(WASHINGTON STATE) — Washington State House lawmakers passed House Bill 2105 on February 14, 2026, advancing a measure supporters call the Immigrant Worker Protection Act as federal workplace enforcement intensifies under “Operation Metro Surge.”
The bill cleared the chamber on a 57–40 vote, putting new transparency and access rules on employers when federal agents seek employment records or entry to non-public work areas.
House Bill 2105 drew attention as employers face rising pressure to respond quickly and correctly to immigration-related inspections, while immigrant workers and advocates warn about disruption and fear tied to audits and raids.
Under HB 2105, the trigger is an employer’s receipt of a federal Notice of Inspection tied to I-9 forms or other employment records. Once that notice arrives, employers must provide written notice to all current employees and their authorized representatives within 72 hours.
The measure also bars employers from granting “voluntary consent” for federal agents to access non-public areas of a workplace or employee records without a judicial warrant or subpoena, while explicitly prohibiting retaliation against employees who assert rights under the act.
Civil penalties apply when employers fail to meet the requirements. HB 2105 sets civil penalties of $1,000 per violation, which can double to $2,000 for willful or repeated violations.
The bill directs a state-level implementation step aimed at standardizing information for both workplaces and workers. By July 1, 2026, the Washington Attorney General must develop a template rights poster and provide guidance to businesses on how to legally restrict federal access to private premises.
HB 2105 builds on the 2019 Keep Washington Working Act, expanding workplace-related protections beyond law enforcement interactions and into administrative workplace audits that can focus on I-9 compliance and employment records.
Supporters and opponents described the audits differently in debate, framing them as either an administrative compliance event that can destabilize a workplace or a necessary enforcement tool used to identify people without legal status.
Federal officials, in separate statements during the same period, criticized state-level moves they described as interference with immigration enforcement, as Washington lawmakers pushed back amid heightened tension over federal operations and funding.
“My job is not to pick and choose which laws we enforce and which ones we don’t. We have laws in this country, and they matter. When states attempt to interfere with federal investigations or shield illegal aliens from enforcement, they are endangering the national security of the United States,” Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said on February 13, 2026.
DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin made a similar argument on February 12, 2026, warning, “While sanctuary politicians and activist judges release criminals into our communities, our law enforcement officers are risking their lives to remove public safety threats. Any state law that seeks to obstruct the federal government’s constitutional authority to enforce immigration law will be met with the full force of the Justice Department.”
McLaughlin also referenced administrative tools in a February 9, 2026, statement: “If Democrats do not like the law that Congress already passed, they—as members of Congress—have full constitutional authority under Article I to change the law and assuage their own concerns. Until then, DHS will continue to use every tool at its disposal, including administrative subpoenas and I-9 audits, to identify and remove those here illegally.”
The House vote came as a partial DHS shutdown began at midnight on February 13, triggered by a Congressional deadlock over ICE funding, with Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02) demanding “oversight and accountability for ICE” as a condition for full-year funding.
Backers of HB 2105 described the measure as a way to bring order to moments that can move quickly inside workplaces, with the goal of reducing “workplace panic” by giving employees time to gather documentation or consult legal counsel before a federal inspection occurs.
Employers, meanwhile, face the task of aligning state notice rules and limits on voluntary access with federal obligations around I-9 compliance, including how supervisors respond when agents seek entry or request records.
Opponents, including some Republican lawmakers, argued the bill risks pulling employers into conflict with federal enforcement, with the Washington Policy Center saying it turns employers into “unwitting adversaries of federal law enforcement.”
Supporters also framed the legislation as an economic protection for Washington communities that rely on immigrant workers, and Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self (D–Mukilteo) cited immigrants’ estimated $145 billion contribution to Washington’s annual GDP.
Readers tracking the measure and any related updates can follow Washington’s official bill page on the state legislature site at Washington State Legislature bill page for HB 2105, alongside state-level announcements posted to the Governor’s Office newsroom.
Federal developments that may intersect with workplace compliance and enforcement appear through the DHS press room and the USCIS newsroom, where agencies post broader updates, statements, and policy announcements.
As HB 2105 moves forward, employers and workers will watch whether the proposal becomes law and how quickly workplaces adopt inspection-notice protocols, supervisor training on access requests, and clear internal communication procedures consistent with the bill’s notice and retaliation rules.
House Bill 2105 Advances Immigrant Worker Protection Act Amid Operation Metro Surge
The Washington State House approved House Bill 2105, creating new transparency requirements for employers facing federal immigration audits. The act mandates a 72-hour employee notification period and restricts voluntary access to private workplaces without warrants. Supporters highlight the economic contributions of immigrants, while federal authorities warn of legal challenges against state-level interference with immigration enforcement during ‘Operation Metro Surge.’
