Montgomery County Council introduced two significant bills on January 20, 2026, designed to limit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations on county property and restrict federal immigration enforcement tactics. The measures—the County Values Act and the Unmask ICE Act—represent an escalation in local resistance to Trump administration enforcement priorities and follow the county’s earlier introduction of the Trust Act in December 2025.
The bills arrive amid an intensified federal immigration enforcement campaign and explicit Trump administration threats to strip federal funding from jurisdictions it deems uncooperative with ICE. They also signal deepening tensions between local governance autonomy and federal immigration authority.
What the County Values Act Does
Bill 3-26, introduced by Councilmember Kristin Mink and co-sponsored by a supermajority of the seven-member council, mandates that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents obtain a judicial warrant to enter non-public areas of county buildings. The legislation prohibits immigration enforcement activities in county parking lots, garages, and vacant lots, and requires the county to post clear signage barring ICE from those areas.
County staff would be required to report ICE activities, install blockades where appropriate, and receive training on the new protocols. The measure also directs the county to post a signage template available for optional use by private businesses, extending the policy beyond government property.
“At any county facility, our residents will know that no immigration enforcement will be admitted into an area that is not open to the general public without legal review determining that they have a valid judicial warrant,” Mink told Fox 5 DC.
The second measure, Bill 5-26—the Unmask ICE Act—prohibits federal, state, and local law enforcement from wearing masks or facial coverings while on duty in Montgomery County, with exceptions for public health and operational needs. Lead sponsor Councilmember Will Jawando framed the bill as transparency enforcement: “Law enforcement are not to wear masks in our community.”
Broader Context: The Trust Act
“The bills emerged directly from constituent concerns and direct experience: Mink herself was confronted and physically grabbed by ICE agents in November 2025 while recording a federal enforcement operation, an encounter that deepened her conviction that the county must act to protect residents and ensure transparency.”
The County Values Act and Unmask ICE Act build on Bill 35-25—the Trust Act—which the entire council unanimously backed in December 2025. That measure codifies existing county policies by prohibiting county employees from inquiring about immigration status unless required by law, barring discrimination based on perceived immigration status, and guaranteeing that county services are accessible regardless of immigration status.
Critically, the Trust Act limits the use of county resources—staff, equipment, and facilities—in federal civil immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant or “bona fide criminal law enforcement purpose.” The county maintains it will continue cooperating with ICE on serious violent crimes, drug trafficking, and human trafficking investigations.
Council President Natali Fani-González, herself an immigrant who faced deportation threats as a teenager, introduced the Trust Act and characterized current federal immigration enforcement as “wanton, exclusive, cruel, and frankly illegal.”
Why Montgomery County Matters
Montgomery County’s population is 34% foreign-born, with approximately 352,800 immigrants comprising one-third of the county’s total population—substantially higher than Maryland’s 17% immigrant share or the nation’s 15%. The county’s labor force is 41% immigrant, and immigrant-led households earned $55.3 billion in 2024, contributing $5.9 billion in state and local taxes and $9.9 billion in federal taxes.
Additionally, 45% of county residents are either foreign-born or the children of immigrants, making the jurisdiction one of the most diverse in the nation.
County leaders argue these demographics underscore both the economic importance of immigrants to the local economy and the vulnerability of residents to federal enforcement activity. Police Chief Marc Yamada noted that community trust is essential to effective policing: “In order to be effective, we need all members [of the community] to trust local law enforcement,” he said.
The Federal Enforcement Escalation
The bills respond to intensified ICE enforcement activity under the Trump administration. Council members reported constituent feedback about aggressive neighborhood enforcement, night raids, and workplace operations. Jawando characterized the enforcement surge as bullying: “The way you stop a bully is you stand up to a bully. They’re tearing families apart.”
The Trump administration has explicitly threatened to defund sanctuary cities and jurisdictions limiting ICE cooperation, with a February 1, 2026 deadline announced. A White House spokesperson criticized the Montgomery County proposals as “short-sighted and dangerous,” warning they could “put ICE agents at risk in the field.”
Why Law Enforcement Cooperation with ICE Is Contested
Eight Maryland counties have entered 287(g) agreements with ICE, allowing local law enforcement to alert federal immigration authorities when individuals arrested for state crimes are immigration-detainable. Frederick County data shows that 88% of civil immigration detainers issued under 287(g) were for misdemeanors, and 60% were for minor traffic violations.
The ACLU of Maryland has documented “widespread constitutional violations and racially disparate treatment of residents” under 287(g) programs, noting disproportionate targeting of Black and Latinx residents.
Yet law enforcement officials in counties with 287(g) agreements argue they enhance public safety. Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins has warned that ending 287(g) agreements would increase gang activity and crime. House Minority Leader Jason Buckel stated the Maryland 287(g) program “makes our community safer” and protects the immigrant community from “widespread ICE raids.”
Maryland Democrats introduced SB 245 to ban immigration enforcement agreements statewide, with a July 1, 2026 termination deadline. The bill is sponsored by Senate President Bill Ferguson and faces opposition from Maryland sheriffs and Republicans, who warn it would increase crime and potentially trigger federal funding retaliation.
Enforceability Questions
Legal questions remain about whether Montgomery County can enforce these ordinances against federal agents. ICE has dismissed similar measures in other jurisdictions, stating such bills have “absolutely no impact” on its authority to enforce federal immigration law.
The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause gives federal immigration enforcement primacy over local regulation. Whether county ordinances requiring judicial warrants or restricting federal agent access to parking lots can survive federal legal challenge remains unresolved. The county has not explicitly addressed how it would enforce blockades against federal agents.
Additionally, the Trump administration’s threat to withhold federal funding creates fiscal pressure on Montgomery County to reconsider its stance, mirroring strategies used in previous administrations to coerce local cooperation.
The measures also codify what Montgomery County already practices informally. Police have not enforced immigration law under county policy since at least 2019. The new bills aim to make these practices statutorily binding and harder for future administrations to reverse.
Councilmember Mink framed the bills as a historical necessity: “There is no community in the history of mankind that has resisted or ended an occupation by sitting as quietly as possible and hoping it goes away. That has never worked. We’re sitting ducks. We’re going to prepare.”
Timeline & Next Steps
Public hearings on the County Values Act and related bills are tentatively scheduled for February 24, 2026, with council votes expected in spring. The state-level SB 245 (banning 287(g) agreements) will be heard by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, with a July 1, 2026 termination deadline if passed.
The Trump administration’s February 1 deadline for federal funding cuts to sanctuary cities looms as an external pressure point for the council’s deliberations.
