates argue that the revised bill, drafted after former Governor Phil Murphy vetoed a more robust version in January, does not go far enough. Amy Torres, head of the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, stated, “We are not opposed to the spirit of these bills, but we are firmly opposed to the process by which the Legislature is being made to walk back their values in order to provide cover for a new governor who had made ill-informed public statements without understanding the full scope of the issue.”
The core of the criticism centers on the bill’s allowance for police to turn over individuals with final orders of removal or pending criminal charges to immigration agents. Advocates warn this could put thousands at risk—especially those with Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), whose removal orders may not be truly final or are subject to appeal. “Our concern is that if we move forward with the bill as is, and, say, DACA ends, which is on the table now, or TPS ends. We will have many people in New Jersey who are increasingly at risk of detention and deportation and never seeing their families again,” said Ami Kachalia of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.
Despite the controversy, the measures advanced largely along party lines, with Democrats supporting and most Republicans opposing. New Jersey, where one in four residents is an immigrant and over 500,000 are estimated to be undocumented, remains a focal point in the national immigration conversation. Additional anti-ICE bills have been introduced, including proposals to tax private detention centers and to bar immigration agents from using state property for civil enforcement operations.
Meanwhile, in Cook County, Illinois, the approach to immigration enforcement accountability took a dramatic turn. Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke announced a sweeping new protocol allowing her office to prosecute federal immigration agents for criminal misconduct, including cases involving death, shootings, violence, or use of force. “No one is above the law—including both ICE agents and prosecutors,” O’Neill Burke declared, as reported by WTTW News. “If a federal law enforcement agent commits a crime, my office will not hesitate to act, in accordance with state law.”
The policy, developed after federal agents killed two civilians during an ICE surge in Minneapolis in January, lays out clear guidelines for investigating and, if warranted, charging federal agents. The move follows calls from Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson for greater accountability. Johnson remarked, “The City of Chicago remains committed to timely, transparent action that addresses past harms and makes clear that federal agents operating in our city are not immune to oversight and accountability, and that future violations will not be tolerated.”
Preckwinkle praised the policy, stating it reinforces the principle that “federal agents cannot act with impunity in Cook County.” The new protocol, reviewed by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association, outlines procedures for investigations, grand jury subpoenas, and charging decisions, ensuring that federal agents are subject to local law and oversight.
The announcement comes five months after an ICE agent fatally shot Silverio Villegas González during a traffic stop in Franklin Park, Illinois, and amid ongoing federal investigations into other incidents involving alleged excessive force by immigration agents. “Law enforcement officers are entrusted with extraordinary authority to serve the public and keep our communities safe,” said Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. “When that authority is abused or escalates into unlawful violence, prosecutors must take action if the burden of proof can be met.”
While New Jersey and Cook County are moving to restrict and hold federal immigration agents accountable, Indiana’s Republican lawmakers are pushing in the opposite direction. Senate Bill 76, known as the FAIRNESS Act, is poised to dramatically expand state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. According to WFYI Indianapolis, the bill would require schools, universities, public hospitals, local governments, police, and sheriff offices to comply with federal immigration enforcement. Businesses would also be required to verify the legal status of their employees, with enforcement overseen by the Indiana Attorney General’s office.
Senator Liz Brown (R-Ft. Wayne), the bill’s author, expressed confidence in its passage: “I think we worked really well together in terms of getting this to a good place.” The bill, amended in the House to align with policies endorsed by former President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan, introduces annual inspections of county jails for compliance and requires hospitals to document and report Medicaid recipients’ identification starting in 2027. The Attorney General would have the power to fine government bodies and public universities up to $10,000 for knowingly or intentionally restricting immigration enforcement.
Democrats, however, warned of the risks. Senator Shelli Yoder (D-Bloomington) argued, “That state responsibility is putting right into the lap of our teachers, our nurses, our doctors, our principals, our school bus drivers, our lunch room workers, every single employee in these government entities are going to have to serve as an extension of a federal enforcement agent.” Yoder also cautioned that the bill could lead to racial profiling. Despite being scheduled for a final vote on February 19, the Senate adjourned before taking action, with plans to revisit the bill soon.
These divergent paths—New Jersey’s cautious codification of immigrant protections, Cook County’s aggressive pursuit of accountability for federal agents, and Indiana’s push for tighter cooperation with federal authorities—underscore the fractured landscape of immigration policy in the United States. As lawmakers, advocates, and communities grapple with the human and legal consequences, the only certainty is that the debate is far from over, and the stakes for millions of residents remain high.