Pittsburgh City Council formalizes policy rejecting cooperation with ICE

Hallie Lauer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Apr 7, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

PITTSBURGH — The Pittsburgh City Council on Tuesday formally codified a long-standing policy that the city will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, while delaying action on more far-reaching restrictions.

Last month, council members Barb Warwick, Erika Strassburger and Deb Gross introduced a package of bills aimed at defining the city’s relationship with U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement. Two of the measures were given unanimous approval Tuesday morning while the others have been held for further discussion.

Tuesday morning’s approval formally makes law that Pittsburgh will not sign a 287(g) agreement, which outlines a voluntary partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents that allows local law enforcement to perform some immigration enforcement activities.

Former Mayor Ed Gainey, current Mayor Corey O’Connor and Police Chief Jason Lando have all promised that the city would not cooperate with ICE. Tuesday’s approval now gives the city a formal, written policy and enforcement measures that can be enacted should a city employee violate the noncooperation agreement.

Under the new law, accountability will depend on the employee involved. If it’s a police officer, for example, the Citizen Police Review Board would handle the investigation and subsequent punishment.

If it’s a city official or employee, the Office of Municipal Investigations would handle it.

Allegheny County Council recently approved similar legislation. Other municipalities across the region have gone in the other direction and signed 287(g) agreements with the federal agency.

“I think what we have here is a really strong bill and really thoughtful. It’s codifying what we say were are, which is a welcoming city for all,” Strassburger said last week. “You should not fear going to school, going to work, going to a place of worship, going to the emergency room or utilizing essential city services because of fear of detainment … This legislation is about trust and allowing people to feel safe accessing our city services or call 911 when it calls for it.”

She added that cities can do very little the stop the actions of federal agents and have very little power in convincing Congress to make the path to citizenship more clear.

“But what we do have control over is our own employees and our own budget and the activities that they do and don't engage with,” she said.

The second piece of legislation passed Tuesday asks the city’s Department of Innovation and Performance to put together a report on any surveillance technologies the city currently operates.

“This is a time when we’re facing really rapid change in the capabilities of technologies,” Gross said.

Both bills received unanimous approval.

The other parts of the package of bills have been held for further legal review. The two pieces of legislation would prohibit ICE from using city-owned properties for their operations and from entering private city-managed areas without a warrant.

Gross noted that the language in those two bills was “far and above” what the county had recently approved and understood the desire from other members to discuss further and have the city’s law department review.

“I wanted to put this language out there,” she said last week. “I think it's our job to defend our constituents and think it's our job to project their rights.”