(KENTUCKY) A Republican proposal in the Kentucky House, filed as HB 344, would require every police agency and local government in the state to sign formal cooperation agreements with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), marking one of the most sweeping attempts yet to roll back local sanctuary policies in the early 2025 legislative session. The measure would force all cities and counties to help hold people suspected of being in the United States without legal status so federal agents can take custody.
What HB 344 would do
Under HB 344, local “sanctuary” rules that limit how much police can work with federal immigration officers would effectively be wiped out. The bill says that every police department and local government must have a written agreement with ICE that spells out how they will hold and transfer people for federal immigration enforcement.
If a city or county refuses, the state could move to cut off its road funding, putting pressure on local leaders who rely on those dollars for basic transportation projects.
Targeted jurisdictions
The proposal focuses on places that ICE has labeled as “limited cooperation” or “non-cooperative.” According to lawmakers backing the bill, that list includes Jefferson, Scott, Campbell, and Franklin Counties, where local policies have, to varying degrees, set limits on how long jails hold people for ICE or how much information is shared.
Scott County has already moved to change course. Officials there have updated their policies so local authorities now fully cooperate with ICE, including agreeing to transfer detainees to jails that have contracts with the federal agency. Backers of HB 344 point to Scott County as an example of how local practices could look statewide if the bill passes, with a clear line of cooperation from local booking all the way to federal custody.
Legal and financial penalties
Beyond forcing written agreements, HB 344 carries legal and financial risks for local governments that keep or adopt sanctuary policies:
- Civil lawsuit provision: Victims of violent crime — or their families — could sue cities and counties that had sanctuary rules in place if an accused person was released before ICE agents could take custody.
- Funding penalties: The state could withhold road money from any city or county that declines to sign an ICE agreement.
These measures add multiple layers of pressure on local leaders weighing whether to change their current policies.
Practical impacts on local operations
Required ICE agreements under HB 344 could affect daily operations for sheriffs, jailers, and police chiefs in several ways:
- Staffing adjustments and retraining for increased ICE interaction.
- Changes to jail space and transportation plans if detainees must be moved to facilities with federal contracts.
- Rewriting internal policies and preparing for more frequent contact with federal officers.
Counties already working closely with ICE may see little change, but those with limited cooperation would face operational and logistical transitions.
Companion bill: HB 213
A separate Republican measure, HB 213, sponsored by Rep. Roberts, runs alongside HB 344 and seeks to define sanctuary policies in broad terms. HB 213 would ban any local rule that limits cooperation or communication between local police and ICE agents.
In practice, that could mean local departments would no longer be allowed to set rules about:
- When they respond to ICE requests,
- What information they share, or
- How they handle people in their custody who may be wanted for immigration enforcement.
Taken together, HB 344 and HB 213 would sharply expand cooperation between Kentucky law enforcement and federal immigration officers.
Possible further measures
Lawmakers are also weighing proposals that would go even further by requiring all local police and state troopers to join federal programs that deputize officers with ICE authority. Under those ideas, local officers could be formally assigned federal immigration duties under ICE supervision, though details of how that would work in Kentucky have not yet been written into this particular set of bills.
Arguments from supporters
Supporters say these steps are needed to create a single, predictable approach across the state. Their main points:
- When some jurisdictions cooperate fully with ICE and others do not, people with criminal records may move to counties seen as safer from immigration enforcement.
- Mandatory cooperation agreements will help keep dangerous offenders from being released from local jails before ICE can act.
- The threat of lawsuits in HB 344 will give families a legal path to hold governments responsible when a released person allegedly harms someone.
Arguments from critics
Critics, including immigrant advocates and some local officials in other states facing similar proposals, warn that tying local police closely to federal immigration work can make immigrant communities less willing to report crime or cooperate with investigations. While those arguments are not spelled out in the text of HB 344 or HB 213, they form part of the national debate around sanctuary policies.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, fights over these policies often center on where to draw the line and who should decide — local governments or state leaders.
Key takeaway: Tighter ties between local police and ICE may improve consistency of immigration enforcement, but they also risk undermining trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
Financial and political trade-offs
The focus on road funding in HB 344 puts state infrastructure policy directly into the immigration debate. If the bill becomes law and is enforced strictly, local officials could face a stark choice:
- Hold to existing sanctuary policies and risk major road budget cuts, or
- Sign cooperation agreements with ICE to keep state money flowing.
That trade-off could spark heated discussions in county fiscal courts and city halls even in areas where immigration has not been a central political issue.
Broader context
The broader context is ongoing tension, in Kentucky and around the country, over how far states should go in directing local responses to federal immigration enforcement. While federal law sets immigration rules, bills like HB 344 and HB 213 attempt to control how deeply local police are tied into that system.
Official information about ICE, its mission and enforcement activities is available on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website, but the Kentucky proposals focus less on changing federal practice and more on forcing local governments to cooperate with it.
What’s next
As the early 2025 legislative sessions move forward, HB 344 and HB 213 will test how much control Kentucky lawmakers want over local police decisions in this area. For immigrant families, crime victims, local officials, and law enforcement leaders, the outcome will shape:
- How ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) works with Kentucky agencies,
- How local communities balance public safety concerns, funding needs, and
- Their own views on sanctuary policies in the months and years ahead.
HB 344 would require every Kentucky police department and local government to sign written cooperation agreements with ICE, overriding sanctuary policies. The bill allows civil lawsuits when released detainees allegedly commit violent crimes and permits withholding road funding from noncompliant jurisdictions. Counties already cooperating would see minimal change, while limited-cooperation counties face operational, staffing, and logistical shifts. A companion bill, HB 213, would broadly ban local rules that limit communication with ICE, intensifying statewide enforcement coordination and debate.
