Hochul’s ICE Cutoff Sparks Statewide Uproar

New York’s governor moved to cancel local police cooperation deals with federal immigration agents statewide, voiding 287(g) agreements across nine counties while vowing not to block criminal investigations.

Story Snapshot

Governor Kathy Hochul proposed a law to end 287(g) agreements and bar civil immigration enforcement by local police.
The plan keeps cooperation on criminal cases, while blocking use of local jails for civil immigration holds.
Hochul called federal immigration agents abusive and said she will not let them “terrorize” New Yorkers.
No public evidence supports claims that sheriffs were bribed; officials and records show none.

What Hochul’s Bill Would Do

Governor Kathy Hochul introduced the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act on January 26, 2026. The proposal would end all 287(g) agreements in New York, which let federal immigration officials deputize local officers for civil immigration work. The Governor’s office said 14 agencies in nine counties would be affected. The bill would also block federal use of local jails for civil immigration enforcement and mass raids. It keeps local police focused on state and local crimes.

The plan draws a bright line between civil and criminal enforcement. State and local officers could still work with federal agents to investigate and arrest people for crimes. But the bill would stop civil detainers, jail holds, and other non-criminal tasks that use local resources. Hochul said local police “will still help on criminal cases,” but should not be diverted to civil immigration actions led by federal agents.

The Rhetoric And The Record

In a press event, Hochul described federal immigration agents as a “rogue” force and said she will not allow “terrorizing” of New Yorkers. She framed the move as a pushback against “tyranny” and “abuse of power” under the Trump administration. Media reports captured those quotes and noted the clear limit on civil, not criminal, cooperation. That framing sharpened the political fight while keeping the legal steps tied to state control of local policing.

Some critics claimed the governor bribed sheriffs to block federal immigration raids. Those claims remain unsupported by any public financial records, contracts, or sworn statements. No sheriff has come forward to confirm payments. The legislative plan is public, and its text outlines a statewide policy change rather than side deals. Reports that covered the bill did not show evidence of bribery. The available facts support a policy dispute, not a proven corruption case.

Why This Matters Beyond New York

This fight fits a long trend where states set limits on local help with federal immigration enforcement. Courts have held that states are not required to use their own resources for federal civil immigration work. That leaves room for state laws that draw lines on what local police can and cannot do. Similar battles have played out across the country for years, often with heated claims on both sides and few proven cases of criminal shielding or payoffs.

For everyday people, the stakes are clear. Supporters say the plan keeps local cops on local crime and protects civil rights. Opponents fear it could let dangerous people slip through if agencies do not coordinate. The bill says criminal cooperation stays in place, and there is no crime data yet that links this proposal to more crime. If evidence emerges either way, it should be public and specific so voters can judge the results, not the rhetoric.

What To Watch Next

Watch the state legislature’s schedule and any legal challenges from the federal government. Look for budget audits and records requests that could confirm or debunk the bribery talk. Track whether sheriffs or police leaders publish clear cooperation rules for criminal cases, and whether federal agents adjust tactics. Most of all, watch for real-world outcomes: case examples, court filings, and data on arrests, transfers, and reoffending to test each side’s claims.