TN bill proposes removing public officials who ‘disrupt' ICE efforts
The filing of Senate Bill 1464 comes after Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell enacted Executive Order 30, which requires the Metro Nashville Police Department and Metro councilmembers to document and publish interactions with federal immigration authorities.
In May, a city document detailing 35 immigration-related interactions between Metro Police and federal agencies was released. The report initially named individuals, including a Metro Council member, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement analyst, and Homeland Security officers. However, the names were later removed from the public version of the report.
PREVIOUS | TN House Speaker demands Nashville mayor rescind executive order tied to ICE interactions
Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) has since demanded that the mayor rescind the order, claiming it jeopardizes state and federal agents. However, Mayor O'Connell stated he has no plans to rescind the order, adding that it 'helps makes sure that nobody can accuse local, state or federal entities of activity that did or did not occur.'
Now, Sexton has joined Senator Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) in filing Senate Bill 1464.
'Mayor O'Connell's decision to release sensitive information undermines the rule of law, violates public trust, and jeopardizes the safety of those who protect our communities. This bill makes it clear: if you use your office to interfere with federal immigration enforcement or endanger officers, there will be swift and serious consequences. Tennessee will not be a sanctuary for lawlessness,' said Sexton.
According to the filing, SB14 will:
Make it a Class E felony for state and local officials to negligently release identifying information of officers involved in immigration enforcement;
Provide for outster from office for those who violate the law;
Expand the confidentiality protections under the Tennessee Public Records Act to cover undercover officers and sensitive enforcement activity;
Strengthen existing penalties in state law for unauthorized disclosures of protected law enforcement information.
'The people of Tennessee expect their elected leaders to protect law enforcement—not endanger them,' said Leader Johnson. 'When a public official like Mayor O'Connell chooses political activism over public safety, especially by interfering with federal immigration enforcement, he has no business holding office in this state.'
⏩
Sexton added that Tennessee stands with law enforcement and 'will not become California, and Nashville will not become LA or San Francisco.'
The bill will be formally considered during the 2026 legislative session. The legislation is reportedly co-sponsored by all the Senate Republican leadership — including Lt. Governor Randy McNally, Speaker Pro Tempore Ferrell Haile, Republican Caucus Chairman Ken Yager — as well as Finance Committee Chairman Bo Watson.
News 2 has reached out to O'Connell's office for comment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
28 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump team hurls accusations at Obama over 2016 election interference
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard Wednesday continued to accuse former President Obama's administration of a "manipulation of intelligence" around Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The big picture: Nearly a decade after he won, President Trump remains fixated on disproving the thoroughly investigated and widely held conclusion that Russia interfered to aid his campaign. Back in 2020, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee — including now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio — concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win but did not hack election infrastructure to manipulate cast ballots. State of play: Gabbard released a document Wednesday that she alleges undermines previous findings from the Obama-era intelligence community that Russia favored a Trump win in 2016. She wrote that the Obama administration was "promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election." Gabbard released another memo last week, with which she accused the Obama administration of a "treasonous conspiracy" to sabotage Trump's presidency in 2016. Driving the news: During a White House press briefing Wednesday, Gabbard again accused Obama and his national security team of directing "the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false." She alleged, "They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump when selling it to the American people as though it were true." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on the claims, saying, "The truth is that Trump never had anything to do with Russia" and alleging that "the worst part of this is Obama knew that truth." Zoom out: Asked for comment Wednesday, Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush referred Axios to his Tuesday statement where he called the allegations "outrageous" and "bizarre." He said in that statement, "Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes." In response that statement, Gabbard said Wednesday that Obama's office is "trying to deflect away from their culpability in what is a historic scandal." Asked if the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity protects Obama from any possible prosecution, Leavitt said Trump "wants to see all those who perpetuated this fraud against our country, who betrayed our country and the Constitution to be thoroughly investigated and held accountable."
Time Magazine
29 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
To Bounce Back, Democrats Need a New John F. Kennedy Moment
Democrats are still reeling from their second defeat at the hands of President Donald Trump in eight years. They are fighting back against his policies while trying to assess where the party went wrong and how to rejuvenate its hopes. Thankfully for them, the Democratic Party's almost 200 year history offers cause for hope. Democrats have bounced back many times before, including seminal victories in 1912, 1932, 1960, 1992, and 2008. This history reveals that Democrats win when they present their own, clear vision for the country and a concrete platform articulating just what they will do if victorious—one that connects with the public's interests, desires, and needs. No case better illustrates this paradigm than John F. Kennedy's win in 1960. Democrats had controlled the White House from 1933 until 1952, when Republican Dwight Eisenhower, a World War II leader who promised to end the Korean War and to uproot corruption in Washington, beat their lackluster presidential candidate, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson. That led to a period in which Democrats struggled to figure out what the party stood for. But the creation of the Democratic Advisory Council (DAC) in 1957 helped to develop a new, forward-thinking agenda. And Kennedy provided a youthful, charismatic spokesperson. This combination catapulted Democrats back to the White House and led to major domestic policy achievements over the next eight years. Early in 1953, economist and Democratic strategist John K. Galbraith issued a call to action. He observed that his party understood that opposing Eisenhower and his agenda wasn't sufficient to rebound. Yet, 'it would be hard at this moment to say what the Democratic Party is for.' Galbraith acknowledged that his party had broad principles. Democrats favored 'tidying up the unfinished business of the New Deal' and wanted to expand the economy. But virtually no one could explain what that might involve in 'any great detail.' Read More: Remember JFK Not for His Assassination, But for His Civil Rights Advocacy Initially, party leaders ignored Galbraith's plea. In 1956, Eisenhower beat Stevenson by an even bigger margin than he had in 1952, despite Democrats adopting a slightly more progressive platform shaped by Galbraith and his reform-minded colleagues. The second consecutive loss suggested that only more dramatic changes could produce a Democratic comeback. In 1957, Democratic National Committee Chair Paul Butler established the DAC to stake out issues that would support a positive platform in 1960. The Council identified five policy stances that should anchor the party's agenda: federal aid to education, a national health insurance program (the forerunner of Medicare), housing for the elderly, urban renewal, and a firm stance on civil rights. It selected some of these positions because of concerns percolating up from the grassroots. For example, the public wanted a stronger educational system. As the DAC recognized, however, many states 'cannot do all that must be done and financial assistance from the Federal government has become imperative.' Similarly, the DAC's 'Policy Statement' noted that the growth in families in the 1960s was projected to require 'doubling the annual rate of house production to a level of about 2,000,000 per year.' The country also confronted 'the necessity to proceed rapidly with slum clearance and urban renewal.' On other issues, the DAC was simply reemphasizing longstanding Democratic priorities. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman had proposed national health insurance, only to see opposition from the American Medical Association and indifference by Republican leaders kill it. Many of the DAC's positions found their way into the 1960 Democratic platform. But a better agenda alone wasn't sufficient. Democrats needed a fresh messenger, and Kennedy fit the bill. The Massachusetts senator had youth and charisma and he was vigorous and dashing. He also came across well on the new medium of the day—television. Kennedy projected an energetic America; he promised "to get this country moving again," and he used the word "future" often in campaign speeches. Kennedy and the Democrats captured the public spirit of the times: a desire for change and a sense of America's potential. There was a growing public restlessness. The Soviet Union's 1957 launch of Sputnik, the first earth satellite, had jarred Americans into realizing that they were falling behind in science and education. The widespread, though incorrect, perception that the Soviets had more intercontinental ballistic missiles than the U.S.—the so-called missile gap—also fueled a sense that the U.S. was slipping. This prodded Americans away from the complacency of the post-war era and toward a more progressive and assertive attitude on everything from Civil Rights to scientific research. Even Eisenhower knew that the public was losing faith in the status quo. In 1960, he empaneled a 'Commission on National Goals.' Its report, Goals for Americans, called for investment in education and the arts, while recommending progressive economic policies to keep the economy expanding and unemployment low. The report also called for 'equality of justice and opportunity, better government, better education, better medical care, more productive economy.' But Americans were alienated for reasons that ran even deeper. As part of a series in Life magazine and The New York Times on 'the national purpose,' historian Clinton Rossiter explained that the nation had lost the 'youthful sense of mission' that had propelled it to greatness. We were once a people 'on the make' but now Americans were more like a people who 'has it made,' content to tolerate mediocrity and unwilling to energetically confront new challenges. Other writers sounded the same theme: it was time to get America out of its mood of complacency and moving into the future. Democrats capitalized on these sentiments. In his opening speech to the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, Butler set the tone. 'In the day when our republic was young, national ideals overwhelmed all else,' he said. 'Today, almost everything else seems to overwhelm national ideals. If there is any meaning to the American purpose, it has become obscured in eight years of purposelessness.' Kennedy's acceptance speech built on that theme: America needed to do better—and could with the right leadership. The candidate promised an exciting future but one that would require meeting challenges: '[T]he American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high‚to permit the customary passions of political debate…. Today our concern must be with [the] future.' Read More: What These 3 Longstanding JFK Myths Reveal About America The nation needed to deal with the threat of Soviet communism abroad. At home, 'an urban population explosion has overcrowded our schools, cluttered up our suburbs, and increased the squalor of our slums.' Further, the 'peaceful revolution' for civil rights demanding an end to racial discrimination 'has strained at the leashes imposed by timid executive leadership.' Like the essayists in Life and The New York Times, the candidate recognized that the country needed more than policy prescriptions. 'Too many Americans have lost their way, their will and their sense of historic purpose. It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership—new men to cope with new problems and new opportunities.' Kennedy called for the nation to advance a 'New Frontier,' a term that 'sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them.' Meanwhile, Kennedy's opponent, Vice President Richard Nixon, seemed to embody what voters were tiring of—the stale complacency and status quo of the 1950s. Kennedy put it this way in one of his final campaign rallies, on Nov. 1: 'Mr. Nixon and the Republicans stand for the past. We stand for the future.' Some may say it was an oversimplification, but it connected with the public. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who served as a Kennedy advisor, explained that he won by stressing 'peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, and purpose." These new ideas resonated with voters. Kennedy narrowly defeated Nixon, ushering in eight years of Democratic control and seminal achievements: the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, and more. Today, Democrats are once again in the doldrums. But they can rebound by following the prescription that elevated John F. Kennedy to the White House. They need to provide fresh answers that address the problems plaguing the U.S. Once they have an agenda, the party will also need a youthful, charismatic candidate to communicate this agenda. That combination will convince voters that the Democrats are the party of the future, while Republicans are the party of the status quo. Bruce W. Dearstyne is a historian in Albany, New York. His most recent book is Progressive New York: Change and Reform in the Empire State, 1900-1920 -- A Reader (2024). His next book, Revolutionary New York: 250 Years of Social Change, will be published early in 2026. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
House Dems launch multi-committee Epstein attack on Republicans on last day before recess
Locked out of power, House Democrats are using every opportunity to further divide Republicans over the Jeffrey Epstein saga. In committee markups, hearings and in procedural motions on the House floor, Democrats have sought to force votes that would force Republicans to take positions on whether to release the Epstein files — slowing down legislative business and, in some cases, grinding it to a halt. It's part of a formal, concerted strategy being backed by House Democratic leadership, according to a person granted anonymity to share private party deliberations. And it's already forcing House Republicans to respond. Speaker Mike Johnson already announced the House would leave for August recess a day earlier than scheduled after a clash in the Rules Committee over an Epstein-related amendment prevented some legislation from being considered on the House floor. Republican leaders aren't planning to allow any votes on legislation that would compel, or express support for, the release of the Epstein files after the August recess after the Trump administration moved to release grand jury information related to the case. But hours before the House was scheduled to take its last floor votes for the week before breaking for recess, Democrats were pursuing workarounds to that blockade. The GOP-led House Education and Workforce Committee pulled an entire bill — a measure related to enhancing detection of human trafficking — from consideration during a markup because Democrats were rolling out amendments tying the bill to Epstein. One amendment, from Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), would have required the Department of Labor to include case studies about Epstein's affairs as part of training efforts, while another filed by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) would have mandated the agency to release all unclassified documents about Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. Bonamici said in an interview former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta was pressured to resign from his post as U.S. Attorney in Florida due to an outcry over his handling of the Epstein case: 'We think people should know what information they have, and if [Republicans] support transparency, they should vote for this amendment to release that information.' During a House Energy and Commerce markup on student athlete legislation, Democrats forced Republicans to take another vote to release materials related to the case against the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender who died in his jail cell by suicide in 2019. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) introduced an amendment during that meeting that would require Trump to publicize Epstein documents related to Larry Nassar, the former Michigan State University and U.S. gymnastics doctor who was charged with sexually assaulting hundreds of girls and women. News reports in 2023 indicated that Epstein had attempted to contact Nassar while the two were both incarcerated for sex crimes. Veasey's amendment also would have tied the purpose of the underlying bill being debated in committee — to codify the public rights of student athletes and provide legal protections to college sports officials — would not go into effect until those materials were released. Republicans voted to table, or kill, the amendment after House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) ruled that it was not germane — a common tactic to swat away proposals from the minority party. Nick Niedzwiadek and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.
