Which county sheriff’s offices currently have active 287(g) agreements according to ICE’s public roster?
Executive summary
ICE’s public roster shows a sprawling network of 287(g) memorandums of agreement—1,372 MOAs across 40 states as of January 30, 2026—yet the federal page does not, in the materials provided here, give a simple, consolidated list of every county sheriff’s office currently operating under an active 287(g) agreement [1]. Local reporting fills in pieces of that map—naming new sign-ups (Kenosha, Sauk counties), recent withdrawals (Bucks County), and state-level totals—but the assembled sources do not permit a definitive, source-cited enumeration of every county sheriff’s office on ICE’s roster in this package [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What the official roster actually says — big totals, few named counties
The ICE “Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g)” page reports the program’s scale—1,372 Memorandums of Agreement covering 40 states and nine pending applications as of January 30, 2026—but in the excerpts provided it offers summary statistics rather than a directly quoted, line-by-line roster of county sheriff offices that can be reproduced here [1]. Because the user’s question asks for “which county sheriff’s offices currently have active 287(g) agreements according to ICE’s public roster,” the honest first point is that the federal page confirms the scope and count, but the supplied text does not contain the full itemized list of county sheriffs necessary to answer with a complete, source-cited catalog [1].
2. What local reporting adds — pockets of specificity, and recent changes
Local journalism supplied by WHYY, the ACLU of Wisconsin, WIS-TV, and other outlets provides specific, verifiable examples: Bucks County’s newly elected sheriff publicly ended a prior 287(g) agreement that had existed under the former sheriff (Danny Ceisler ended the agreement that had been established under Fred Harran) [3]; in Wisconsin, the ACLU flagged that Kenosha and Sauk counties recently signed agreements with ICE [2]; and state-focused pieces report counts of participating agencies within states—for example, 32 state and local agencies in South Carolina and varying counts reported for Kentucky (16 or 22 agencies in different local reports), while reporting from Michigan describes seven agencies that have signed agreements under different models [4] [5] [6] [7]. Those local stories demonstrate active, changing participation but stop short of compiling a single authoritative national list of county sheriffs drawn directly from ICE’s roster in the provided material [3] [2] [4] [7] [5].
3. Why a fully enumerated county list can’t be produced from these sources alone
The discrepancy between what the ICE summary offers and what local stories provide is consequential: the federal page gives aggregate numbers and a program description but, in the excerpts available here, does not print the roster of county names that would let this account enumerate “which county sheriff’s offices currently have active 287(g) agreements” line-by-line [1]. Local outlets fill in high-profile signings, reversals and state totals—useful for examples and trends [2] [3] [4]—but the supplied snippets include inconsistent state tallies for Kentucky (p1_s7 vs. [3]4) and do not jointly cover all 1,372 MOAs, meaning a comprehensive county-by-county list cannot be responsibly produced from this dataset without going to ICE’s live roster page for verification [1].
4. Practical next step and context for readers pursuing the full list
For anyone seeking the exact, current roster of county sheriffs with active 287(g) agreements, the primary source to consult is ICE’s 287(g) webpage—whose summary statistics are cited here and which is explicitly named as containing the program’s latest information [1]; complementary state and local reporting can corroborate recent signings (Kenosha, Sauk), withdrawals (Bucks), and state-level participation totals (South Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan) but should be cross-checked against ICE’s live roster for completeness and recency [2] [3] [4] [7] [5]. Readers should also note that participation models vary (for example, the Warrant Service Officer model), and that political and legislative pressures—state mandates, financial incentives, and local elections—are actively changing which county sheriff’s offices participate, so any static list can become outdated quickly [8] [9] [10] [7].