Fact check: What is the 287(g) program and how does it facilitate ICE cooperation with local law enforcement?

1. What the program actually lets local police do — expanded ICE reach into communities

The 287(g) framework legally delegates specific immigration-authority functions from ICE to participating state and local agencies, enabling designated officers to identify, detain, process, and refer noncitizens for removal when they meet ICE criteria. ICE-trained local officers operate under written agreements and ICE oversight, and several descriptions show three operational models and designated authorities that vary by agreement type, but all effectively allow local officials to act on immigration status during arrests or booking ^{[5] [1]}. The program’s stated aim is to prioritize removable noncitizens who present criminal risks, yet the mechanics give local agencies direct roles in federal immigration enforcement ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Scale and pace: how 2025 looks very different from earlier years

Official and reporting data from mid- and late-2025 document a sharp expansion: ICE and DHS communications cite more than 1,000 partnerships and hundreds of participating agencies nationwide, while other 2025 tallies report several hundred active partners earlier in the year, indicating rapid enrollment across jurisdictions ^{[2] [5]}. This growth matters because program impacts scale with participation: more partnerships translate into broader geographic and population reach, increasing the potential for both removals and community disruption. Observers note a jump in outreach and recruitment by ICE to sign local agencies on, frequently accompanied by financial incentives ^[2].

3. Money talks: reimbursements, incentives, and local budget pressures

ICE publicly offers to reimburse participating agencies for eligible officers’ salaries and benefits and to cover overtime up to a stated percentage, a feature agencies cite when deciding to join. This financial inducement is highlighted as a rationale for participation, particularly in cash-strapped municipalities that may view federal reimbursement as budget relief ^[2]. Critics counter that reimbursements often do not fully offset training, administrative, and litigation costs, and that the program can divert scarce policing resources away from community policing and public-safety priorities ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Community trust versus public-safety arguments — clashing narratives

Supporters frame 287(g) as a public-safety tool targeting criminal noncitizens and enabling local-federal collaboration, while opponents argue it erodes trust between police and immigrant communities, reducing reporting of crimes and cooperation with investigations. Recent local debates, for example in Dallas, illustrate this divide: mayoral officials and some council members pushed for talks about joining, while community advocates and police leadership warned that partnership would damage trust and deter cooperation, framing immigration enforcement as a federal responsibility ^{[7] [4]}. Both sides frame public-safety as their priority but define it differently.

5. Evidence and watchdog concerns: civil rights, profiling, and legal exposure

Multiple reports and advocacy groups have documented patterns where 287(g) operations have swept up individuals with minimal or no serious criminal history, raising civil-rights and profiling concerns and prompting lawsuits and local resistance. Critics argue that delegated authority without robust safeguards increases risks of discriminatory stops and wrongful detentions, and that litigation and consent decrees have in some jurisdictions produced costly settlements—facts used to warn municipalities about the program’s hidden liabilities ^{[3] [6]}. Advocates for the program counter that proper oversight and training reduce misuse, but contention remains on whether oversight has been consistently effective ^{[6] [5]}.

6. Political and operational pressures driving expansion in 2025

The 2025 uptick in enrollments appears driven by federal outreach and by local political calculations: some city leaders see the program as a way to address constituent concerns about immigration and crime, while other local officials resist on community-relations and civil-rights grounds. The political landscape—campaign rhetoric, federal priorities, and municipal budgeting pressures—creates incentives for both expansion and pushback, producing a patchwork of adoption across states and counties rather than a uniform national posture ^{[2] [7] [5]}. Reporting in 2025 shows this dynamic playing out in high-profile municipal debates.

7. Bottom line: trade-offs that cities must weigh before signing up

Joining 287(g) offers immediate federal reimbursement and direct access to immigration enforcement powers, but cities trade that for potential long-term costs including erosion of community trust, litigation exposure, and diversion of policing resources. Data and accounts through mid- to late-2025 show the program’s expansion and the polarized assessments of its impacts, underlining that outcomes depend heavily on local implementation choices, oversight rigor, and community context ^{[2] [6] [3]}. Municipal leaders contemplating partnership should weigh the fiscal offers against documented community and legal risks reflected in recent reportage.