Last week, just as the online battle between Donald Trump and Elon Musk was heating up, news broke that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had raided three locations across Los Angeles. Since then, the subject of immigration has dominated the news cycle. Of the many questions asked to the Los Angeles Police Department about these raids, the public was particularly concerned about the nature of LAPD’s relationship with ICE.

During a press conference about the ICE raids, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell informed the media that the department “does not participate in, or coordinate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement on civil immigration enforcement.”¹ Chief McDonnell then reiterated that the LAPD is “guided and bound by the California Values Act.”²

California Values Act:

In 2018, the California Values Act (Senate Bill 54), sometimes referred to as the “Sanctuary State” law, went into effect. Its purpose was to limit state and local law enforcement agencies’ involvement in federal immigration enforcement, and to ensure eligible individuals could seek services from, and engage with, state agencies without regard to their immigration status. In enacting this bill, the California Legislature declared that:

“A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California. This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians.”³

However, seven years have passed since its enactment, and it begs the question: have California’s values changed?

Shifting Values:

In the years since the California Values Act went into effect, President Trump has made clear his stance on “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

In his April 28, 2025, Executive Order titled, “Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens,” President Trump ordered the United States Attorney General to publish a list of states and local jurisdictions that “obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws (sanctuary jurisdictions).”⁴ Consistent with this EO, White House border czar Tom Homan expressed the administration’s position as, “we’re going to flood the zone, and sanctuary cities will get exactly what they don’t want: more agents in their neighborhoods, more work site enforcement.”⁵

However, these views on immigration and sanctuary cities are not confined to the current presidential administration – they are also reflected in some proposed laws making their way through the California Legislature.

Over the past year, California Assembly members have introduced three bills seeking to address, and in some cases redefine, how California law enforcement agencies engage with federal immigration authorities. These bills include Assembly Bills 18 and 85 on the one hand, which align more closely with the current presidential administration’s preference for more immigration authority engagement, and AB 421 on the other hand, which seeks to expand the protections of the California Values Act.

• AB 18 (2025-2026)⁶

Falling in line with the current presidential administration’s position, AB 18 seeks to create the “California Secure Borders Act of 2025.” The intent of this bill is to entirely repeal the California Values Act and to provide cross-deputization training so that local law enforcement agents could support federal border security actions.

Introduced by Assembly Member Carl DeMaio on December 2, 2024, this bill would also require the California Legislature to state the following:

“It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to combat illegal immigration and secure the border by repealing the sanctuary law (Senate Bill 54 of the 2017–2018 Regular Session (Chapter 495 of the Statutes of 2017)), prohibit the use of state funds for various welfare, health, housing, and other services for undocumented immigrants, require public disclosure of information on the impact of illegal immigration on crime rates and state and local services, provide cross-deputization training for local law enforcement to support federal border security actions, and provide standards for deployment of the State Guard to the border.”

Since its introduction, this bill failed to meet one of the joint rules of the Senate and Assembly. However, this bill may be acted upon again in January 2026, and potentially live to see another day.⁷

• AB 85 (2025-2026)⁸

Weeks after the introduction of AB 18, former Assembly Member Bilal Essayli, introduced AB 85. This bill similarly seeks to require more grounds for cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities.

Under existing law, a law enforcement official has limited discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities, and may only provide information regarding a person’s release date, and may only transfer an individual to immigration authorities without a judicial warrant or probable cause determination if the individual has been convicted of specified crimes. However, AB 85 seeks to change this: if a person has been convicted of a felony, it would require law enforcement officials to cooperate with immigration authorities by detaining and transferring the individual to immigration authorities, and providing release information to immigration authorities.

After its introduction on December 20, 2024, this bill has moved forward through the legislative process, and as of April, is currently being held in committee awaiting its hearing.

• AB 421 (2025-2026)⁹

In contrast to AB 18 and AB 85, Assembly Member José Luis Solache introduced AB 421 to strengthen, not repeal or weaken, the protections of the California Values Act.

Specifically, AB 421 seeks to prohibit California law enforcement agencies from collaborating with, or providing any information to, immigration authorities about immigration enforcement actions that could be or are taking place within a one-mile radius of any childcare or daycare facility, religious institution, place of worship, hospital, or medical office.

According to Assembly Member Solache, the impetus for this bill was that he was “hearing from people in his district who are worried about the Trump administration carrying out aggressive enforcement actions.”¹⁰ Since its introduction, AB 421 is now in committee awaiting its hearing.

Looking Ahead:

It is too soon to know if California’s legislative pendulum will swing in the opposite direction to weaken or repeal the California Values Act. However, as the ICE raids and federal presence in Los Angeles continues, California legislators are getting to watch and consider in real time what more ICE engagement could look like in their communities. We will continue to monitor how the California Legislature responds to this.

---

¹ KTLA5news, Instagram, June 8, 2025.
² KCAL News, Youtube, “Chief Jim McDonnell discusses violent protests across the city,” June 8, 2025.
³ Cal. Gov. Code §7284.2.
⁴ Executive Order, “Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens,” Apr. 28, 2025. 
⁵ Fox 32 Chicago, Youtube, “Homan: We will ‘flood the zone’ in sanctuary cities,” May 29, 2025.
⁶ Assembly Bill 18 (2025-2026). 
⁷ State of California, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
⁸ Assembly Bill 85 (2025-2026).
⁹ Assembly Bill 421 (2025-2026).
¹⁰ Hobbs, Stephen & Wolffe, Kate, The Sacramento Bee, “California lawmaker’s bill would restrict local police from aiding ICE in these situations,” Feb. 11, 2025.