Which specific counties signed new 287(g) MOAs in 2025 and what were the contract terms?
Executive summary
A surge of new 287(g) memoranda of agreement (MOAs) was executed across the country in 2025 as part of the administration’s push to expand local-federal immigration partnerships; reporting identifies specific county-level signings in North Dakota—Dunn, Dickinson, Eddy and McKenzie counties—and shows Volusia County, Florida, appearing in ICE datasets as newly recorded Task Force MOAs (the latter flagged as a duplicate entry) [1] [2]. Public sources describe broad common terms—training of deputized officers, delegation of immigration authorities including detainer functions, and ICE supervision—while also noting variation by model (Task Force vs. Jail Enforcement Model) and limits in available detail about individual county contract clauses [3] [4] [5].
1. What counties are documented signing new 287(g) MOAs in 2025
Advocacy and watchdog reporting directly names several North Dakota jurisdictions—Dunn County Sheriff’s Office, McKenzie County Sheriff’s Office and the Dickinson Police Department—as having signed 287(g) agreements in March 2025, with Eddy County also listed among local agencies with agreements as of May 21, 2025 [1]. Separately, an ICE dataset compiled by independent researchers lists Volusia County Sheriff’s Office in Florida as a Task Force MOA entry dated February 26, 2025, though that dataset flags Volusia’s entry as duplicated and cautions that agency naming inconsistencies can overcount the true number of distinct signings [2].
2. What the publicly reported contract terms generally include
The foundational structure of 287(g) MOAs is consistent across legal and government explanations: ICE delegates specified immigration authorities to designated local officers through the MOA, officers receive immigration law training paid by ICE, and deputized officers operate under ICE supervision and within the scope set out in the MOA [3] [4]. Reporting on the 2025 expansion emphasizes two practical features: the Task Force Model (broader, mobile enforcement teams) was revived, and the Jail Enforcement Model (limited to screening in custody) remains in use—each model carries different operational authorities and deployments in the MOA language [5].
3. Specific contract provisions documented in reporting about 2025 rollouts
Contemporary summaries of the 2025 rollout note that ICE trained hundreds of participants—625 individuals across 141 agencies between January 20 and March 11, 2025—and that ICE reported signing more than 450 MOAs across 38 states by mid-April 2025, indicating standardized commitments such as training, deputation, and authority to issue immigration detainers in many agreements [6] [5]. The ICE guidance and reporting also specify eligibility and procedural items included in MOAs: nominees must meet experience thresholds, ICE covers specific immigration-duty training costs, and agencies must submit formal Letters of Interest and MOAs to ICE for authorization [4].
4. Limits of available reporting and variations by county
Public sources document which counties signed and outline common MOA mechanics, but they do not make available full, county-level MOA texts in these briefings, meaning granular contract terms—limitations on geographic scope, data-sharing specifics, liability clauses, invocation of detainer holds beyond the 48-hour guidance, and cost-sharing or local operational constraints—are not uniformly reported in the material provided [2] [3]. Independent datasets also warn of errors and duplicate listings (e.g., Volusia) that complicate counting and precise attribution of newly signed county MOAs [2].
5. Competing narratives, policy drivers and hidden agendas
Pro-expansion sources and ICE portray the 2025 surge as a necessary “force multiplier” to meet deportation objectives given limited federal agent capacity, with ICE stressing training and oversight commitments [6] [4]. Civil-rights groups and state advocates frame the same MOAs as engines of racial profiling, community distrust and local fiscal burden; organizations like the ACLU of North Dakota explicitly catalog county signings to raise alarm and promote resistance [1]. Independent analyses and legal resource centers underscore that while MOA language is standardized in places, the models’ operational differences and state political pressure—some states mandating or incentivizing local participation—are critical contextual drivers behind the signings [5] [3].