How Nonprofits Are Resisting Trump’s War on Immigration at the State Level

Under Trump’s second term, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) targeting of immigrants and people of color has increased. Incidents of racial profiling, officer abuses, and random kidnappings at courthouses, places of work, and on the way to school have become increasingly common and terrifying for the over 50 million immigrants living in the United States. Between December 2025 and January 2026, ICE arrested 1,264 people per day on average, an over 300% increase from the previous year. ICE’s responses to protests in Minneapolis, including the murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, and the deaths of over 50 immigrants in ICE custody have increased concern about ICE’s power.

In response, advocates and lawmakers in a number of states — including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland,  Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Oregon, and Virginia — have introduced legislation to mitigate ICE’s impact on immigrant communities. The various policy proposals include banning masks, requiring identification, providing data and privacy protections for immigrants, and restricting local and state law enforcement agencies from collaborating or cooperating with ICE.

The federal government’s refusal to protect immigrants’ civil rights has fueled advocates to step up and demand protections in states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California, showing the vital role grassroots advocacy can play in a continued fight against the Trump administration’s abuse of power.

New Jersey

The New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice (NJAIJ), a state coalition of advocacy organizations, played a key role in the passage of recent legislation signed by Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D). The Immigrant Trust Directive (ITD or “Strengthening Trust Between Law Enforcement and Immigrant Communities”) restricts the cooperation of state and local police with ICE through direct aid or the use of local resources and aims to prevent racial profiling by law enforcement. Alongside two other bills that deal with privacy protections and officer identification, this legislative package is an important step in making sure immigrants feel safe in New Jersey.

NJAIJ has spent the last few years advocating for the Immigrant Trust Act (ITA), a bill they helped draft that seeks to strengthen the ITD, which was initially a policy developed by Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. The bill adds additional privacy protections and requires the attorney general to develop policy to protect sensitive locations like health care facilities, public schools, shelters, and more from ICE enforcement. The bill was split into three and passed by the state legislature but was ultimately vetoed by the previous Gov. Phil Murphy (D) in January. However, immigration advocates’ relentless advocacy helped drive Sherill’s signing of the most recent trio of immigration bills, carrying forward some of the policies of the ITA.

Notably, the ITD contains exceptions that have pushed advocates to continue putting pressure on the governor’s office: New Jersey law enforcement is permitted to cooperate with ICE if someone has been charged or convicted of a serious offense or if they are subject to a final order of removal. “By carving out people with final orders and pending charges, it creates a two-tiered New Jersey where some families get due process, and others get thrown to ICE. That’s not safety, that’s abandonment,” said Katy Sastre, executive director with First Friends of New Jersey & New York, in an article posted by NJAIJ.

Even with a final order of removal, people may still have temporary protected status under programs like Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or other humanitarian protections. These statuses are especially precarious under the current administration. The protection carve-out created by the New Jersey law for people merely facing charges also runs counter to the key constitutional principle of a presumption of innocence.

Advocacy organizations and coalitions like NJAIJ continue to call for additional protections and improvements to the law, fighting to protect New Jersey residents.

Massachusetts

Advocates in Massachusetts are working to pass the PROTECT Act to limit state and local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE and provide additional protections for people in schools, hospitals, courthouses, and places of worship. The House and Senate in Massachusetts had passed two different versions of the act (H.5316 and S.3086 respectively) in May and had to negotiate a compromise before preparing to send the bill to Gov. Maura Healey (D).

LUCE, a coalition of grassroots organizations focused on immigrant rights in Massachusetts, formed the People’s PROTECT Act Coalition to advocate for a stronger Senate version of the bill passed by the House. The coalition also supported two amendments in the Senate version after its introduction: Amendment 10, which extends courthouse protections against ICE to areas surrounding the courthouse, and Amendment 11, which helps immigrant victims get certifications needed to apply for immigration relief more quickly.

The version passed by the Senate has been applauded by a number of advocacy organizations, including the members of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA). “We are pleased and encouraged by today’s powerful action by the state Senate, which builds on that leadership and furthers efforts by Massachusetts lawmakers to establish meaningful protections against the violent and unlawful actions taken by ICE in our communities,” said Maroni Minter, Political Director of MIRA, in a press statement.

Other key provisions of the bill prevent racial profiling, include support for families facing immigration detention, protect victims and witnesses of a crime, and ban 287(g) agreements, which are federal agreements that “delegate state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specified immigration officer functions under ICE’s direction and oversight.”

The most significant differences between the bill passed by the Senate and the House regard spaces where particular warrant requirements are necessary. While the Senate bill contains additional provisions for spaces like schools, hospitals, courthouses, and places of worship, the House bill only includes those protections for courthouses. The House bill also provides an exception for the use of 287(g) agreements, which the Senate bills bans completely.

On July 29, the PROTECT Act Conference Committee reported that they have agreed upon a bill to send to Gov. Healey. The reconciled PROTECT Act includes much of the stronger Senate bill protections — it bans 287(g) agreements and includes protections for sensitive locations. These more extensive protections make it a strong proponent of safety and immigrant rights, and are an important win for advocacy organizations in Massachusetts.

California

California was among the first states to pass legislation regarding identification and masking of ICE agents. The “No Vigilantes Act” and the “No Secret Police Act” were signed in September of 2025. The No Vigilantes Act requires federal agents to visibly display identification including name, agency, and badge number, while the No Secret Police Act restricts masking by law enforcement agencies.

Both bills received significant support from organizations across California and even from some cities and counties. Costa Mesa city officials wrote a letter of support for the No Vigilantes Act in response to the advocacy efforts of residents and local immigrant rights organizations, including Resilience Orange County. Additionally, Culver City, Monterey Park, Paramount, Pasadena, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Soledad, and West Hollywood similarly recorded their support for the bill. The Latino Community Foundation, led by former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, also released a statement on Instagram defending both bills.

In November, the Department of Justice sued, arguing that both laws are unconstitutional and put officers at risk. The federal government has also sued New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and New York over their new identification and masking laws.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, in conjunction with the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed amicus or friend-of-the-court briefs defending the No Vigilantes Act, but a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoined the California law, preventing the state from enforcement. The case is currently waiting for further litigation to play out.

The federal government’s challenge of both laws poses an important question on the relationship between state and federal power and the rights for states to protect their residents. The court cited the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which gives the government and its agents some “protections from state law actions that would interfere with federal operations.” Under this clause, federal agents who are carrying out their lawful duties may be immune from state criminal prosecution, and state or local laws that regulate or discriminate against the federal government are banned.

There is some hope that identification requirements and anti-masking laws may survive. Laws written to apply to all law enforcement and not just federal agents are more likely to be upheld. Further, there is currently no federal masking policy, and these policies only affect federal agents who are masking, not all agents.

It is difficult to determine how courts will rule on the identification requirements and mask bans across the country. At a time when the federal government’s power seems extensive and unlimited, the states’ powers to protect their population are incredibly important. We have yet to see how much control will be afforded to states, but we can be certain that local advocacy organizations will not stop fighting for the rights of immigrant communities who are at risk and will continue to push lawmakers to enact or advocate promising legislation.

Nonprofit and advocacy organizations are refusing to cow to the Trump administration and are fighting for equality and justice for immigrants across the country. The legislative successes we’ve seen so far show the power and tangible impact of advocacy. These victories won’t be the last, and they renew our hope and vigor in the fight for civil rights.

Nawal Irfani is an intern at Alliance for Justice.