In the wake of widespread immigration raids across Los Angeles County, Culver City is taking a closer look at how its local policies may intersect with federal immigration enforcement. At a special City Council meeting on July 9, officials discussed proposed changes to the city’s mutual aid protocols, surveillance contracts, and tenant protections, marking one of the most direct municipal responses to the recent uptick in federal activity.
The emergency meeting followed a high-profile ICE and National Guard operation at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, which included the use of armored vehicles and led to multiple detentions. Immigration advocates and local officials, including Culver City Councilmember Bubba Fish, have expressed concern that federal raids are intensifying without adequate local safeguards.
In response, Culver City is evaluating whether its police mutual aid policies could allow for indirect support of immigration enforcement actions. The issue gained urgency after the LAPD spent approximately $30 million responding to large protests in early June, some of which were triggered by ICE activity in the region. Culver City Police Chief Jason Sims stated at the meeting that while Culver City officers did participate in mutual aid deployments in downtown Los Angeles on June 8 and 9, the officers were already on duty and did not receive overtime. He also emphasized that the city had recently declined a request from ICE to use its facilities.
“We are not available to help ICE in any way,” Sims said, referencing the city’s 2017 sanctuary city resolution and its alignment with California’s Values Act (SB 54), which limits cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.
The city also considered phasing out its contract with Flock Safety, a private company that provides automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology. A 2023 investigation by the ACLU of Northern California found that at least 71 law enforcement agencies in the state had improperly shared ALPR data with out-of-state agencies, in some cases in violation of California law. A separate report from 404 Media in May 2024 found thousands of instances where law enforcement conducted vehicle lookups that appeared to support immigration enforcement efforts.
Councilmember Fish raised concerns that even without explicit cooperation with ICE, such surveillance tools create risks for undocumented residents and others targeted by federal agencies. “Strong data privacy laws are no longer enough,” he wrote in a newsletter the day before the meeting. “We must dismantle the infrastructure that enables surveillance and tracking.”
In another notable move, the City Council discussed the possibility of implementing a temporary eviction moratorium for residents impacted by immigration raids. Advocates argue that raids have made it unsafe for many street vendors and day laborers to work, increasing the risk of housing insecurity. Councilmembers are expected to bring the proposal back for further discussion at a future meeting.
In contrast, the City of Los Angeles has not taken similar public steps to examine the impact of ICE operations on housing or local police collaboration. While Los Angeles passed a sanctuary city ordinance in 2023, critics point out that LAPD’s past leadership has opposed such policies. Then-Chief Jim McDonnell publicly rejected efforts to limit cooperation with immigration authorities during his tenure, and LAPD has historically shared data with federal partners in ways that sanctuary advocates say undermine local protections.
The discussion in Culver City comes amid growing concern over the broader implications of federal enforcement under the current administration. Recent federal legislation—informally dubbed “The Big Terrible Bill” by some local officials—boosted ICE’s budget to over $12 billion, surpassing the defense budgets of many countries.
Culver City’s deliberations mark one of the most proactive local responses to these developments in the Los Angeles region. While final decisions on surveillance and housing policies are still pending, the city’s actions set it apart from neighboring jurisdictions. A follow-up meeting is expected later this month to continue the discussion on mutual aid, rent protections, and the city’s use of surveillance technology.