Fact Check Analysis: North Carolina Republicans seek to force top Democrats to fall in line with Trump agenda

Fact-Checking North Carolina’s Immigration Policies and Legislative Actions

Introduction

A recent Associated Press article describes efforts by North Carolina Republicans to enforce state cooperation with federal immigration policies and limit the attorney general’s ability to challenge the federal government. The article raises concerns about executive power, immigration enforcement, and potential partisan motivations. We fact-checked several key claims to assess their accuracy and determine whether there is missing context or bias.

Historical Context

North Carolina has long been a battleground state with divided government, often leading to legislative efforts limiting the powers of governors and attorneys general based on party control. Immigration enforcement has been particularly contentious, with past debates over sheriff cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and state participation in federal immigration programs.

Fact-Checking Key Claims

Claim #1: North Carolina’s proposed law would force law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The article states that North Carolina Republicans approved a bill requiring certain law enforcement agencies to participate in the 287(g) program, which allows local officers to act as federal immigration agents. This claim is accurate. The bill mandates cooperation with ICE for several state agencies, including the Department of Public Safety and the State Bureau of Investigation. A similar requirement was imposed on county sheriffs last year. However, the article does not fully explain how 287(g) agreements function, including that local agencies are not required to enter such agreements unless state law mandates compliance. [Source: ICE]

Claim #2: The attorney general would be prevented from challenging presidential executive orders.

The report claims that a newly proposed measure would prohibit North Carolina’s attorney general from challenging federal executive orders in court. This is mostly accurate; the measure would restrict the attorney general’s ability to enter lawsuits against executive orders without approval. However, it does not completely prohibit challenges—it adds legislative oversight, aligning it with similar laws in other states such as Iowa. This nuance is not fully explored in the article. [Source: Legal Policy Analysis]

Claim #3: Republicans argue that voters’ support for Trump justifies these measures.

The article references statements from Republican legislators suggesting that since Trump won North Carolina in the last election, these policies have voter support. While Trump did win North Carolina by approximately 3 points in 2024, the article does not provide polling data indicating how voters feel about these policies specifically. Public opinion on state-mandated immigration enforcement measures varies widely, with some polling suggesting opposition to increased federal-state collaboration in immigration enforcement. [Source: Pew Research]

Conclusion

The article accurately describes legislative efforts by North Carolina Republicans to increase cooperation with federal immigration agencies and limit the attorney general’s ability to challenge presidential orders. However, it does not fully explore the history and legal context of similar state actions across the U.S. Additionally, while the article presents quotations from both parties, its framing suggests a negative connotation regarding Republican efforts, which could indicate subtle bias.