House Bill 977, titled “Defend NC,” is a broad policy bill that combines immigration enforcement restrictions, temporary tax relief, and directives for state agencies to prepare for potential reductions in federal support. The bill would prohibit North Carolina criminal justice agencies, sheriff’s offices, and individual officers from assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with immigration-related apprehensions, arrests, removal warrants, or deputization for those purposes. It would also void any existing or future agreements that conflict with that prohibition and direct state training commissions to adopt conforming rules.
The bill also creates a one-year sales tax exemption for certain “tariff-affected goods of 2025,” defined as taxable items whose average sales price rose more than 50% in 2025 because of federal tariff changes, as determined by the Department of Commerce. In addition, the measure expresses legislative intent that the state and its local governments preserve federal promises to working North Carolinians, keep Medicaid eligibility available to eligible citizens, and have DHHS consider alternatives to reduced federal health and biomedical funding. It further requires education agencies to study federal education funds eliminated by the federal Department of Government Efficiency and report on replacement options, including a proposal to create a North Carolina Institute of Health funded with a portion of lost NIH funding.
If enacted, the bill would amend Chapter 17F to bar state and local law enforcement participation in specified federal immigration enforcement activities and would add a new sales tax exemption in Chapter 105 for qualifying tariff-affected goods during the 2025-2026 fiscal year. It would also impose reporting and planning obligations on DHHS, the State Board of Education, the UNC Board of Governors, and the State Board of Community Colleges, but it does not itself appropriate funds or create a fully operational new agency; instead, it directs study and consideration of funding responses.
The available legislative history shows no recorded committee debate or votes, and the bill was simply referred to the House Rules, Calendar, and Operations Committee. Based on the text, the bill appears to reflect a strong policy stance on immigration enforcement limits and a protective posture toward state services and federal funding disruptions. Because there is no transcript or vote record, there is no documented formal opposition or support in the provided materials.
Notable points of contention are likely to center on the immigration enforcement restrictions and the proposed response to federal funding changes. Supporters may view the bill as protecting immigrant communities, preserving state autonomy, and buffering North Carolina against federal policy shifts and tariff-driven price increases. Opponents may object to limiting cooperation with ICE, the potential fiscal effects of the sales tax exemption, and the bill’s directives that could lead to new state spending or administrative restructuring, especially the proposed North Carolina Institute of Health and the redirection of funds to replace federal losses.
The bill would amend North Carolina law to prohibit specified law enforcement cooperation with ICE, void conflicting agreements, and require rulemaking by criminal justice training commissions. It would also temporarily exempt qualifying tariff-affected goods from state sales tax for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, while directing state education and health agencies to study federal funding losses and report on replacement strategies. The measure would affect criminal justice agencies, sheriff’s offices, DHHS, and state education governing bodies, but many of its fiscal and programmatic provisions are framed as studies, intent statements, or planning directives rather than immediate appropriations.
The bill’s overall tone is assertive and protective, emphasizing defense of North Carolinians against federal immigration enforcement involvement, tariff-related price increases, and possible federal funding reductions. With no committee transcript or vote record available, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure directly. From the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of immigrant protections, state autonomy, and economic relief, while likely drawing criticism from those favoring cooperation with federal immigration authorities or opposing new state mandates and tax exemptions.
The main points of contention are likely the ban on local and state law enforcement assistance to ICE, which could be opposed by law-and-order advocates and supported by immigrant-rights proponents, and the temporary sales tax exemption, which could raise concerns about revenue loss or administrative complexity. Another likely dispute is the bill’s response to federal funding reductions, including the proposed North Carolina Institute of Health and the requirement that agencies study replacement funding for education and health programs. Supporters may argue these provisions protect vulnerable residents and institutions, while critics may see them as politically motivated, fiscally uncertain, or beyond the proper role of state government.