Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does the Naperville Police Department handle ICE detainer requests?
Executive Summary
The available reporting shows two consistent claims: Naperville Police do not actively assist federal immigration enforcement and operate under the Illinois TRUST Act, and ICE agents conducted a September 2025 enforcement action in Naperville that drew public attention for its tactics. Local statements describe limits on municipal involvement in detainer or arrest activities, while eyewitness and homeowner accounts describe an aggressive ICE operation; both lines of reporting come from September 2025 and should be weighed together when evaluating how Naperville handles ICE detainer requests [1] [2].
1. Broken down: What officials say about municipal cooperation with ICE
Naperville Police Department messaging emphasizes that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and that local practice is constrained by the Illinois TRUST Act, which prohibits local agencies from assisting federal immigration arrests and detentions, including honoring detainer requests. Reports state the department does not receive notification when ICE is present in Naperville and that officers do not ask residents about immigration status; this frames municipal policy as one of limited involvement and legal restraint [1]. That official posture represents a legal and administrative boundary rather than an assertion that ICE will never operate in the city.
2. Witnesses describe a forceful ICE operation that raised local alarm
Multiple eyewitness and homeowner accounts recount an ICE operation in late September 2025 where agents arrested roofers at a worksite; witnesses say ladders were pulled down, workers jumped, and at least one person was chased with drawn firearms. The homeowner interviewed claims five of six crew members were detained, despite assertions that some were documented. These on-the-ground reports emphasize aggressive tactics and community disturbance, and they sparked local coverage and concern over ICE activity in Naperville [2] [3].
3. How these two narratives intersect and where questions remain
The city’s stated policy of non-cooperation under the TRUST Act does not preclude ICE from conducting independent federal enforcement within municipal boundaries, which helps explain how both narratives can be true: local police may not assist or be notified while ICE still carries out arrests. The reporting does not include direct documentation of a Naperville PD response during the operation, nor does it present an ICE statement about coordination or detainer issuance, leaving a gap between municipal policy statements and the facts of the ICE action described by witnesses [1] [2].
4. What the sources agree on, and what they do not
All pieces concur that an ICE enforcement event occurred in Naperville in September 2025 and that municipal policy limits local involvement in immigration enforcement. They diverge on operational details: official messaging focuses on legal limits and non-notification, while eyewitness accounts focus on the conduct and immediate impact of the operation. Key missing elements include official ICE comments, police incident reports, and documentation of any detainer requests, which prevents a conclusive public record about requests and municipal processing [1] [2].
5. Possible agendas and why sources might frame this differently
Local authorities asserting TRUST Act constraints have an interest in clarifying legal boundaries and calming community concerns about local law enforcement’s role; such framing emphasizes legal compliance and municipal non-involvement [1]. Conversely, eyewitness and homeowner accounts emphasize community safety and perceived excesses by ICE, which can amplify fears about federal enforcement tactics and local impact. Both perspectives are valid but serve different civic functions: legal clarification versus public scrutiny of enforcement conduct [2] [3].
6. Practical implications for residents and for evaluating detainer handling
Given the combination of statements, residents should understand that Naperville Police are not the agency executing ICE detainers and that the TRUST Act limits municipal cooperation, but ICE operations can still occur independently within the city. The reporting suggests that questions about detainers — whether they were issued, served, or accompanied by local notification — are unresolved in the public record. Absent ICE or police incident records in the articles, determinations about how detainer requests were handled in this case remain incomplete [1] [2].
7. What additional documentation would close the gaps in the record
To fully answer how Naperville Police handled any specific detainer request, the public record needs ICE statements, police incident reports, and any written detainer or notification records; access to those documents would establish whether ICE coordinated with local authorities, whether a detainer was issued, and whether local officers responded. The current reportage from September 2025 documents policy boundaries and a notable ICE action but lacks those formal records, leaving an evidentiary gap that prevents a definitive, documented account of detainer handling in this incident [1] [2].