In Raleigh, North Carolina, Republican lawmakers, aligned with promoting President Donald Trump’s agenda, are strategizing to mandate cooperation from the newly elected Democratic governor in enforcing the president’s immigration policies. They also aim to prevent the recently appointed Democratic attorney general from opposing Trump’s directives in court.
This week, the North Carolina Senate moved forward with legislation that intensifies recent Republican efforts to diminish the power of Democratic state officials. Riding on the momentum of Trump’s recent victory by three percentage points in November within the battleground state, Republican legislators passed a bill on Tuesday which mandates certain law enforcement bodies under Governor Josh Stein to collaborate with federal immigration officials. The bill includes incorporating the State Bureau of Investigation, Department of Public Safety, and the adult correctional system into the 287(g) program which trains officers to question defendants about their immigration status.
Similar legislative efforts have been seen in over a dozen U.S. states, where Republican lawmakers aim to either require or encourage cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as per a bill-tracking analysis.
Additionally, the proposed legislation instructs Stein’s budget office to examine whether unlawfully present immigrants are improperly obtaining state benefits. Another bill, tentatively passed on Wednesday, intends to restrict Attorney General Jeff Jackson—who previously held Stein’s position—from contesting presidential executive orders in court, actions he has already undertaken.
Earlier this year, a law was enacted requiring county sheriffs to assist ICE when jail detainees are sought by the agency, despite a veto from the previous governor, Roy Cooper. Sen. Buck Newton, a proponent of the immigration bill, stated, “North Carolina made it very clear in November that they support Donald J. Trump. Part of the reason for that support is his steadfast commitment to regaining control of our borders.”
Republicans have expressed dissatisfaction with Jackson for joining other Democratic attorneys general in litigations against Trump’s policies, such as challenging an executive order trying to revoke birthright citizenship. According to state Republicans, the Constitution empowers them to define the duties of the attorney general, claiming Jackson’s office holds excessive power.
Phil Berger, the Senate leader, noted Jackson was “fighting against policies that the people of the state heard articulated by President Trump and voted for.” In contrast, Jackson’s allies argue that voters expect the attorney general to protect their constitutional rights from federal overreach, irrespective of the political party in charge.
Democratic Sen. Graig Meyer emphasized, “The only reason you would want to stop the state of North Carolina from suing over possibly unconstitutional executive orders is if you want the president to be treated like a king.”
A representative for Jackson asserted that legislation undermining the Attorney General’s Office’s autonomy would not benefit the state. While legal challenges against Trump from Democratic attorneys general have succeeded, experts suggest that excluding North Carolina from multistate lawsuits wouldn’t severely hamper efforts against Trump’s orders, but could impact state-specific policies.
In 2018, a similar agreement in Iowa saw the state’s Democratic attorney general seeking approval from the Republican governor to join out-of-state lawsuits. North Carolina’s bills will require House approval, with Republicans needing one more seat for a General Assembly majority that could override Stein’s vetoes if Democrats remain united.
Governor Stein, who often criticizes Trump, remains undecided about the immigration bill. During conversations with reporters, he noted that immigrants who commit violent crimes will face law enforcement consequences and that comprehensive federal legislation should provide a citizenship path for law-abiding residents. Advocacy groups argue the bill could negatively impact sectors reliant on immigrant labor and create wider community disruption.
Mario Alfaro from El Pueblo emphasized during a committee discussion that instead of enhancing citizen protection, the measure would foster distrust and escalate insecurity.
