A Washington state legislative hearing devolved into chaos as lawmakers clashed over controversial bills targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, forcing an abrupt 15-minute recess amid accusations of inflammatory testimony and procedural violations.

Committee Hearing Erupts Over ICE Restrictions

The confrontation occurred during a House Community Safety Committee hearing on House Bill 2641, dubbed the “ICE Out Act of 2026. ” The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tarra Simmons, would permanently bar anyone hired as an ICE officer from obtaining law enforcement positions in Washington state. Rep. Jenny Graham, the ranking Republican member, demanded a point of order when Simmons claimed ICE agents were “breaking windows of people’s vehicles” and “snatching individuals off our streets.”

Committee Chair Rep. Roger Goodman cautioned Simmons against using “inflammatory phrases,” but allowed her testimony to continue. Simmons defended her statements, arguing that ICE was “ripping families apart” and questioning the character of anyone willing to join the agency during current operations. The heated exchange prompted Graham to request a Republican caucus, leading to the temporary recess.

Republican Pushback on Character Attacks

Former Chelan County Sheriff Brian Burnett, now a Republican representative, challenged the arbitrary January 2025 cutoff date, questioning why qualified candidates should be barred without criminal violations. Graham later criticized the proceedings, stating that Simmons made “flat-out untrue” statements about ICE officers who are “doing their lawful jobs to uphold the U.S. Constitution.” She referenced the murder of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old student killed by an illegal immigrant, as an example of why ICE enforcement matters.

Second Bill Targets Local Cooperation

The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 2648, which would limit how local law enforcement agencies can cooperate with ICE officials. Sponsor Rep. Mary Fosse claimed local officers were experiencing “heartbreak” and “confusion” about federal immigration enforcement activities. Graham accused Chairman Goodman of preventing proper questioning and violating procedural rules, leading to a tense exchange where Goodman asserted his authority as chair.

Constitutional and Legal Implications

The legislative battle reflects broader tensions between state and federal immigration enforcement priorities. The bills represent an unprecedented attempt to restrict future employment opportunities for federal law enforcement officers based solely on their service dates. Legal experts question whether such restrictions would withstand constitutional challenges, particularly regarding interstate commerce and equal protection clauses. The emotional testimony and procedural breakdowns signal intense opposition that could complicate passage through the Republican-minority legislature.