The Indio City Council voted to direct the city attorney to send a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seeking aggregate information about residents taken into custody because of immigration status during 2025, including counts, detention locations, durations, and case outcomes.

Councilmember Oscar Ortiz, who introduced the administrative request, said the measure is intended to bring transparency to the community so city leaders and partners can plan services and respond to possible humanitarian impacts. Ortiz said his office tailored the request to seek general, non‑personal data (counts, facility locations, detention durations and case dispositions) precisely because personal privacy and legal constraints limit what the federal government will disclose.

Several public speakers and nonprofit representatives urged the council to pursue the request, describing fear in the community, reports of what they characterized as inhumane treatment at detention facilities, and the local impacts on families and businesses. One nonprofit witness cited a report of an operation involving more than 500 federal agents and another recounted an incident where a U.S. citizen was tackled by ICE agents at a local shopping center.

Opponents on the dais expressed concern about jurisdiction and the city’s ability to act on the information, and noted the federal government may not respond to the request. The City Attorney confirmed a FOIA request could be prepared and sent; the council discussed whether the mayor or the full council should sign the request. The motion maker clarified the request should be sent on behalf of the council and cover 2025 data with monthly follow‑ups for six months thereafter.

Roll call on the motion produced the following recorded positions: Councilmember Miller — Nay; Councilmember Withern — Aye; Councilmember Ortiz — Aye; Mayor Pro Tem Furman — Aye; Mayor Holmes — No. The motion carried 3–2. City staff will prepare and transmit the FOIA request on behalf of the council, and the staff memo included a sample letter used by other cities (Santa Ana was noted as a prior example in the staff packet).

The council did not authorize enforcement or other actions beyond requesting the data; the record shows the vote was to obtain information for planning and community transparency.