Lawmakers hear competing views on Keep Washington Working implementation and data-sharing risks

State lawmakers spent a work session hearing how Washington is implementing the Keep Washington Working Act and responding to federal pressure over immigration-related data and grant conditions.

Representatives of the Attorney General's office and the Governor's office described the state's approach as emphasizing limited data collection, agency coordination, and legal defense where federal funding conditions are challenged. "Keep Washington Working was passed bipartisan in 2019," said Shalia, a representative of the Office of the Attorney General, who gave an overview of the law's definitions and model policies and stressed that agencies should collect only data necessary for their functions or required by law.

Debbie Driver, Gov. Jay Inslee's legislative director, told the committee the governor expects agencies to follow the statute while also complying with federal requirements that can be tied to funding. Driver cited Medicaid as an example, saying federal Medicaid funding for Washington in the 2021–23 biennium was about $26 billion and noting that some federal programs require data sharing as a condition of participation.

Nathan Bays, deputy policy director in the governor's office, described a recent executive order creating an immigration subcabinet that will include representatives from every cabinet-level agency to coordinate on data privacy, health, and security; he also said the state has updated training through the Office of Privacy and Data Protection. Bays noted a recent district court ruling that blocked certain Department of Homeland Security grant conditions as coercive and said the state has prevailed repeatedly when it has challenged unlawful grant terms.

Advocates from the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), and One America argued the statute is legally defensible and that strong implementation is urgently needed. "The anti-commandeering doctrine means the federal government cannot force state agencies to do federal immigration work," said David Montes, staff attorney with the ACLU of Washington. Montes and others reiterated that the statute contains exceptions for compliance with signed judicial orders and other legal obligations.

Malou Chavez, executive director of NWIRP, said her group filed a 2025 lawsuit on behalf of a client alleging the Adams County sheriff's office violated state law and the client's federal constitutional protections by detaining him at the request of federal immigration officials. Chavez warned that erosion of community trust and broad data-sharing practices have led to more detentions and family separations; she cited regional detention-center population increases as part of the context.

Committee members pressed presenters on several points: whether a federal letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi — warning that the state law could contravene federal law — creates practical risks like lost federal funds or civil action; how executive orders relate to statutory authority; and whether the law distinguishes between legal and unauthorized immigration. State presenters responded that answers depend on the particular funding program and that the state intends to follow the law and litigate where necessary.

Members of the committee also heard a concrete data-sharing example: the Department of Labor had a data tool (DAP) shared under an agreement stating the data would not be used for immigration enforcement, but Homeland Security Investigations later used that data for immigration purposes; the state cut off HSI's access, officials said.

No formal votes or policy changes were made during the work session. Lawmakers encouraged follow up between agencies, the Attorney General's office, and committee members to identify practical implementation gaps, potential statutory improvements, and whether to pursue stronger enforcement mechanisms or private rights of action. The committee adjourned after a full panel Q&A.