LAPD Chief Navigates Tightrope Between Local Concerns and Federal Partnerships Amid Immigration Debate
As scrutiny mounts over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics following the shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis, a notable silence has emerged from Los Angeles: LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell. This week, McDonnell reaffirmed the department’s close working relationship with federal law enforcement, stating he would not direct officers to enforce a new state law – currently facing constitutional challenges – that restricts the use of face coverings by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents.
The reluctance of top police officials nationwide to publicly criticize their federal counterparts is largely driven by a reliance on collaboration in investigations involving gangs, extremist groups, and major criminal enterprises, coupled with the significant funding received from Washington each year. McDonnell and the LAPD find themselves in a particularly complex position, according to longtime observers of the department. The city has experienced heightened immigration raids and protests, with local leaders, including Mayor Karen Bass, openly condemning the White House’s policies. However, with Los Angeles preparing to host the World Cup and the Olympics – events demanding close coordination with federal agencies – the chief is carefully calibrating his public statements.
Over the past year, McDonnell has consistently emphasized the LAPD’s long-standing policy of non-involvement in civil immigration enforcement. Unlike police chiefs in Minneapolis, Portland, and Philadelphia, he has largely refrained from commenting publicly on the tactics employed by federal agents, reserving his strongest criticism for individuals accused of vandalism or violence during protests.
In a radio interview last spring, McDonnell underscored the importance of interagency cooperation, stating that “it’s critical that in a city as big, a city that’s as big a target for terrorism as Los Angeles, that we have a very close working relationship with federal, state and local partners.” He further asserted that the LAPD maintained the “best relationship in the nation in that regard.”
This commitment to collaboration was visibly demonstrated last week when McDonnell stood alongside FBI Director Kash Patel to announce the arrest of a Canadian former Olympic snowboarder accused of trafficking tons of cocaine through Los Angeles. At a press conference on Thursday, where city officials celebrated historically low homicide rates, McDonnell acknowledged that LAPD officials were “disturbed” by events unfolding in other parts of the country, alluding to the shooting of Pretti without directly naming him. He affirmed the department’s continued commitment to close collaboration with federal agencies on matters unrelated to immigration.
Explaining his decision not to enforce the mask ban, McDonnell expressed concern about potentially escalating conflict with “another armed agency” over what he deemed a minor offense. “It’s not a good policy decision and it wasn’t well thought out in my opinion,” he stated.
The LAPD’s stance contrasts sharply with growing criticism from law enforcement leaders, civil rights advocates, and legal experts who allege that ICE agents and other federal officers have been deviating from established best practices during arrests, crowd control, and public safety operations amid protests. Following a shooting involving federal agents in Portland, Oregon, in mid-January, the city’s police chief delivered an emotional statement expressing a desire to understand the concerns of Latino residents “through your voices, your concern, your fear, your anger.” Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal ignited a social media debate by describing ICE agents as “made-up, fake, wannabe law enforcement.” In Minneapolis, Police Chief Brian O’Hara reportedly warned officers privately that they would face job loss if they failed to intervene when federal agents used excessive force. And in New Orleans, the police superintendent recently questioned an ICE arrest of one of the agency’s own recruits.
This second-guessing has even extended to smaller cities, such as Helena, Montana, where the police chief withdrew officers from a regional drug task force due to its collaboration with U.S. Border Patrol agents.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the nation’s largest and most influential police chief organization, recently called on the White House to convene a meeting of local, state, and federal law enforcement partners to facilitate “policy-level discussions aimed at identifying a constructive path forward.”
Supporters of McDonnell argue that the role of police chief should remain apolitical, despite the fact that many predecessors have become national figures shaping public safety policy. They contend that speaking out risks inviting retribution from the White House and potentially jeopardizing the consistent flow of federal funding, which supports critical programs like de-escalation training for officers.
Assemblyman Mark González (D-Los Angeles), who previously opposed McDonnell’s willingness to collaborate with ICE during his tenure as Los Angeles County sheriff, now considers him a “great partner” who has supported recent anti-crime legislation. However, González expressed disappointment with McDonnell’s reluctance to condemn racial profiling and excessive force by federal agents in Minneapolis and elsewhere. “We have to trust in a chief who is able to say ICE engaging and detaining 5-year-old kids and detaining flower vendors is not what this system was set up to do,” González, the Assembly’s majority whip, stated. “It would help when you’d have law enforcement back up a community that they serve.”
Inside the LAPD, senior officials have reportedly supported McDonnell’s approach, suggesting that threats by officials in other cities to detain ICE agents have not materialized. “Have you seen them arrest any? No,” said Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton.
LAPD officers participate in nearly three dozen task forces with federal officials, sharing information and resources to combat criminal activity, including “human trafficking on Figueroa” and international theft rings, according to Hamilton, the department’s chief of detectives. He emphasized that cooperation with federal partners is essential, while acknowledging concerns from privacy rights groups that intelligence-sharing arrangements are being exploited in the government’s immigration crackdown. Hamilton affirmed that “there’s nothing occurring right now that’s going to affect our relationship with the federal government across the board.”
Art Acevedo, a former police chief in Houston and Miami, noted that taking a public stance on a divisive issue like immigration presents complications for any big-city chief. He cautioned that appearing to oppose President Trump carries “some political risks.” However, he also argued that chiefs in immigrant-rich cities like Houston and Los Angeles must weigh those risks against the potential for irreparable damage to community trust if they fail to condemn recent raids. “When you don’t speak out, the old adage that silence is deafening is absolutely true. You end up losing the public and you end up putting your own people at risk,” he said. “The truth is that when you are police chief you have a bully pulpit, and what you say or fail to say is important.”
John Sandweg, the former director of ICE under President Obama, echoed this sentiment, stating that federal authorities rely on local police and public cooperation for information and operational support. However, he warned that the immigration agency’s “zero tolerance” approach is jeopardizing that cooperation. “Ideally, in a perfect world, ICE is able to work within immigrant communities to identify the really bad actors,” he said. “But when you have this zero tolerance, when the quantity of arrests matters far more than the quality of arrests, you eliminate any ability to have that cooperation.”
