Maui County Council members are reconsidering a long-standing agreement that places local officers in the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, as national debates over immigration enforcement reach the islands. Bill 92, which would authorize the mayor to sign a memorandum of understanding with the FBI, has shifted from routine paperwork to a contentious issue, with activists urging its termination and officials expressing civil-liberty concerns. What was once a routine administrative renewal has become a focal point for discussions on local control and immigrant safety.
What the agreement would do
The ordinance would let the mayor enter into an MOU with the FBI’s Honolulu Joint Terrorism Task Force that, by its own terms, asks participating agencies to provide personnel for at least two years and requires that those officers be federally deputized while assigned to the JTTF. The MOU places JTTF personnel under FBI supervision during task-force work and lays out training, security-clearance and indemnification provisions. The initial committee vote that advanced the measure last fall was reported by Maui Now, and the agreement text is available on the county’s legislation site, Legistar.
Council members shift amid mainland operations
The political wind shifted in late January after high-profile federal immigration operations on the mainland unsettled local leaders and residents. Several council members who had previously supported the agreement said they can no longer back it. “Because of what the feds are doing nationally, I just can’t support what we’re doing with them locally,” Council Member Gabe Johnson told Honolulu Civil Beat, which reported that Budget Committee Chair Yuki Lei Sugimura planned to urge opposition and that Council Chair Alice Lee has asked for an outside legal review.
Police chief wants explicit limits
Maui Police Chief John Pelletier, who submitted the agreement for renewal last year, told council members he supports interagency cooperation but wants guardrails written into the MOU to protect immigrants and bystanders. Pelletier said he wanted language “that explicitly states it does not authorize enforcement of administrative immigration violations by his officers,” according to Honolulu Civil Beat. He argued that such a tweak would preserve public-safety benefits while aiming to limit any entanglement in federal immigration actions.
Activists keep up pressure
Local groups, including Maui Indivisible, have mounted sustained letter-writing and public-testimony campaigns and rallied outside the County Building to demand changes or termination of the agreement. Organizers told Maui News that the national pattern of aggressive immigration enforcement has made immigrant communities on Maui especially vulnerable and anxious about shared task-force arrangements. Activists say persistent outreach helped prompt renewed scrutiny from council committees.
National flashpoint driving local angst
Recent killings during federal immigration operations on the mainland have sharpened concern about how local officers could be drawn into contentious enforcement work. The killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis in late January and other incidents prompted national outrage and fresh scrutiny of federal tactics, and major outlets have reported on the investigations and the public reaction. Those mainland events were cited repeatedly by council members and advocates as they reassessed the local agreement, according to national reporting.
Legal implications
The MOU spells out deputation under federal law for officers assigned to the JTTF, requires Top Secret/SCI clearances for some task-force roles, and notes that a participating agency may withdraw by giving at least 60 days’ written notice, provisions that could matter if the county seeks to add carve-outs or pull back. Those clauses appear in the actual agreement text and the accompanying bill file on the county’s legislation site, Legistar. The document also makes clear that the FBI and DOJ retain discretion over representation and indemnification for task-force personnel.
What happens next
The bill has been moved between committees since it was submitted last summer, and the council has previously paused action to allow more community input and legal review. In October the council chair temporarily removed the item from a meeting agenda to allow additional public discussion, according to a county press release, and council members now say they want a clearer outside legal analysis before any final vote. With advocates, the police chief and multiple council members pushing for different fixes, the issue is likely to resurface in committee hearings before a final decision.
