DRIP-9(7) DISCUSSION ON BILL 92, CD1 (2025), AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FOR A JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE (DRIP-9(7))
I submit this testimony in support of the Maui Police Chief and in appreciation of his leadership, experience, and willingness to engage transparently with the Council and the public on the proposed agreement authorizing participation in a Joint Terrorism Task Force with the FBI.
Chief Pelletier brings with him extensive experience managing complex, multi-agency operations in a large metropolitan environment, including events that required coordination across local, state, and federal partners. That experience is valuable to Maui County, particularly when evaluating low-probability but high-impact risks that require preparedness rather than reaction.
I support the Chief’s efforts to ensure that Maui is not isolated from critical intelligence, resources, and inter-agency coordination when it matters most. I also believe that a clear public record explaining the practical benefits of this agreement will strengthen community trust and the County’s position going forward.
In that spirit, I respectfully ask the Chief to address the following questions for the record:
Setting aside references to 9/11 or generalized national security concerns, could you describe a realistic scenario specific to Maui where MPD’s formal participation in a JTTF would materially improve early awareness, prevention, or response compared to informal, case-by-case cooperation with federal agencies?
You have noted that there is potential risk and liability if MPD is not part of the task force. Could you explain, in practical terms, how this agreement reduces institutional risk to the County while preserving MPD’s command authority, oversight, and accountability over its personnel?
Based on your experience in Las Vegas, can you share an example where task-force participation provided measurable value to the community before a crisis occurred—such as intelligence sharing, disruption, or prevention—that would not have been possible without a formal task-force relationship?
I appreciate the Chief’s leadership and the Council’s careful consideration of this matter. Clear answers to these questions will help the public better understand the scope, safeguards, and value of this agreement, and will strengthen confidence in both MPD and County governance.
I am testifying in strong opposition to Bill 92, which would authorize the Mayor of Maui County to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Bill 92 is a Trojan horse for American fascism that will localize the types of deadly violence we are witnessing on the continent right now, including the killings of nurse practitioner Alex Pretti and legal observer Renee Goode.
The bill’s reference to “national security” in the ostensible interest of counterterrorism is in fact a dogwhistle used to advance authoritarian policing and surveillance programs designed to protect the terror of American empire.
To be clear, the United States is a terror state. The U.S. exists because of genocide against Indigenous nations and the enslavement of African peoples. Calls to defend national security are nothing more than calls to protect this ongoing legacy of terrorism against Black and Indigenous Peoples of Color across the Global South.
This is to say: we have seen this pattern before.
In the Pacific, American imperialism has long relied on the language of national security to justify its terrorism: the nuclear destruction of Bikini Atoll, the military occupation of the Philippines, the bombing of Kahoʻolawe, and the violent overthrow and ongoing occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
During World War II, the U.S. government used national security and counter-subversion rhetoric to justify the mass incarceration of Japanese communities. Over 120,000 people, the majority U.S. citizens, were stripped of homes, families, and livelihoods based solely on race. Entire communities were treated as inherently suspect and subjected to collective punishment in the internment camps.
Under the banner of national security, federal programs like COINTELPRO hunted and murdered U.S. citizens, including members of the American Indian Movement, Black Panther Party, Young Lords, the Women’s Liberation Movement, the Gay Liberation Front, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, while simultaneously destabilizing countries across the Global South.
After 9/11, this same national security rhetoric was redeployed against Muslim, Arab, South Asian, and Sikh communities. Surveillance, informants, raids, watchlists, and prosecutions expanded dramatically. Currently, violence against these communities intensifies as support continues for Palestinian liberation and the end of U.S.-backed Israeli settler colonialism, apartheid, occupation, and genocide.
And today, under the ongoing terrorism of ICE, immigrants have once again become primary targets of the American police state. National security rhetoric is being used to justify raids, detention centers, family separation, deportations, and collaboration between local police and federal agencies. Undocumented people, asylum seekers, refugees, and mixed-status families are framed as threats. Those who defend immigrants, provide mutual aid, or resist deportations are being surveilled, criminalized, and killed.
Inviting the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force into Maui embeds our county deeper into this violent history and present, one we know in our bones and owe our ancestors to stop.
Bill 92 does not make us safer. If we truly seek to counter fear and terror, we must invest in mutual aid, securing basic needs, and decriminalizing the organizers protecting community daily from American terrorism.
I urge this council to reject Bill 92 and choose a path grounded not in terror, but in justice.
KEEP MAUI RESIDENTS SAFE WE ARE NOT DOMESTIC TERRORISTS WHEN WE PEACEFULLY PROTEST EXERCISING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
Deleted User
about 1 month ago
I support Bill 92, CD1 (2025) and thank the West Maui councilmember for advancing this measure that restores Maui’s full participation in the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Authorizing the Mayor to execute the FBI’s JTTF Memorandum of Understanding ensures Maui can coordinate with the full range of federal partners when national-security circumstances require it. The multi-agency task force model is the law-enforcement standard for complex, cross-jurisdictional threats, and it allows federal agencies, including Homeland Security Investigations—the investigative arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement—to participate when the FBI determines their expertise is relevant.
Recent national events have underscored that federal immigration enforcement operations can involve challenging, high-pressure situations and consequences that exceed local capacity. In Minnesota, for example, federal immigration enforcement agents have been involved in a high-profile operation that has led to fatal shootings, protests, and legal scrutiny, raising questions about how federal agencies coordinate with state and local partners in dynamic and sensitive environments. In those contexts, structured cooperation through JTTFs allows local law enforcement to work with federal partners in a professional, legally grounded way rather than ad hoc or reactive engagements that lack coordination.
With a clear framework in place, ICE-HSI and other federal partners can assist without needing separate local agreements or approvals each time, which improves operational efficiency and avoids delays when speed and discretion matter. This is not about routine immigration enforcement; it is about preparedness for low-probability but high-impact threats that require unity of effort across federal and local jurisdictions.
I submit this testimony in opposition to Bill 92, CD1 (2025), based on the legal, operational, and governance consequences of authorizing participation in a Joint Terrorism Task Force without a demonstrated local necessity and without meaningful structural limits.
This ordinance authorizes the Mayor to execute the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and any amendments consistent with its purpose and scope. That scope is not narrow. The MOU expressly establishes a multi-agency federal task force structure, permits the inclusion of additional federal partners at the discretion of the FBI, and places investigative control, records, and public communications exclusively at the federal level. Once executed, Maui relinquishes meaningful operational visibility and local discretion over activities conducted under this framework.
This is not a procedural formality. It is a structural authorization with continuing effect.
No evidence has been presented in the legislative record demonstrating that Maui currently faces a terrorism threat requiring a standing, expanded federal task force presence. There has been no showing of immigration-linked terrorism, cross-border facilitation, or transnational logistics activity specific to Maui that would justify normalizing this framework rather than reserving it for clearly defined, exceptional circumstances.
Nevertheless, this bill authorizes a permanent pathway for federal agencies beyond the FBI to operate within Maui County under a counterterrorism umbrella, without a triggering condition, sunset provision, or requirement for periodic demonstration of necessity. Whether such participation is exercised immediately is beside the point. The legal authority is granted in advance and without limitation.
This decision must also be evaluated in light of the public record and committee conduct of the West Maui councilmember who advanced this measure. In official settings, that councilmember has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of United States governance, framed American authority as historically illegitimate, and used language characterizing certain lawful residents as “settlers” or otherwise not belonging. While such rhetoric may be protected as political speech, it is not neutral governance.
When a public official consistently casts a subset of lawful residents as illegitimate and simultaneously advances policies that impose disproportionate burdens or exclusions on that group, a reasonable observer may conclude that governance is being shaped by ideology rather than neutral public purpose. The issue is not speech; it is the translation of ideology into policy.
Against that backdrop, advancing legislation that expands federal enforcement architecture—while simultaneously disavowing the legitimacy of the constitutional authority from which that enforcement derives—reflects a troubling inconsistency. Federal authority is either legitimate and exercised with restraint and necessity, or it is illegitimate and should not be selectively empowered when politically convenient. One cannot coherently claim both.
The Joint Terrorism Task Force model is inherently opaque. Records are federally controlled. Media disclosures are federally managed. Councilmembers are explicitly advised that they will not receive updates regarding task force activities. Such confidentiality may be appropriate in narrowly tailored, threat-driven circumstances. It is not appropriate as a default condition adopted without a defined local risk environment or accountability mechanism.
It is also important to understand how this authorization functions in practice. Joint Terrorism Task Forces are multi-agency by design. While led by the FBI, they routinely include other federal agencies when the FBI determines their involvement is relevant. This includes Homeland Security Investigations, the criminal investigative arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Once Maui authorizes participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, ICE-HSI may participate in task force operations at the discretion of the FBI, without further County approval, separate agreement, or public notice. That participation may occur repeatedly and confidentially as part of ongoing task force activity, not solely in response to isolated emergencies.
Whether or not ICE-HSI involvement is immediately exercised is not the issue. The legal pathway is established permanently by this ordinance. That is a significant policy decision, particularly in the absence of evidence that Maui faces an immigration-linked terrorism threat requiring a standing federal enforcement presence.
If federal coordination involving ICE is truly necessary, it should be justified openly, limited clearly, and reviewed periodically. This bill does none of those things. Instead, it authorizes the structure first and leaves the consequences to be discovered later.
Authorizing secrecy without necessity is not preparedness. It is abdication.
Bill 92 does not merely preserve an emergency option. It normalizes a federal task force framework in Maui County absent a demonstrated threat, absent local oversight, and absent any requirement to reassess need. That expansion of authority is permanent by design, even if exercised episodically.
At this level of governance, failure to understand how Joint Terrorism Task Forces function, how federal participation expands structurally, and how contingency quietly becomes permanence is no longer acceptable.
For these reasons, I oppose Bill 92, CD1 (2025).
Lore Menin
Kihei Resident
Deleted User
about 1 month ago
I submit this testimony in opposition to Bill 92, CD1 (2025), and to express serious concern regarding the West Maui councilmember’s role in advancing this measure without demonstrating a clear understanding of its long-term legal and operational consequences.
This ordinance does not merely authorize participation in a federal task force. It opens a continuing legal pathway for federal agencies—beyond the FBI—to operate within Maui County under the umbrella of counterterrorism, without any demonstrated necessity tied to local conditions. That is not a hypothetical concern; it is the direct and foreseeable effect of entering into a Joint Terrorism Task Force structure.
At present, there is no showing that Maui faces an immigration-driven terrorism threat, an international facilitation problem, or a national-security gap that requires the routine presence of additional federal enforcement agencies. Yet this bill creates a standing framework that allows such agencies to operate continuously, rather than exceptionally, and without further legislative scrutiny.
That decision reflects poor judgment.
It is especially troubling given the same councilmember’s repeated public statements questioning American sovereignty, characterizing the United States as an illegitimate governing authority, and invoking the 1893 overthrow as a basis for rejecting federal legitimacy within her committee work. While such statements are generally protected speech, they underscore a profound inconsistency: one cannot credibly disclaim American authority while simultaneously empowering federal enforcement structures whose authority derives from that same Constitution.
This is not a civil-liberties position. It is incoherence.
If federal authority is illegitimate, then expanding federal enforcement capacity is indefensible. If federal authority is legitimate, then it should be approached with restraint, precision, and necessity—not casually authorized without clear limits or demonstrated need.
Bill 92 fails that test.
The Joint Terrorism Task Force model is inherently opaque by design. Records, tasking, and operational decisions are controlled at the federal level. The Council is explicitly told it will not be updated on activities conducted under this agreement. That level of secrecy may be appropriate in narrow, threat-driven circumstances, but it is inappropriate as a default posture adopted in the absence of a defined risk environment.
What this bill effectively does is normalize federal law-enforcement presence in Maui County without a triggering condition, sunset provision, or requirement to demonstrate continued necessity. That is a structural expansion of federal authority, whether intended or not.
The public deserves better than that.
This Councilmember’s apparent lack of understanding of how Joint Terrorism Task Forces function—how additional agencies may participate, how confidentiality operates, and how permanence can quietly replace contingency—is no longer acceptable at this stage of governance. Good intentions are not a substitute for competence when public trust and constitutional balance are at stake.
For these reasons, I oppose Bill 92, CD1 (2025), and urge the Council to reconsider whether this authorization reflects thoughtful risk management—or an unnecessary and poorly examined surrender of local discretion.
William Bey
West Maui Resident
Written Testimony in Support of Bill 92, CD1 (2025)
I write in support of Bill 92, CD1 (2025), and to expressly thank the West Maui councilmember for bringing this measure forward and placing Maui, once again, on sound legal footing within the federal counterterrorism framework.
This ordinance does something both prudent and necessary: it authorizes the Mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation that restores and formalizes Maui’s participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force. In doing so, it closes a structural gap that no county—particularly one as internationally connected as Maui—can responsibly afford to leave open.
Equally important, this bill does not attempt to micromanage federal operations or artificially restrict lawful interagency coordination. Instead, it recognizes the reality of modern threats and responds with a lawful, carefully bounded authorization that allows the FBI to operate as intended—through a multi-agency task force model—while keeping Maui’s role limited, case-triggered, and constitutional.
I want to specifically acknowledge the West Maui councilmember’s leadership in understanding that effective counterterrorism today is not a single-agency function. Terrorism, material support for violence, explosives offenses, and transnational facilitation routinely cross jurisdictional and national boundaries. By authorizing participation in the JTTF, this Councilmember has also, correctly and lawfully, opened the door for appropriate federal partners—when needed and as determined by the FBI—to support investigations that exceed local capacity.
That includes Homeland Security Investigations, the criminal investigative arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It is important to be precise. ICE-HSI is not a civil immigration enforcement unit. It is a federal criminal investigative agency with expertise in document fraud, cross-border travel, financial flows, export controls, and transnational networks—areas that frequently intersect with terrorism and national-security investigations. When those elements are present, ICE-HSI’s participation strengthens, rather than expands, the mission of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
This ordinance allows that participation to occur lawfully, efficiently, and without hesitation when warranted. It avoids the need for ad-hoc approvals, public confusion, or artificial barriers at moments when speed, coordination, and discretion matter most. That is not mission creep; it is responsible governance.
The public should also understand that the confidentiality inherent in JTTF operations is not a defect—it is a safeguard. Intelligence-driven investigations, particularly those involving national security, cannot be conducted in real time through public notice or political debate without undermining their effectiveness and endangering lives. The JTTF structure already contains robust federal oversight, strict rules on information handling, and clear limitations on scope. Civil liberties are protected by law, policy, and supervision—not by forcing sensitive investigations into the public domain.
For that reason, ICE-HSI involvement, when it occurs through the JTTF, should be welcomed as a professional, lawful contribution to public safety—not treated as something that requires separate political signaling, hesitation, or alarm. The Council has already done its job by authorizing the framework. Operational decisions properly belong with the FBI under established federal guidelines.
I commend the West Maui councilmember for recognizing this balance: enabling preparedness without overreach, cooperation without confusion, and security without sacrificing constitutional principles. Bill 92 does not federalize local policing, does not authorize civil immigration enforcement, and does not expand routine law-enforcement authority. It simply ensures that Maui is not isolated when confronted with threats that demand a coordinated federal response.
For these reasons, and with appreciation for the thoughtful leadership that brought this measure forward, I strongly support Bill 92, CD1 (2025).
I support Bill 92, CD1 (2025), authorizing the Mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), provided that this participation remains limited, clearly defined, and subject to appropriate local safeguards.
Maui does not face routine or pervasive terrorism threats, and this task force should not be misconstrued as a response to everyday crime, quality-of-life issues, or community policing needs. Those matters remain squarely within the responsibility of local law enforcement and local governance. The JTTF addresses a fundamentally different category of risk: low-probability but high-consequence events that exceed the investigative, intelligence, and prosecutorial capacity of any single county acting alone.
The record before this Committee makes clear that Maui Police Department participation is part-time, case-triggered, and focused on intelligence sharing and coordinated response—not permanent reassignment of officers or expansion of routine policing authority. That distinction matters. It preserves local capacity while ensuring Maui is not isolated if a credible terrorism-related threat arises. I support participation for that limited purpose.
At the same time, participation in a federal task force necessarily shifts oversight, records custody, and public communication to the federal level. That reality requires clarity and transparency about limits and guardrails at the County level, even where operational details must remain confidential.
Accordingly, I respectfully suggest the following conditions and expectations accompany Maui’s participation:
1. Periodic Review
Participation should be reviewed by the Council at regular intervals—such as every three years, aligned with MOU renewal—limited to confirming continued necessity, scope, and compliance with County intent, without disclosure of sensitive or classified operational details.
2. Scope Limitation
Participation should be expressly limited to terrorism-related investigations as defined in the agreement and accompanying correspondence, and not extended to general criminal enforcement, protest activity, or non-violent civil matters.
3. Non-Diversion Assurance
No permanent diversion of patrol or community-based officers should occur. Participation should remain intelligence- and activation-based, as represented by the Maui Police Department.
4. Civil Liberties Commitment
All task force participation should continue to operate under existing constitutional protections, Attorney General guidelines, and applicable federal and state civil rights standards, with no diminution of First Amendment protections for lawful speech, assembly, or protest.
5. Limited Local Notification Protocol
While recognizing that Council briefings on operational details are neither appropriate nor lawful, the Mayor’s office should maintain a protocol for notifying County leadership when a verified terrorism-related threat materially affects public safety on Maui.
This approach balances preparedness with restraint. It acknowledges that Maui is not a primary terrorism target, while also recognizing that modern threats—particularly lone-actor violence and online radicalization—do not respect geography.
Participation in the JTTF should be viewed as risk insurance, not mission creep; as a contingency measure, not a normalization of federalized policing. With those understandings clearly stated, I support Bill 92, CD1 (2025).
I submit this testimony in support of the Maui Police Chief and in appreciation of his leadership, experience, and willingness to engage transparently with the Council and the public on the proposed agreement authorizing participation in a Joint Terrorism Task Force with the FBI.
Chief Pelletier brings with him extensive experience managing complex, multi-agency operations in a large metropolitan environment, including events that required coordination across local, state, and federal partners. That experience is valuable to Maui County, particularly when evaluating low-probability but high-impact risks that require preparedness rather than reaction.
I support the Chief’s efforts to ensure that Maui is not isolated from critical intelligence, resources, and inter-agency coordination when it matters most. I also believe that a clear public record explaining the practical benefits of this agreement will strengthen community trust and the County’s position going forward.
In that spirit, I respectfully ask the Chief to address the following questions for the record:
Setting aside references to 9/11 or generalized national security concerns, could you describe a realistic scenario specific to Maui where MPD’s formal participation in a JTTF would materially improve early awareness, prevention, or response compared to informal, case-by-case cooperation with federal agencies?
You have noted that there is potential risk and liability if MPD is not part of the task force. Could you explain, in practical terms, how this agreement reduces institutional risk to the County while preserving MPD’s command authority, oversight, and accountability over its personnel?
Based on your experience in Las Vegas, can you share an example where task-force participation provided measurable value to the community before a crisis occurred—such as intelligence sharing, disruption, or prevention—that would not have been possible without a formal task-force relationship?
I appreciate the Chief’s leadership and the Council’s careful consideration of this matter. Clear answers to these questions will help the public better understand the scope, safeguards, and value of this agreement, and will strengthen confidence in both MPD and County governance.
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony.
I am testifying in strong opposition to Bill 92, which would authorize the Mayor of Maui County to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Bill 92 is a Trojan horse for American fascism that will localize the types of deadly violence we are witnessing on the continent right now, including the killings of nurse practitioner Alex Pretti and legal observer Renee Goode.
The bill’s reference to “national security” in the ostensible interest of counterterrorism is in fact a dogwhistle used to advance authoritarian policing and surveillance programs designed to protect the terror of American empire.
To be clear, the United States is a terror state. The U.S. exists because of genocide against Indigenous nations and the enslavement of African peoples. Calls to defend national security are nothing more than calls to protect this ongoing legacy of terrorism against Black and Indigenous Peoples of Color across the Global South.
This is to say: we have seen this pattern before.
In the Pacific, American imperialism has long relied on the language of national security to justify its terrorism: the nuclear destruction of Bikini Atoll, the military occupation of the Philippines, the bombing of Kahoʻolawe, and the violent overthrow and ongoing occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
During World War II, the U.S. government used national security and counter-subversion rhetoric to justify the mass incarceration of Japanese communities. Over 120,000 people, the majority U.S. citizens, were stripped of homes, families, and livelihoods based solely on race. Entire communities were treated as inherently suspect and subjected to collective punishment in the internment camps.
Under the banner of national security, federal programs like COINTELPRO hunted and murdered U.S. citizens, including members of the American Indian Movement, Black Panther Party, Young Lords, the Women’s Liberation Movement, the Gay Liberation Front, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, while simultaneously destabilizing countries across the Global South.
After 9/11, this same national security rhetoric was redeployed against Muslim, Arab, South Asian, and Sikh communities. Surveillance, informants, raids, watchlists, and prosecutions expanded dramatically. Currently, violence against these communities intensifies as support continues for Palestinian liberation and the end of U.S.-backed Israeli settler colonialism, apartheid, occupation, and genocide.
And today, under the ongoing terrorism of ICE, immigrants have once again become primary targets of the American police state. National security rhetoric is being used to justify raids, detention centers, family separation, deportations, and collaboration between local police and federal agencies. Undocumented people, asylum seekers, refugees, and mixed-status families are framed as threats. Those who defend immigrants, provide mutual aid, or resist deportations are being surveilled, criminalized, and killed.
Inviting the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force into Maui embeds our county deeper into this violent history and present, one we know in our bones and owe our ancestors to stop.
Bill 92 does not make us safer. If we truly seek to counter fear and terror, we must invest in mutual aid, securing basic needs, and decriminalizing the organizers protecting community daily from American terrorism.
I urge this council to reject Bill 92 and choose a path grounded not in terror, but in justice.
Please VOTE NO TO FBI/ JTTS CONTRACTS
NO COOPERATION BETWEEN ICE AND MPD.
KEEP MAUI RESIDENTS SAFE WE ARE NOT DOMESTIC TERRORISTS WHEN WE PEACEFULLY PROTEST EXERCISING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
I support Bill 92, CD1 (2025) and thank the West Maui councilmember for advancing this measure that restores Maui’s full participation in the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Authorizing the Mayor to execute the FBI’s JTTF Memorandum of Understanding ensures Maui can coordinate with the full range of federal partners when national-security circumstances require it. The multi-agency task force model is the law-enforcement standard for complex, cross-jurisdictional threats, and it allows federal agencies, including Homeland Security Investigations—the investigative arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement—to participate when the FBI determines their expertise is relevant.
Recent national events have underscored that federal immigration enforcement operations can involve challenging, high-pressure situations and consequences that exceed local capacity. In Minnesota, for example, federal immigration enforcement agents have been involved in a high-profile operation that has led to fatal shootings, protests, and legal scrutiny, raising questions about how federal agencies coordinate with state and local partners in dynamic and sensitive environments. In those contexts, structured cooperation through JTTFs allows local law enforcement to work with federal partners in a professional, legally grounded way rather than ad hoc or reactive engagements that lack coordination.
With a clear framework in place, ICE-HSI and other federal partners can assist without needing separate local agreements or approvals each time, which improves operational efficiency and avoids delays when speed and discretion matter. This is not about routine immigration enforcement; it is about preparedness for low-probability but high-impact threats that require unity of effort across federal and local jurisdictions.
For these reasons, I support Bill 92, CD1 (2025).
I submit this testimony in opposition to Bill 92, CD1 (2025), based on the legal, operational, and governance consequences of authorizing participation in a Joint Terrorism Task Force without a demonstrated local necessity and without meaningful structural limits.
This ordinance authorizes the Mayor to execute the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and any amendments consistent with its purpose and scope. That scope is not narrow. The MOU expressly establishes a multi-agency federal task force structure, permits the inclusion of additional federal partners at the discretion of the FBI, and places investigative control, records, and public communications exclusively at the federal level. Once executed, Maui relinquishes meaningful operational visibility and local discretion over activities conducted under this framework.
This is not a procedural formality. It is a structural authorization with continuing effect.
No evidence has been presented in the legislative record demonstrating that Maui currently faces a terrorism threat requiring a standing, expanded federal task force presence. There has been no showing of immigration-linked terrorism, cross-border facilitation, or transnational logistics activity specific to Maui that would justify normalizing this framework rather than reserving it for clearly defined, exceptional circumstances.
Nevertheless, this bill authorizes a permanent pathway for federal agencies beyond the FBI to operate within Maui County under a counterterrorism umbrella, without a triggering condition, sunset provision, or requirement for periodic demonstration of necessity. Whether such participation is exercised immediately is beside the point. The legal authority is granted in advance and without limitation.
This decision must also be evaluated in light of the public record and committee conduct of the West Maui councilmember who advanced this measure. In official settings, that councilmember has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of United States governance, framed American authority as historically illegitimate, and used language characterizing certain lawful residents as “settlers” or otherwise not belonging. While such rhetoric may be protected as political speech, it is not neutral governance.
When a public official consistently casts a subset of lawful residents as illegitimate and simultaneously advances policies that impose disproportionate burdens or exclusions on that group, a reasonable observer may conclude that governance is being shaped by ideology rather than neutral public purpose. The issue is not speech; it is the translation of ideology into policy.
Against that backdrop, advancing legislation that expands federal enforcement architecture—while simultaneously disavowing the legitimacy of the constitutional authority from which that enforcement derives—reflects a troubling inconsistency. Federal authority is either legitimate and exercised with restraint and necessity, or it is illegitimate and should not be selectively empowered when politically convenient. One cannot coherently claim both.
The Joint Terrorism Task Force model is inherently opaque. Records are federally controlled. Media disclosures are federally managed. Councilmembers are explicitly advised that they will not receive updates regarding task force activities. Such confidentiality may be appropriate in narrowly tailored, threat-driven circumstances. It is not appropriate as a default condition adopted without a defined local risk environment or accountability mechanism.
It is also important to understand how this authorization functions in practice. Joint Terrorism Task Forces are multi-agency by design. While led by the FBI, they routinely include other federal agencies when the FBI determines their involvement is relevant. This includes Homeland Security Investigations, the criminal investigative arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Once Maui authorizes participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, ICE-HSI may participate in task force operations at the discretion of the FBI, without further County approval, separate agreement, or public notice. That participation may occur repeatedly and confidentially as part of ongoing task force activity, not solely in response to isolated emergencies.
Whether or not ICE-HSI involvement is immediately exercised is not the issue. The legal pathway is established permanently by this ordinance. That is a significant policy decision, particularly in the absence of evidence that Maui faces an immigration-linked terrorism threat requiring a standing federal enforcement presence.
If federal coordination involving ICE is truly necessary, it should be justified openly, limited clearly, and reviewed periodically. This bill does none of those things. Instead, it authorizes the structure first and leaves the consequences to be discovered later.
Authorizing secrecy without necessity is not preparedness. It is abdication.
Bill 92 does not merely preserve an emergency option. It normalizes a federal task force framework in Maui County absent a demonstrated threat, absent local oversight, and absent any requirement to reassess need. That expansion of authority is permanent by design, even if exercised episodically.
At this level of governance, failure to understand how Joint Terrorism Task Forces function, how federal participation expands structurally, and how contingency quietly becomes permanence is no longer acceptable.
For these reasons, I oppose Bill 92, CD1 (2025).
Lore Menin
Kihei Resident
I submit this testimony in opposition to Bill 92, CD1 (2025), and to express serious concern regarding the West Maui councilmember’s role in advancing this measure without demonstrating a clear understanding of its long-term legal and operational consequences.
This ordinance does not merely authorize participation in a federal task force. It opens a continuing legal pathway for federal agencies—beyond the FBI—to operate within Maui County under the umbrella of counterterrorism, without any demonstrated necessity tied to local conditions. That is not a hypothetical concern; it is the direct and foreseeable effect of entering into a Joint Terrorism Task Force structure.
At present, there is no showing that Maui faces an immigration-driven terrorism threat, an international facilitation problem, or a national-security gap that requires the routine presence of additional federal enforcement agencies. Yet this bill creates a standing framework that allows such agencies to operate continuously, rather than exceptionally, and without further legislative scrutiny.
That decision reflects poor judgment.
It is especially troubling given the same councilmember’s repeated public statements questioning American sovereignty, characterizing the United States as an illegitimate governing authority, and invoking the 1893 overthrow as a basis for rejecting federal legitimacy within her committee work. While such statements are generally protected speech, they underscore a profound inconsistency: one cannot credibly disclaim American authority while simultaneously empowering federal enforcement structures whose authority derives from that same Constitution.
This is not a civil-liberties position. It is incoherence.
If federal authority is illegitimate, then expanding federal enforcement capacity is indefensible. If federal authority is legitimate, then it should be approached with restraint, precision, and necessity—not casually authorized without clear limits or demonstrated need.
Bill 92 fails that test.
The Joint Terrorism Task Force model is inherently opaque by design. Records, tasking, and operational decisions are controlled at the federal level. The Council is explicitly told it will not be updated on activities conducted under this agreement. That level of secrecy may be appropriate in narrow, threat-driven circumstances, but it is inappropriate as a default posture adopted in the absence of a defined risk environment.
What this bill effectively does is normalize federal law-enforcement presence in Maui County without a triggering condition, sunset provision, or requirement to demonstrate continued necessity. That is a structural expansion of federal authority, whether intended or not.
The public deserves better than that.
This Councilmember’s apparent lack of understanding of how Joint Terrorism Task Forces function—how additional agencies may participate, how confidentiality operates, and how permanence can quietly replace contingency—is no longer acceptable at this stage of governance. Good intentions are not a substitute for competence when public trust and constitutional balance are at stake.
For these reasons, I oppose Bill 92, CD1 (2025), and urge the Council to reconsider whether this authorization reflects thoughtful risk management—or an unnecessary and poorly examined surrender of local discretion.
William Bey
West Maui Resident
Written Testimony in Support of Bill 92, CD1 (2025)
I write in support of Bill 92, CD1 (2025), and to expressly thank the West Maui councilmember for bringing this measure forward and placing Maui, once again, on sound legal footing within the federal counterterrorism framework.
This ordinance does something both prudent and necessary: it authorizes the Mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation that restores and formalizes Maui’s participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force. In doing so, it closes a structural gap that no county—particularly one as internationally connected as Maui—can responsibly afford to leave open.
Equally important, this bill does not attempt to micromanage federal operations or artificially restrict lawful interagency coordination. Instead, it recognizes the reality of modern threats and responds with a lawful, carefully bounded authorization that allows the FBI to operate as intended—through a multi-agency task force model—while keeping Maui’s role limited, case-triggered, and constitutional.
I want to specifically acknowledge the West Maui councilmember’s leadership in understanding that effective counterterrorism today is not a single-agency function. Terrorism, material support for violence, explosives offenses, and transnational facilitation routinely cross jurisdictional and national boundaries. By authorizing participation in the JTTF, this Councilmember has also, correctly and lawfully, opened the door for appropriate federal partners—when needed and as determined by the FBI—to support investigations that exceed local capacity.
That includes Homeland Security Investigations, the criminal investigative arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It is important to be precise. ICE-HSI is not a civil immigration enforcement unit. It is a federal criminal investigative agency with expertise in document fraud, cross-border travel, financial flows, export controls, and transnational networks—areas that frequently intersect with terrorism and national-security investigations. When those elements are present, ICE-HSI’s participation strengthens, rather than expands, the mission of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
This ordinance allows that participation to occur lawfully, efficiently, and without hesitation when warranted. It avoids the need for ad-hoc approvals, public confusion, or artificial barriers at moments when speed, coordination, and discretion matter most. That is not mission creep; it is responsible governance.
The public should also understand that the confidentiality inherent in JTTF operations is not a defect—it is a safeguard. Intelligence-driven investigations, particularly those involving national security, cannot be conducted in real time through public notice or political debate without undermining their effectiveness and endangering lives. The JTTF structure already contains robust federal oversight, strict rules on information handling, and clear limitations on scope. Civil liberties are protected by law, policy, and supervision—not by forcing sensitive investigations into the public domain.
For that reason, ICE-HSI involvement, when it occurs through the JTTF, should be welcomed as a professional, lawful contribution to public safety—not treated as something that requires separate political signaling, hesitation, or alarm. The Council has already done its job by authorizing the framework. Operational decisions properly belong with the FBI under established federal guidelines.
I commend the West Maui councilmember for recognizing this balance: enabling preparedness without overreach, cooperation without confusion, and security without sacrificing constitutional principles. Bill 92 does not federalize local policing, does not authorize civil immigration enforcement, and does not expand routine law-enforcement authority. It simply ensures that Maui is not isolated when confronted with threats that demand a coordinated federal response.
For these reasons, and with appreciation for the thoughtful leadership that brought this measure forward, I strongly support Bill 92, CD1 (2025).
I support Bill 92, CD1 (2025), authorizing the Mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), provided that this participation remains limited, clearly defined, and subject to appropriate local safeguards.
Maui does not face routine or pervasive terrorism threats, and this task force should not be misconstrued as a response to everyday crime, quality-of-life issues, or community policing needs. Those matters remain squarely within the responsibility of local law enforcement and local governance. The JTTF addresses a fundamentally different category of risk: low-probability but high-consequence events that exceed the investigative, intelligence, and prosecutorial capacity of any single county acting alone.
The record before this Committee makes clear that Maui Police Department participation is part-time, case-triggered, and focused on intelligence sharing and coordinated response—not permanent reassignment of officers or expansion of routine policing authority. That distinction matters. It preserves local capacity while ensuring Maui is not isolated if a credible terrorism-related threat arises. I support participation for that limited purpose.
At the same time, participation in a federal task force necessarily shifts oversight, records custody, and public communication to the federal level. That reality requires clarity and transparency about limits and guardrails at the County level, even where operational details must remain confidential.
Accordingly, I respectfully suggest the following conditions and expectations accompany Maui’s participation:
1. Periodic Review
Participation should be reviewed by the Council at regular intervals—such as every three years, aligned with MOU renewal—limited to confirming continued necessity, scope, and compliance with County intent, without disclosure of sensitive or classified operational details.
2. Scope Limitation
Participation should be expressly limited to terrorism-related investigations as defined in the agreement and accompanying correspondence, and not extended to general criminal enforcement, protest activity, or non-violent civil matters.
3. Non-Diversion Assurance
No permanent diversion of patrol or community-based officers should occur. Participation should remain intelligence- and activation-based, as represented by the Maui Police Department.
4. Civil Liberties Commitment
All task force participation should continue to operate under existing constitutional protections, Attorney General guidelines, and applicable federal and state civil rights standards, with no diminution of First Amendment protections for lawful speech, assembly, or protest.
5. Limited Local Notification Protocol
While recognizing that Council briefings on operational details are neither appropriate nor lawful, the Mayor’s office should maintain a protocol for notifying County leadership when a verified terrorism-related threat materially affects public safety on Maui.
This approach balances preparedness with restraint. It acknowledges that Maui is not a primary terrorism target, while also recognizing that modern threats—particularly lone-actor violence and online radicalization—do not respect geography.
Participation in the JTTF should be viewed as risk insurance, not mission creep; as a contingency measure, not a normalization of federalized policing. With those understandings clearly stated, I support Bill 92, CD1 (2025).
Edward Codelia
Maui Resident and Registered Voter