Prince George’s delegate introduces bill to bar former ICE agents

Delegate Adrian Boafo (D–Prince George’s) filed legislation dubbed the ICE Breaker Act of 2026 that would prohibit people who were hired as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcement agents after the Jan. 20, 2025 inauguration from later taking jobs in Maryland state law enforcement. The proposal landed in the early days of the 2026 General Assembly session and aims to limit the movement of personnel recruited during a recent federal immigration surge into state and local public safety roles.

Boafo framed the measure as a response to aggressive recruitment and enforcement tactics at the federal level and as a way to protect public trust in local policing. Supporters view the bill as part of a package of anti-ICE measures Maryland Democrats prepared this session, including proposals to ban masked federal agents from operating in state jurisdiction and to revisit agreements under Section 287(g) that deputize local officers to enforce federal immigration law.

The bill immediately drew partisan pushback. Republican lawmakers argued the restriction could be unconstitutional or unfair to applicants who took federal jobs, warning the measure may invite litigation. Labor and employment experts say states have broad discretion in public hiring standards but that novel, targeted limits on who can apply for law enforcement positions could trigger court challenges if passed.

The proposal arrives amid heightened scrutiny of ICE operations nationwide, following deadly incidents that intensified public debate over immigration enforcement tactics. In Prince George’s County, where conversations about community-policing, oversight, and recruitment practices are already active, the bill touches directly on local priorities: who is eligible to patrol neighborhoods, how background and hiring rules are set, and how to balance public safety with community trust.

If enacted, the ICE Breaker Act would reshape hiring pipelines for state law enforcement positions that serve PG County residents and could influence county agencies that coordinate with state officers. County officials and local law enforcement leaders will likely have to weigh policy adjustments, potential recruitment challenges, and the prospect of legal contests over the statute’s limits.

The legislative path remains uncertain. Committee hearings in Annapolis will test the bill’s legal footing and political support, and any court fights could delay or block implementation even if the General Assembly acts. For residents, the debate is not only about lawyers and statutes but about everyday interactions with officers and the confidence communities place in public safety institutions.

The takeaway? Watch committee calendars and reach out to your state delegate if this issue matters to you. Our two cents? Civic engagement now—showing up at hearings or emailing representatives—will shape whether PG County’s public safety workforce reflects local values and trust.