Several Maryland sheriffs are drawing a line in the sand: no matter what Governor Wes Moore signs into law, they will not stop working with federal immigration enforcement.

Moore is expected to sign a bill banning official 287(g) agreements between local police and ICE. Eight Maryland counties currently hold those agreements, which allow local officers to assist federal agents in identifying and detaining illegal immigrants. The bill would end them.

The sheriffs aren't waiting around to comply.

The Defiance

Carroll County Sheriff Jim DeWees made his position as clear as it gets:

"No politician or legislative body is going to tell me that I can't communicate with another law enforcement agency on matters of public safety in my community. I'm not going to stop."

As reported by Breitbart, DeWees said he will create a policy within his office to continue working with ICE regardless of the legislation. He also pointed to a familiar problem with top-down mandates from the state capital. As he told WBFF:

"The bill bans the agreements, and then in typical Annapolis fashion, they supply no alternative."

That's worth sitting with. Annapolis wants to sever the relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, but offers nothing to fill the gap. No plan for what happens when an officer encounters an illegal immigrant with a criminal record. No guidance. No resources. Just a prohibition and a press release.

Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins was equally blunt about what's driving the legislation:

"This is all political. You can put any lipstick you want on it; it's all political. The Democrats don't want any cooperation with ICE. They don't want any enforcement whatsoever."

Only two sheriffs are named publicly in this fight so far, but the Washington County Board of County Commissioners also approved a resolution declaring its "full support" for DHS, ICE, and other federal law enforcement agencies. The resolution stated the county's intent to support the enforcement of the nation's borders and the "integrity of our immigration system."

The resistance is not limited to sheriffs' offices. It is institutional.

Moore's Justification Doesn't Hold Up

Governor Moore framed his push to ban ICE cooperation as a public safety measure, claiming the federal government was "using their budget to put untrained and unaccountable agents into our communities." He also invoked the now-familiar talking point about ICE detaining a five-year-old child.

That claim traces back to an incident in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, in which Columbia Heights Public Schools Superintendent Zena Stenvik suggested that ICE took custody of a five-year-old boy, Liam Ramos, who was being driven to school by his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias. The story spread rapidly, amplified by Rep. Ilhan Omar, who posted on social media:

"ICE just detained a 5-year-old child. Don't tell us this is about 'the worst of the worst.' That's a lie. Absolutely vile."

The fuller picture tells a different story. According to ICE agents, the father fled the vehicle on foot when agents approached, leaving his five-year-old son behind. ICE officers stayed with the child and sheltered him. The boy was not the target of enforcement. His father was.

That distinction matters enormously, and the people repeating the "detained a five-year-old" line know it. A father abandoning his child during an encounter with law enforcement is not the same thing as agents targeting a kindergartner. But the emotional payload of "they're detaining children" is too useful to surrender to the facts. So Moore repeated it, Omar amplified it, and the narrative calcified before the correction could catch up.

This is the pattern. A deceptive framing enters the bloodstream. Politicians launder it into policy justification. By the time anyone points out what actually happened, the bill is already on the governor's desk.

What 287(g) Actually Does

The agreements Moore wants to eliminate are not rogue operations. The 287(g) program is a formal federal framework that allows local officers to perform specific immigration enforcement functions under ICE supervision. Maryland currently permits two types of these agreements. Under one, local officers may detain noncitizens for up to 48 hours.

These are structured, legally authorized partnerships. They exist because immigration enforcement cannot function at scale without cooperation between federal and local agencies. ICE does not have the manpower to operate alone in every county in America. That's not a failure of the system. It's the design of federalism.

Banning these agreements doesn't make communities safer. It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to find work after they commit crimes. It creates jurisdictions where federal law functionally does not apply. And it sends a clear message to anyone weighing whether to enter the country illegally: Maryland won't be looking for you.

A Broader Movement in the Other Direction

While Moore pushes Maryland toward less cooperation with ICE, other states are moving aggressively in the opposite direction. Texas Comptroller Kelly Hancock announced in January that the state is offering sheriffs as much as $140,000 to bolster their participation in the 287(g) program.

Texas is putting money behind enforcement. Maryland is trying to criminalize it.

The contrast could not be sharper, and it reflects a widening divide in how blue and red states approach the most basic question of governance: whether laws should be enforced. In Texas, cooperation with federal immigration authorities is incentivized. In Maryland, it is about to be prohibited. Residents in both states will eventually see which approach produces safer communities. The data tends to settle these debates more decisively than any governor's press conference.

The Real Stakes

What Moore is attempting is not new. Sanctuary policies have proliferated in blue states and cities for years. But banning 287(g) agreements goes a step further. It doesn't just allow local agencies to decline cooperation. It forbids them from cooperating even when they want to. Sheriffs elected by their own communities, accountable to their own voters, are being told by the state capital that they may not partner with federal law enforcement.

That's the part that should concern anyone who believes in local governance. DeWees and Jenkins aren't freelancing. They are responding to the demands of the people who elected them. Their communities want immigration law enforced. The governor is overriding that choice from Annapolis.

The sheriffs have made their position clear. They intend to keep working with ICE, bill or no bill. What comes next will test whether Maryland's government is willing to punish its own law enforcement officers for enforcing federal law.

That's a fight the governor may not want.