Shortly after signing legislation into law that prohibits agreements between local police and correctional officers and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Gov. Wes Moore issued three directives clarifying that state and local agencies may still cooperate with federal authorities on criminal matters and immigration detainers.

In a Feb. 17 letter to Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Secretary Carolyn Scruggs, Moore said the new law does not affect state policies regarding immigration detainers issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“The law does not impact State policies and practices in response to immigration detainers,” Moore wrote, adding that the department should continue providing advance notice of release and coordinating transfers for noncitizen offenders who pose a public safety risk.

Moore added that in 2024 and 2025, the department coordinated with ICE on 564 individuals, including people convicted of violent or serious crimes. He said that cooperation should continue under the existing departmental policy, which includes providing ICE with advance notification of release and facilitating transfer of custody in response to ICE detainer requests.

Political scientists told The Baltimore Sun on Tuesday that Moore’s move reflects a careful political balancing act. John Dedie, a political science professor at the Community College of Baltimore County, said the governor appears to be “trying to have it both ways.”

“I’m signing this legislation — it’s going to make all the progressives happy — but at the same time (sending directives) making law enforcement happy,” Dedie told The Sun in a phone interview. “The definition of compromise is when both people walk away angry. In many ways, this is a compromise.”

In a separate letter to local elected officials, Moore emphasized that the law does not prevent local governments from working with federal authorities on criminal investigations, joint task forces or the removal of dangerous offenders. It also does not prohibit notifying ICE of impending releases or coordinating custody transfers within constitutional limits. “Anyone who is charged with a crime under State law must go through the State criminal process and, if convicted, must serve their sentence,” Moore wrote.

Still, Moore criticized recent federal immigration enforcement efforts, saying the federal government has failed to focus on violent offenders and has instead pursued “arbitrary immigration quotas.”

In a broader directive to all executive branch agencies and state law enforcement entities, Moore established statewide standards centered on constitutional policing, fairness and community trust. The order directs agencies to review policies, strengthen community engagement and ensure that resources are focused on public safety threats — “not the administrative enforcement of civil status against law-abiding non-citizens.”

House Minority Leader Jason Buckel of Allegany County, one of the nine Maryland counties that formerly had a 287(g) agreement, criticized the law and the governor’s directives. In a joint statement with House Republicans released Tuesday, Buckel called the legislation “political theater rather than public safety or even effective policymaking.”

In a separate text message to The Baltimore Sun, Buckel echoed his earlier sentiment.

“I think (the directives) illustrate that this bill is all about political posturing rather than real policy,” Buckel said. “Obviously, judicial detainers and federal immigration warrants have to be validly recognized. Clearly, getting violent criminals off our streets and into federal custody is a good thing, although unfortunately, many Annapolis Democrats seem to object even to that. Making a big production out of signing a bill while indicating that you are undercutting much of its substance is the definition of disingenuous.”

Senate President Bill Ferguson, who represents Baltimore City and signed the bills into law alongside Moore, framed the directives differently. Asked about the governor’s clarifications, Ferguson said the debate is “fraught with challenges” given how ICE enforces immigration laws.

“Look, I think all of us are horrified with what we’re seeing with the enforcement mechanism that ICE is now pursuing,” Ferguson told reporters Tuesday. “We are supportive of constitutional engagement and policing. I think that we have to continue to make sure that all the tools on the table that exist today in Maryland … are administered lawfully. There’s going to be immigration enforcement in every state, and we have to do it in a way that complies with constitutional provisions. I think that’s what that focus will have to be. We can’t have enhanced partnerships with an organization attacking the way it does.”

Moore’s office also pushed back on Republican criticism.

“So after refusing to applaud falling crime rates at the state of the state, Maryland Republicans are opposed to Governor Moore and his administration continuing to work to keep our streets safe and ensure violent criminals are deported?” Ammar Moussa, the governor’s senior press secretary and director of media strategy, told The Sun in a text message Tuesday. “It’s sad that Maryland Republicans are pro-crime, but thankfully Governor Moore is not.”

‘Trying to have it both ways,’ political scientists say

Matthew Crenson, professor emeritus of political science at Johns Hopkins University, said the governor’s directives may have limited practical effect, especially with no explicit agreement laid out. “I think that the local law enforcement officials will probably continue to follow Moore’s directive and cooperate with ICE … I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them go even further than Moore has directed,” he told The Sun in a Tuesday phone interview.

Crenson also noted the symbolic nature of the legislation. “I think it’s symbolic for the president. Sure, it also has a practical impact, of course, but it just shows that (the 287(g) program) is a policy directed against immigrants in general, not against illegals,” he said, adding that the emergency legislation acts as a response to ICE’s recent escalated actions across the country.

Richard Vatz, a conservative professor emeritus of rhetoric and communication at Towson University, described the directives as a political balancing act.

“First he bans participation in 287(g), but then he stipulates that cooperation is acceptable regarding violent offenders on criminal matters and immigration detainers,” Vatz told The Sun in an email. “He is wary of being categorized as an obstructionist Democrat who is unconcerned about illegal immigrants, but he also does not wish to be seen as in favor of over-aggressiveness by ICE.”

Dedie added that the directives likely reassure law enforcement that cooperation on criminal matters can continue, while allowing Moore to signal limits on federal immigration partnerships. He also suggested the approach may reflect broader political calculations.

“This is a safe road,” Dedie said, noting that immigration politics remain volatile nationally.

_____

©2026 Baltimore Sun. Visit baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.