Republican leaders have largely rallied behind President Donald Trump’s recent immigration enforcement actions, while Democrats are publicly fractured over whether to oppose cooperation with federal immigration authorities or to pursue a more pragmatic, enforcement-plus-reform approach.
Governors and national Republican figures, including Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have voiced support for the administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. In contrast, a range of Democratic officials — from state attorneys general and mayors to state legislators and members of Congress — have issued divergent responses, reflecting competing priorities across the party.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has been among the most vocal opponents of cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying earlier this year that his city would not assist federal immigration enforcement and calling the president "an authoritarian" and "a criminal." Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has repeatedly clashed with federal authorities over immigration and law enforcement operations in his state. Both officials represent parts of the country that have drawn federal enforcement actions and have framed noncooperation as a defense of local policing priorities and civil liberties.
In Pennsylvania, State Rep. Abigail Salisbury introduced legislation in the Democratic-controlled State House that would largely bar the Pennsylvania State Police from cooperating with ICE. Salisbury, who represents Braddock and holds a seat formerly held by progressive Rep. Summer Lee, said allowing the state police to enter a 287(g) agreement, which deputizes state officers to perform certain federal immigration functions, would strain trooper workloads, burden taxpayers and erode community trust. She said her bill would codify existing agency policy that limits state participation in federal civil immigration enforcement.
The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) has said troopers "abide by internal regulation[s]" that state immigration enforcement "falls exclusively within the authority of the Department of Homeland Security," which includes ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The agency was sued in 2019 by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Latino motorists who alleged troopers had targeted drivers by ethnicity and inquired about immigration status. That lawsuit was settled for $865,000, and PSP revised policies, including AR-7-14, to state that ICE detainers were not justification for arrest, to prohibit running immigration checks as part of ID verification and to make clear troopers are not responsible for enforcing federal civil immigration law. Salisbury said her legislation would enshrine those restrictions into state statute.
Not all Democrats oppose cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Sen. John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said recently that ICE "performs an important job for our country" and called proposals to abolish the agency "inappropriate and outrageous," a stance that drew praise from some Republicans. New Mexico Rep. Gabe Vasquez, who represents a border district, told NewsNation that Democrats are willing to "embrace the enforcement side" of immigration policy and to work with federal agencies on targeted operations and investments he said would reduce smuggling and drug flows, such as scanning cargo at commercial ports of entry.
Vasquez said he opposed what he described as "mass deportation" operations targeting workers he characterized as better served by a process to obtain legal documentation, and urged Congress to focus on measures that would improve border security and streamline legal pathways for migrants. His comments reflect a tension within the party between elected officials from border communities, who deal directly with cross-border challenges, and urban prosecutors and sanctuary-city officials who prioritize constraints on federal involvement in local policing.
In New York, Mayor Eric Adams sought to give ICE access to Rikers Island detention facilities to assist with immigration cases; a judge this week curtailed that effort, underscoring the legal constraints and court interventions that can shape intergovernmental cooperation.
The divide within the Democratic Party comes as the Trump administration has escalated enforcement operations that have drawn national attention and protests in multiple cities. Local officials who oppose cooperation argue the moves can undermine community trust in public safety and divert resources from local priorities. Supporters of enforcement argue that federal authorities must be able to carry out immigration law and that coordination with state and local partners can be necessary in some jurisdictions.
The debate is playing out across statehouses, city halls and courtrooms and is likely to factor into political messaging ahead of upcoming elections. Differences among Democrats over how to balance enforcement, public safety and immigrant protections reflect varying political constituencies and the distinct operational realities faced by border districts, large cities and smaller communities.
As enforcement operations continue and as lawmakers consider state-level restrictions or authorizations for cooperation, the lines of disagreement within the Democratic caucus — and the unified Republican backing of the administration’s actions — are likely to remain central to the national conversation on immigration policy.