Fact check: What is the current policy for Chicago police cooperation with ICE operations?

1. How Chicago’s written policy closes the door — but not the windows

Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance explicitly forbids CPD from detaining or arresting people based solely on immigration status and bars assistance to federal civil immigration enforcement, creating a clear municipal prohibition on routine cooperation with ICE. Mayor Brandon Johnson’s August 30, 2025 executive order reaffirms CPD’s independence and constitutional policing duties, and an October 2025 executive order went further by banning federal immigration agents from using city property and requiring city departments to implement safeguards and reporting within five days. These measures collectively make city policy and municipal property off-limits to ICE operations and formalize a noncooperation posture intended to prevent local facilitation of immigration enforcement ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. State law and federal carve-outs introduce narrow exceptions and legal tension

Illinois’s TRUST Act restricts local participation in immigration enforcement but preserves narrow exceptions that permit assistance when local agencies are presented with a valid federal criminal warrant or when explicit federal law requires cooperation. That statutory framework means CPD’s noncooperation is robust but not absolute: federal criminal warrants and certain federal statutory obligations can compel or justify limited assistance. This creates a legal tension between the city’s sanctuary-style rules and state- and federal-level authorities’ limited but real powers to seek cooperation in specified circumstances ^[4].

3. Historic programs and agreements complicate the picture on the ground

Programs such as the 287(g) deputization arrangements and past agreements allowing federal designation of local officers have historically blurred lines between municipal policing and federal immigration enforcement. Reporting from earlier years showed agreements that allowed ICE to designate certain CPD employees as customs officers, raising alarm among advocates and highlighting the risk that administrative or contractual mechanisms can override local policy in practice. CPD has at times denied such arrangements constituted full partnerships in immigration enforcement, but the historical precedent shows pathways exist for federal-local integration if agreements are negotiated or reinstated ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Data-sharing and fingerprint channels are a practical loophole that ICE exploits

Even where CPD refuses direct cooperation, data systems create de facto enforcement channels. The Secure Communities and fingerprint-sharing arrangements link local arrest and booking data to federal immigration databases, enabling ICE to identify and arrest noncitizens based on information collected by local police. Investigations have documented cases where fingerprint matches and data exchanges led to ICE arrests despite municipal noncooperation policies. This means that information flows can undermine policy silos, allowing federal agents to act on locally collected data even when CPD declines to participate in operations ^[7].

5. Political pushback and law-enforcement objections highlight enforcement friction

National and state police organizations have publicly criticized city-level restrictions, arguing that barring cooperation with ICE can impede law enforcement and public safety coordination. The National Fraternal Order of Police and Illinois counterparts condemned reports that CPD officers were being prohibited from assisting ICE agents, framing the restrictions as a breakdown in federal-local collaboration. City and state officials counter that the TRUST Act and municipal ordinances preserve public safety while protecting constitutional rights. This clash reflects competing priorities—civil liberties and immigrant community trust versus interagency crime-fighting cooperation—and shapes how policies are implemented and contested in practice ^{[8] [4]}.

6. Net assessment: strong municipal firewall, but enforcement gaps persist and will require active remedies

Chicago has established a strong formal firewall against routine CPD cooperation with ICE through ordinances and recent 2025 executive orders that ban the use of city property and require rapid implementation and reporting. Yet statutory exceptions, legacy or potential deputization agreements, and especially data-sharing systems like fingerprint networks mean ICE can still effect arrests linked to local policing activities. The policy landscape is therefore layered and contested: municipal rules reduce voluntary cooperation, but systemic technical and legal channels create residual exposure. Policymakers seeking to close those gaps will need coordinated state and federal action, technical safeguards for data, and ongoing transparency about any intergovernmental agreements ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [7]}.