Iowa lawmakers advanced a bill Thursday requiring law enforcement agencies across the state to cooperate with the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency, or ICE.

The bill would require local and state law enforcement agencies to enter into an agreement with ICE to identify and process the removal of immigrants lacking permanent legal status who are arrested by the agencies for pending or filed criminal charges.

The bill, House Study Bill 187, would require local and state law enforcement agencies sign the agreement by Jan. 1, 2026.

The bill comes as local law enforcement agencies around the state grapple with the realities of President Donald Trump’s immigration plans, including the mass deportation of criminals who immigrated to the U.S. illegally. 

The Winneshiek County sheriff received threats of legal action from state officials after saying he wouldn’t comply with ICE detainer requests earlier this month.  

The bill was advanced by the panel of Iowa lawmakers hearing testimony on the bill Wednesday in a 2-1 vote, with Rep. Rick Olson, D-Des Moines, opposing the bill. 

The program would also train, certify, and authorize local agencies to serve and execute administrative warrants on immigrants lacking permanent legal status in their custody. 

Pete McRoberts with the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa said the bill opens state and local law enforcement up to lawsuits because the agreements don’t detail any protections against lawsuits stemming from due process violations.

“Upon federalizing a local law enforcement office, that law enforcement office becomes responsible for the constitutional protections of due process,” McRoberts said. “The problem is that the local law enforcement office is on the hook for those due process violations. There’s nothing in the [sample agreement] that ICE distributes to law enforcement offices that addresses that.” 

Mike Tupper, the former Marshalltown police chief, said the bill is further straining already limited resources and eroding trust that local law enforcement has worked to build in their communities. 

“[Local law enforcement agencies] don’t have time for an additional mission, and quite frankly, it’s healthier for our communities if we maintain a healthy separation between federal immigration enforcement and local law enforcement,” Tupper said. “[The bill] will diminish trust, it will diminish communication in our communities and ultimately diminishes public safety.”

Tupper said the legislation is not necessary because Iowa law enforcement agencies already have a long-standing tradition of cooperating with state and federal law enforcement agencies.

“This legislation is unnecessary in Iowa,” Tupper said. “It’s a solution looking for a problem.” 

Nickole Miller, the director of the Drake University Joan and Lyle Middleton Center for Children’s Rights — who spoke in a personal capacity — said local law enforcement should stay focused on protecting and building trust with their communities rather than focus on federal immigration enforcement. 

“Time spent engaging in federal immigration enforcement detracts from the performance of these core functions,” Miller said. “Crime Victims will fear testifying in court proceedings and separate from these public safety harms, this bill causes significant financial constraints on our state. It’s fiscally irresponsible.” 

Olson, the sole Democrat on the panel, said the program is ineffective and the small number of law enforcement agencies that are part of the program is evidence of that. 

According to ICE data, only 155 law enforcement agencies have entered into one of the three types of agreements — none of which are in Iowa. 

“The current law — federal law — does allow for political subdivisions right now to enter into the type of agreement that the majority party is trying to ram down law enforcement’s throats so and it can, because it’s law, and very few jurisdictions have jumped on board,” Olson said. “It tells you how ineffective it is.” 

RELATED: Iowa City immigrants, law enforcement grapple with Trump’s deportation plans

Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said the bill was necessary to keep Iowans safe from the criminals that would be affected by the bill.

The bill does not require agencies to enter into a “Task Force Model,” which would allow for law enforcement agencies to conduct immigration enforcement outside of immigrants without permanent legal status that are arrested or are already in custody. 

“This legislation is of critical importance to ensure that the rule of law is restored, and our communities are made safe,” Holt said Thursday. “While many came into our country illegally, came here for a better life and their law-abiding citizens otherwise in our communities, we also know there are criminals in our communities all across the nation who came across the border illegally, including right here in Iowa.”

Bill introduced to strip civil rights protections from transgender Iowans 

Iowa House Republicans introduced an expansive bill Thursday that would remove discrimination protections for transgender Iowans from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, among other changes to Iowa legal code related to transgender Iowans. 

The bill, House Study Bill 242, was referred to the judiciary committee and was introduced, as a committee bill, by House Judiciary Chairman Holt. 

The bill would remove gender identity as a protected class under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against protected classes such as race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, ancestry, disability and gender identity.

Gender identity was added as a protected class to the Iowa Civil Rights Act in 2007 when Democrats controlled the governor’s office and the Iowa legislature. 

Iowa Republicans have previously tried to remove gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights code, and last year a bill that would accomplish it received a hearing. Though, lawmakers on the panel considering the bill unanimously decided to shelf the bill. 

The bill also includes language that would define sex as “the state of being either male or female as observed or clinically verified at birth,” in Iowa code. Iowa House Republicans also previously introduced and advanced a similar bill last session, though it never passed out of the House. 

The bill would also require the birth certificates list the person’s sex at birth and the person’s sex after gender reassignment surgery. Similar language was attached to the bill to define “man” and “woman” in Iowa code that never passed out of the Iowa House.