Police & Fire
Transcript: Our interview with Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank
Transcript of Gig Harbor Now’s interview with Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank on April 30, 2025.
Gig Harbor Now
And I’ll also be recording on my phone, and you’ll hear a, “call will be recorded” thing.
(Phone plays message, “This call will be recorded.”)
Okay.
Yeah, so I actually, I really wanted to talk with you about the comments you made on the Jason Rantz show. And I wanted to ask specifically about the comment you made about reaching out to ICE to work with them proactively. Is there any movement on that front or anything like that?
And I was also curious, obviously, of how you’re going to work with counsel about that.
Keith Swank
I didn’t, I don’t think I said I’m proactively seeking to work with ICE. I don’t remember saying that. I’m not sure what Jason Rantz interview you’re referring to.
However, so I’ll just, if I did, I’ll try to clear this up.
GHN
Sure.
Swank
I’m not — Sheriff’s Office is not working with ICE. I don’t plan on my deputies working with ICE, at this moment in time. What I want to do is, I want to have the Keep Washington Working legislation, and then followed up by this county council legislation, to be reviewed, or Keep Washington Working, probably, to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court to have it ruled whether it’s constitutional or not. I believe it’s unconstitutional. And so that’s the reason why. I believe it violates the Supremacy Clause. That’s my personal opinion.
I want legal advice on it. And everybody here, their legal advice is, “Of course, it’s legal because we agree with it!” That doesn’t mean it’s legal.
So that’s what I’m working for.
GHN
Yeah, and thank you for clearing that up, because according to this article, this 770 KTTH Conservative Talk Radio [piece], it says that “The sheriff said because of the lack of communication, he’s going to contact the White House. ‘Since they didn’t get a hold of me, I’m going to reach out to ICE in Washington, D.C., the Trump administration, Department of Justice. I’m going to tell them what’s going on here and ask them for a hand.’
Swank s—”
Swank
That is correct. I just didn’t say, but you said I was working with them, so I want to make sure you know that I’m not.
GHN
Oh, no, no. I don’t think you are working w—
Swank
I reached out to them. I’m sorry. Go ahead. You can finish.
GHN
And then it says, “Swank said he is also considering entering into ICE’s 287 (g) Program that authorizes U.S. ICE agents to delegate specific immigration officer functions to state and local law enforcement.”
So what I was asking was, you know, what I was asking was, have you reached out to them? What’s going on with that? Not like, “Oh, yeah, you’re definitely working with them.” No, no.
Swank
No, I reached out to the Department of Justice, to ICE, and to Border Protection, and to ask them to see if they could help fast track this legislation for review from the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s what I’m working on.
GHN
Okay. And so then in the meantime, for, and so is there — sorry, is there any update on that? Did you get a response?
Swank
Well, I met with some officials when I went back to Washington, D.C., on a quick trip earlier in the month of April, and spoke with some people there. But I think it’s working its way through the process right now.
The Department of Justice is aware of it. They’re working on it, and they have reached out. And as a matter of fact, I believe that President Trump just signed an executive order yesterday or the day before, referring to things such as sanctuary city legislation, sanctuary county, sanctuary jurisdictions, things like that.
GHN
Sure. And so do you have any particular sense of where that stands, in specific, for Washington, based on your conversations?
Swank
No, I don’t. I don’t know where it specifically stands. I believe there’s several states, maybe 15, 20 states, whatever, that have the same sort of policy.
So, I’m assuming that the Department of Justice and federal government wants to review this and fast-track it — I’m hoping — and fast-track it through the process of the U.S. Supreme Court, to have a ruling on it generally stating whether it’s legal or not. And then that would probably hold true for the vast majority of states that have sanctuary laws, whichever way they decide.
GHN
OK. And so you mentioned that you thought it was unconstitutional. So far in the past, the Supreme Court has upheld sanctuary laws as being essentially protected by the Tenth Amendment.
Swank
[Pause.]
What did you just say?
GHN
So, in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has pointed to the Tenth Amendment regarding the ability of states to work with federal enforcement officials and whether states choose to restrict working with them or not. And states’ independence in that matter has been pinned to the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution.
Swank
Yeah, I understand that. But we also had segregation back before, too, and that was constitutional, right? We had some other things that was constitutional that was overturned.
The other part, too, is, I’m a sheriff. I’m an elected official. I’m an independent office.
I also don’t believe that the county council has the authority to tell me what I can and can’t do when it comes to doing my job as a sheriff. So I believe they think or are trying to behave like I am, that I work for them.
I work for the people of Pierce County, and I’m elected independent. And I don’t tell the executive what to do, and I don’t want him or the council thinking that they can tell me what to do, because it doesn’t work that way.
GHN
Sure, but the point I was trying to make was — and I know that you just mentioned other — segregation that was overturned, which was — overturned. However, what I was trying to speak to was that it was constitutionally protected at this moment in time. And so I guess what I’m asking is if you are looking for a constitutionally protected right to be overturned.
Swank
I don’t believe – see, that’s what we were just talking about. I just said segregation was constitutionally protected before it was overturned.
GHN
Before it was overturned, mm-hmm.
Swank
So I’m saying the same thing. This is going to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and my belief is it [sanctuary laws] will be overturned. I believe if there – and I don’t know which case you’re talking to that refers to sanctuary, Keep Washington Working or sanctuary laws like that.
Feel free, when you’re finished with this phone call, to text it to me so I can look at it, but I’m not an attorney, anyhow. I don’t think it’s been ruled on, and I think it needs to be ruled on in these specific cases, in these specific legislations.
GHN
Okay, yeah, sure. So what I’m specifically referring to — and I can look at it right here, and I’m happy to text it to you. It wasn’t specifically — you were talking about segregation being overturned, and that was constitutionally protected.
I was talking about the Tenth Amendment, which is enshrined in the Constitution. And the ability for states to make their own rules, essentially, is protected by the Tenth Amendment.
It specifically states —
Swank
So let me ask you — I know what you’re saying, so let’s just get cut to the chase here.
If the state legislature tomorrow — they’re done, but say they did during this last session. Say they passed a legislation that said police officers no longer need a warrant to go into your house. They can enter your house warrantless, meaning they can come in any time they feel like it to search for whatever they want to. And they passed that law. Are you telling me that because they passed it and the Tenth Amendment says that that law is legal then?
GHN
So, the Tenth Amendment says, “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
[NOTE: Gig Harbor Now mistakenly quoted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from the Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in Printz v. United States, not the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”]
That’s what I’m talking about.
Swank
That’s a program. That’s not a law.
GHN
Sure
Swank
So that’s where the rub is. But I’m just telling you right now, I’m using an example for you.
GHN
Mmm-hmm.
Swank
If we pass something in this state that’s blatantly unconstitutional, like they said — like I just said, we don’t have to do a search warrant anymore to enter your house. Are you saying that because the state passed it, it’s OK then? And that because of the Tenth Amendment, it’s all right for states to pass unconstitutional laws?
GHN
No –
Swank
And that —
GHN
No, what I was simply ask —
Swank
I would abide by that?
GHN
No, what I was simply asking you, sir, is whether you were looking for the Tenth Amendment to be overturned as well.
Swank
Well, what you’re doing is you’re setting up a straw man argument here. I’m not asking for it to be overturned. What I’m trying to tell you is — and you just keep going back and forth to it.
So, if you want to call me up because you want to argue with me, then you can just call me up and argue with me. But what I’m saying is I disagree with Keep Washington Working being constitutional. I believe it’s a violation of the supremacy clause.
I don’t believe the Tenth Amendment has anything to do with it, allowing it to be legal. But I’m not an attorney. That’s why I wanted to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, not the state Supreme Court here, because they’ll rule in favor of the Democrats because they’re controlled that way. That’s how this works here in the state. It has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for it to get a fair shake.
GHN
Okay.
Swank
That’s my position.
GHN
Sure, not a problem. And like I said, I’m not trying to argue with you. Actually, I didn’t say that. I’m now going to say it: I’m not trying to argue with you. I was trying to clear up what I think was a misunderstanding between us, and that’s why I was asking again.
It is my job to ask questions, just as it is your job to enforce the law.
So, I also wanted to ask about how you plan to, I guess, work with the council in the meantime, depending on how things shake out in Washington[, D.C.]
Swank
Well, I’m a professional. I work with the council. I’m the one that went up and spoke out yesterday.
I had the minority opinion. Everybody, just about except for one or two people that were in the chambers, was on the side of the four Democrats on the council. And so, I’m not the one that said anything about anybody like [Council Chair] Jani Hitchens said about me at the end of closing of the evening.
I wasn’t there, but I got a quote from somebody else.
So, I’m good with working with people. I also want to let you know that since I spoke there, people have been threatening my safety because that’s the way people on the left work things, see.
I’m for constitutional laws. It doesn’t matter which side of the aisle passes unconstitutional laws. I’m not going to enforce them if they’re blatantly violations of the Constitution.
And so, it doesn’t really matter, but everybody else has a political agenda. If they agree with it, then they want me to enforce it. If they don’t agree with it, they don’t want me to enforce it.
And so, that’s why I need to have the [U.S.] Supreme Court, in this case, make a decision on this, so we know which way we’re going. If they say that Keep Washington Working is constitutional, then we will abide by it. If they say it’s unconstitutional, then, hopefully, it will be struck, and we won’t have it on our books anymore and won’t have to worry about it.
But that’s what I need to have done because people with political agendas believe certain things, and they want me to abide by that. And I’m not abiding by things just because somebody says so.
GHN
Sure. And so, in the event that it’s upheld, what would you then just say, “Okay?”
Swank
Absolutely. If it’s upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, absolutely. I’ll say they’ve ruled, it’s constitutional, and I’ll abide by it, for sure.
GHN
Okay.
Swank
Yeah, that’s the law of the land.
GHN
Okay. And so then, with regards to what folks were talking about last night and so forth, in terms of people in Pierce County feeling like they can call the sheriff’s office, do you feel that your comments in a public forum last night might have had a chilling effect, or no? In terms of specifically undocumented immigrants.
I won’t beat around the bush.
Swank
Well, first off, the term is “illegal aliens.” We use “undocumented immigrants” to try to soften what is really going on. That makes it sound like somebody just forgot their papers, or they left them at home, or they didn’t take them with them or sign up like they’re supposed to.
So that’s the reason why I use “illegal aliens,” because that’s the lawful term for it.
Anyhow, back to the point about that. My officers are not enforcing civil detainers for immigration.
So anybody that calls 911 can feel safe and secure that Pierce County Sheriff’s Office deputies, when they show up, are going to help them out. I’ve made public comment about that. The reason why people are saying that is to try to make it look like I’m the bad guy here, and I’m doing this and scaring people, so it’s to try to drum up resentment or anger towards me.
And it’s working, because people, like I said, are saying bad things about me and up to the point of, “I sure hope that nothing happens to Sheriff Swank or his house” — posting that on social media. But I haven’t heard any of the county council say that that’s terrible and people shouldn’t do that, because it’s me and they don’t agree with me, so I guess it’s okay.
GHN
Oh, so where have they — since last night they’ve been posting that, you said?
Swank
Yes, there’s posts on that on Reddit today that somebody sent to me. Probably there’s more posts than that, but I haven’t perused to look through it. But they’re trying to intimidate my family, and that’s really uncool.
And some guy comes walking through my neighborhood the other day and then went to a precinct and said, “I know where the sheriff lives, I’ve been around his neighborhood.”
Now, people can say whatever you want to say, that’s a veiled threat. Same thing with, “I hope nothing happens to the sheriff or his house” — that’s another threat.
So, people are trying to threaten my safety for me to say, “Oh my gosh, I’m going to change my opinion, because someone’s threatening me that way,” and that’s not going to happen.
But it’s not cool to be threatening elected officials, that’s for sure. Anybody, but it’s not cool to be threatening elected officials.
That’s a total breakdown of our civic legislative process.
GHN
Oh, yeah, speaking of, thank you for mentioning elected officials.
I actually wanted to — so I know that you’ve given a statement to KING-5 and the Seattle Times about it, with regards to what SPD [the Seattle Police Department] determined and what [SPD Interim Chief] Sue Rahr wrote in her disciplinary determination, but I was curious as to whether you want to speak to that further, and also whether you genuinely believe that Nancy Pelosi coordinated the Jan. 6 attack [on the U.S. Capitol].
Swank
Well, I don’t really know what all you want to ask me, but as far as my comments on X or Twitter at the time about Nancy Pelosi in January 6, I believe the investigation that was done on January 6 was done by the Democrats.
It wasn’t fair, and it wasn’t open, and there’s going to be more investigations coming out, and it’s going to show some of the things that happened there.
And then, of course, the Democrat side will say, “It’s the Republicans lying,” so I don’t know if we’re ever going to get a fair review or a fair investigation about what happened.
But yeah, I believe that Nancy Pelosi had a role in it, because she denied National Guard troops from showing up there and delayed them and things, and that stuff has already come out.
So yeah, I believe that not just her, many other people were at fault about what happened there, and we’re finding out now that there was FBI informants in there, possibly inciting what’s going on.
There’s a lot of things coming out about the January 6 investigation that we didn’t know about before.
So I don’t know what all the answers are to it, but I’m still waiting to hear some more and read some more and find out about it.
GHN
Okay, so I guess, again, my question was, and I’m so sorry if I missed it. My question was, do you believe that she [Pelosi] coordinated the attack?
Swank
I believe she’s complicit in what happened that day, yes.
GHN
Okay, and then with regards to the investigation — well, the OPA[Seattle Office of Police Accountability] investigation, is there anything else you want to say about that and about what Sue Rahr wrote?
Swank
Yeah, there’s something I want to say.
Sue Rahr — well, she’s facing some lawsuits now about her conduct there, and her short time as being interim chief because she’s a complete failure, and she did a terrible job at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. She’s completely weaponized that place.
But as far as the investigation goes, she supported my opponent [Patti Jackson]. She started this investigation after I retired to try to use it against me during the election. She didn’t get the investigation done in time.
As a matter of fact, they mailed me the letter. I received it in my mailbox just a few days before the general election.
So it’s election interference. It’s typical actions from Democrats and what they do, and — always cheating, always doing things like that, and the party itself and operatives like her.
And it’s clear that she [Rahr] was behind my opponent. As you can see, she appoint — she made sure that my opponent, after she lost the election, got a job with the Criminal Justice Training Commission.
And then after that, when the Tacoma police chief, interim police chief spot opened up, my opponent got that spot, too.
So it’s a complete — it’s a complete racket that’s going on, and everybody that was involved — political leaders, just about everybody, especially all the Democrats for sure — didn’t want me to win this sheriff position. They really thought that they were going to win.
And so once I won, they decided to double down and try to do things to, like, have me investigated by CJTC to decertify me or something like that. That’s what it’s all about, and it’s trying to do that to intimidate me so that I’ll go along and do what they want me to do. But I’m going to do what’s right all the time, no matter what.
GHN
Oh, I hadn’t heard about the investigation by CJTC.
Swank
Oh, yeah, well, it is, because they investigate any complaints that come out that they can use to decertify something.
They have, like, 1,500 complaints statewide against officers, and just about any complaint that happens, they get a copy of it, and then they can start their investigation to see if they want to decertify people.
It’s completely terrible, and it’s weaponized against officers throughout the state, and I really hope that CJTC gets invested by the Trump administration, Department of Justice, so we can show what’s really going on there.
It’s terrible. The training’s awful also.
GHN
And so I’m curious, again, where the information that Pelo — sorry, because I meant to ask you this just before we moved on to CJTC and before I asked again about Rahr — where did this information that you’re citing come from?
Swank
Which information are you talking about that I’m citing?
GHN
Oh, Nancy Pelosi.
Swank
Are we back to Nancy Pelosi again?
GHN
I was just — sorry, I was just curious, because I didn’t ask you where you got the information.
Swank
I read it on investigations and on news, things like that.
GHN
Sure.
Swank
So, like I said, it’s not settled, so there’s much more coming out. I looked at some of the documents from those days that we got, but a lot of them were destroyed because the Democrats didn’t want the American people to see what really happened.
So it’s completely — well, we’re not going to be able to get a full picture of what happened on that day, because there’s been records and documents that have been destroyed. We’re never going to get them again.
So I don’t know if we’ll ever get down to the real truth of what happened that day.
GHN
Okay. Okay, is there anything else that you want to say about either the resolution, Keep Washington Working, any of the whole SPD — er, OPA investigation, Sue Rahr, anything like that?
Swank
Well, I’d like to end with — and I appreciate you talking with me, and I’d like to end with this. I’m the sheriff of Pierce County. I abide by the Constitution, the federal and the state Constitution.
I have — I’m getting pulled from both directions, from the state and from the federal government, saying, “You are to enforce this law, you are to enforce this law.”
I need to have a decision. So does other sheriffs and police chiefs in Washington State specifically, to know which way we’re supposed to go and how we handle these things because, for instance, last night, Pierce County Council did away with E-Verify.
I told them, “It’s a federal law. If you don’t abide by the federal law, you’re violating it. It’s fines to begin with, then up to jail time.”
Now, we police officers are sworn to not violate law, and then they’re going to have this E-Verify — we can’t do away with E-Verify because we’re violating the federal law.
So we need to have — we police commanders, we police sheriffs and chiefs and stuff — we need to have some resolution on what’s going on with these things so we make sure that we’re not being — not been running afoul of federal law and my deputies or my commanders ending up with fines or in prison. That’s what my job is to do is make sure that we’re not doing things like that, and that’s what I’m working on.
GHN
Got it. Thank you. I really do appreciate your time and you taking the time to talk to me tonight.
Swank
You’re welcome.
GHN
Thanks. Take care.
Swank
Bye-bye.