Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does ICE cooperate with local law enforcement agencies?
Executive Summary
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) primarily cooperates with state and local law enforcement through the 287(g) program, training and deputizing local officers to enforce specific immigration laws and offering information-sharing tools and training resources via Law Enforcement Assistance Corner, among other supports [1] [2]. That cooperation has expanded to more than 1,000 formal partnerships by mid‑September 2025, but the relationship is uneven: some municipalities explicitly bar cooperation while others adopt task‑force models to work closely with ICE [3] [4] [5] [6]. Below is a multi‑source, date‑aware comparison of these claims.
1. What advocates and ICE both say about how cooperation works — The advertised toolbox for local police
ICE describes a clear mechanism for cooperation that centers on the 287(g) program, which authorizes state and local officers to carry out certain federal immigration enforcement functions after ICE training and certification. The program is complemented by ICE’s Law Enforcement Assistance Corner and other technical supports, which provide training, information sharing, and operational guidance to partner agencies that voluntarily agree to the arrangements [1] [2]. These descriptions, dated late September 2025, present cooperation as a menu of formal agreements, training curricula, and data systems that integrate local activity with federal immigration enforcement databases.
2. How big the network is — Numbers and timeline for program growth
DHS and ICE reported that the 287(g) network exceeded 1,000 partnerships by September 17, 2025, marking a major expansion compared with earlier years and noting a steep percentage increase under the administration referenced in those reports [3] [4]. These September 2025 accounts frame the growth as both quantitative and rapid, with ICE emphasizing scale when presenting the program to potential partners [3] [4]. The consistency of the numerical claims across DHS/ICE communications indicates an institutional emphasis on partnership expansion as an operational priority during that timeframe [3] [1].
3. Where cooperation is contested — Local opposition and explicit bans
Not all jurisdictions are welcoming. As of October 2, 2025, Worcester, Massachusetts, passed a resolution prohibiting the city from pursuing or considering a 287(g) agreement, reflecting municipal resistance grounded in community and political concerns [5]. The Worcester decision, and similar local resolutions cited in the analyses, demonstrate that cooperation is not uniform; some cities and councils deliberately refuse to participate to protect immigrant communities or assert local policy priorities. These opposing moves occurred in late September and early October 2025, underscoring contemporaneous pushback against federal-local enforcement alignment [5].
4. Regional variance and operational models — Task forces and selective engagement
Across states, jurisdictions adopt different operational models: some counties or police departments join 287(g) and embed ICE‑trained officers into task forces to identify and report suspected undocumented immigrants, while others limit interaction to information requests or decline formal partnership agreements entirely [6] [1]. North Carolina examples from late September 2025 show a growing number of local agencies opting into task‑force arrangements, signaling a pragmatic law‑enforcement approach in some regions versus political resistance in others [6]. These variations produce a patchwork enforcement landscape that depends on local policy choices and political dynamics.
5. Competing narratives and possible agendas — Framing from DHS/ICE versus municipal actors
DHS and ICE frame expansion as an operational success and safety partnership, citing training, resources, and measurable growth in partnerships to justify programs [3] [4] [1]. Local opponents frame refusal to engage as a protection of immigrant communities and a guardrail against federal overreach, with municipal resolutions explicitly prohibiting pursuit of agreements [5]. These divergent framings suggest organizational agendas: ICE emphasizes scale and capability, while municipal actors highlight civil‑society impacts and local governance prerogatives. The timing of statements—mid‑September to early‑October 2025—captures an active debate around policy and implementation.
6. What’s left unsaid and why it matters — Operational outcomes and community effects
The supplied materials document program mechanics and scale but provide limited data on outcomes such as arrest demographics, judicial processing, community reporting behavior, or long‑term crime trends tied to 287(g) engagement. ICE materials emphasize partnership counts and tools [2] [1], whereas local resolutions emphasize principle rather than empirical impact [5]. This omission matters because decisions about cooperation hinge not only on program availability and political choice but also on demonstrated effects—public safety, civil‑liberties tradeoffs, and community trust—none of which are quantified in the September–October 2025 summaries cited here.
7. Bottom line — A fragmented national picture with a clear federal push and local pushback
As of late September and early October 2025, ICE actively expanded formal partnerships and offered training and tools to local law enforcement through 287(g) and related programs, claiming over 1,000 agreements, while notable municipalities formally banned consideration of such partnerships, illustrating a divided, localized landscape [3] [4] [1] [2] [5] [6]. Policymakers and communities should weigh the documented growth and federal framing against municipal resistance and the absence of robust outcome data in these sources when assessing whether and how local agencies should cooperate with ICE.