What kinds of intergovernmental agreements (MOUs) exist between ICE/DHS and tribes to manage immigration enforcement on tribal lands?
Executive summary
Federal immigration agencies use a range of formal intergovernmental instruments with tribal governments—memoranda of agreement (MOAs), memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and 287(g)-style delegation agreements—to manage cooperative enforcement, information-sharing and even detention or facility contracts on or near tribal lands, while tribes push back on sovereignty and notification concerns [1] [2] [3].
1. Types of agreements: 287(g) models, tribal task forces, jail/warrant MOAs
The most concrete, widely publicized template is the ICE 287(g) delegation framework, which ICE has historically used to sign MOAs that delegate specified immigration enforcement duties to state, local—and now tribal—partners in models described as jail enforcement, warrant service officer, task force and, since December 2025, a tribal task force variant [1] [2]. ICE’s public materials and sample MOAs show the program’s mechanics: a letter of interest followed by a signed MOA that delineates duties, training and oversight expectations for partner law enforcement to perform certain immigration functions [1] [4].
2. Legal footing and other formal instruments
The statutory and policy scaffold permitting these intergovernmental agreements includes Title 25 U.S.C. 2804(e), which expressly allows federal agencies to enter agreements with Indian tribes to carry out federal laws—including immigration laws—plus DHS tribal engagement guidance that encourages government-to-government coordination at tribes’ request [1] [5]. Tribes and advocates point to the need for formal consultation under DHS policy and a 2022 Directive; private legal advisories recommend negotiating MOUs that require advance notification to tribal governments before enforcement actions on tribal lands [6].
3. Contracts beyond enforcement: detention, facilities and services
Separately from delegation-of-authority MOAs, tribes or tribal LLCs have entered contractual arrangements with DHS components to design, staff or host detention facilities and provide guard or support services—transactions that look like procurement contracts rather than classic MOUs and have drawn political blowback when tribal entities secured multi‑million-dollar DHS work related to ICE facilities [3] [7]. Several Washington-area tribes were approached about housing detainees; some tribal correctional facilities have capacity but many tribes publicly state they have no agreements or will not enter into detention contracts [8] [9].
4. Tribal sovereignty, refusal, and negotiation leverage
Tribes exercising sovereignty have rejected or conditioned such arrangements; the Oglala Sioux Tribe publicly refused to enter any agreement that would authorize or make it easier for ICE or DHS to arrest or detain tribal members on their homeland, asserting that tribal citizens are “not aliens” and fall outside immigration jurisdiction—an explicit counterpoint to ICE’s outreach [10]. National tribal resolutions call for government-to-government agreements only at tribes’ request and insist on consultation, coordination and respect for tribal jurisdiction, a posture that frames most tribal participation as affirmative and negotiated rather than automatic [5].
5. Incentives, controversies and evolving practice
Federal incentives and program expansion are reshaping uptake: DHS has promoted 287(g) partnerships and added a tribal task force option amid a wider push to deepen ICE–local cooperation, which critics say pressures cash-strapped tribal entities to consider revenue opportunities from federal contracts even as other tribes warn of legal and civil‑rights implications [2] [3] [11]. Reporting shows both recruitment for contracts and strong internal tribal politics—some tribal councils firing business leaders who accepted DHS work—illustrating the tension between economic development motives and historical memory of federal detention of Native peoples [7] [3].
6. Limits of available reporting and outstanding questions
Public sources document the legal pathways (Title 25 and 287(g) MOAs), the addition of a tribal task force model and examples of contracts and refusals, but available reporting does not provide a comprehensive catalog of every MOU/MOA in force with tribes, the precise terms of many tribal MOUs (notification clauses, data-sharing limits, oversight mechanisms), or systematic data on how often ICE has sought tribal consent versus pursuing operations without consultation—areas where primary MOA texts, DHS disclosure logs and tribal records would be needed for full accounting [1] [2] [9].