The City of Houston voted to stop complying with ICE requests approximately two months prior to the recording.

Posted by The Benny Show, Oct 28, 2026Checked Nov 2, 2026

Polygraph verdictMixed

Sources: 6 contradict
Said: 1 time·
Confidence: 70%

The Benny ShowOct 28, 2026

The record supports that Houston's council passed an ordinance limiting police cooperation with ICE, but the vote was on April 8, 2026, roughly six months before the October 28 post, not about two months earlier.

What was said

… the state can override local governments, and so we passed a law banning homeless encampments and will withhold funding from any city that fails to comply. And, and so, whether homeless encampments or lack of enforcement of law, whatever the case may be, so there was an episode you probably missed about two months ago where the city of Houston cast a vote where they were no longer going to comply with ICE requests. I said, Oh, yes, you are, because I've got a contract right here with the city, signature on it, with the police department signature on it, saying they will comply. And they don't, I was going to force them to repay the State of Texas $132 million. …

The Benny Show · Oct 28, 2026· from the transcriptPost →

What we found

Contradicts. The vote that limited ICE cooperation took place on April 8, 2026, which is about six months before the late-October post, so the 'approximately two months prior' timing is wrong.[3][4][5]

Contradicts. On April 22, 2026 the council voted 13-4 to amend the ordinance after the governor threatened about $110-114 million in grants, removing language that limited cooperation, so the city did not stay on a policy of stopping compliance.[1][2][6]

Supports. Houston City Council approved an ordinance limiting HPD cooperation with ICE, including ending the 30-minute hold for administrative warrants, in a 12-5 vote on April 8, 2026.[3][5]

Context. The Texas Attorney General's October 29 petition and the state's October notice of non-compliance both reference the April 8 ordinance, indicating the dispute is ongoing rather than a recent vote.[3][4]