Which U.S. counties and states saw the largest increases in ICE detainees during 2025 and what role did 287(g) agreements play?
Executive summary
The largest increases in ICE detainees during 2025 concentrated in traditional detention states—Texas, Louisiana, California, Arizona and Georgia—with aggressive upticks in Florida tied to rapid 287(g) expansion and new local-jail contracts; major facilities in South Texas (Dilley), Adelanto (California), and LaSalle (Louisiana) hosted some of the biggest population surges [1] [2]. The revival and explosive scaling of 287(g) agreements—jumping from near-zero models early in the year to hundreds by mid-2025 and over a thousand MOAs by year’s end—was a central mechanism that routed more people from county jails into ICE custody and materially drove local increases [3] [4] [5].
1. The geographic picture: where detainee counts rose most sharply
Public reporting and facility-level tallies show Texas, Louisiana, California, Arizona and Georgia as states with the largest detained populations in 2025, with South Texas facilities and large processing centers such as South Texas Family Residential Center (Dilley, TX), Adelanto (CA) and LaSalle (LA) among the single largest sites by headcount [1] [2]. Data dashboards and NGO trackers documented an unprecedented national rise—mid-December counts reached roughly 66,000 detained, up roughly three-quarters from the start of the year—which was concentrated in states already hosting large ICE footprints [6] [7].
2. Counties and local jails: the often-overlooked front line
Beyond state totals, county jails and specific county agreements mattered: reporting cites new or expanded uses of Baker County, Florida facilities and Mahoning County (Youngstown, OH) proposals as examples of counties either doubling capacity or being solicited to host ICE overflow beds, illustrating how county-level deals translated into local increases [2]. More broadly, ICE’s reopening and use of hundreds of previously inactive facilities and the rapid surge in intergovernmental and local jail contracts meant that many counties that had not been major players earlier in the decade saw sizable additions to their ICE populations in 2025 [4] [7].
3. How 287(g) drove the increase: mechanism and scale
The Trump administration’s revival of the 287(g) model in early 2025 and subsequent rollouts materially expanded the power of county and municipal law enforcement to effect immigration arrests and detentions; the jail-enforcement model alone went from virtually no agreements at the start of the year to hundreds by mid-August and ultimately more than a thousand MOAs across 40 states by year’s end, creating a direct pipeline from local arrests to ICE detention [3] [4]. Florida—reported to have led the nation in 287(g) agreements—became a focal point for new operations, underscoring how state-level political choices and local deputizations amplified detentions in particular jurisdictions [5].
4. Effects on who was detained and where they came from
Analysts found that a large share of people held in ICE custody in late 2025 had no criminal convictions, and that ICE increasingly relied on transfers from local lockups and CBP processing to fill new beds—indicating the 287(g)-enabled local arrests and jail holds shifted the composition and geography of the detained population [8] [9]. NGOs and advocacy groups reported that discretionary releases plummeted and that detention was being used to expedite deportations rather than focus narrowly on serious public-safety threats, a policy choice that magnified detention numbers nationwide [10] [6].
5. Limits, competing claims, and the politics behind the numbers
Data caveats matter: researchers warn ICE’s public coding and incomplete location identifiers obscure exact county and facility flows, and corrections are common, limiting precise attribution of increases to single counties [11] [7]. The Biden-era critiques from advocacy organizations and watchdogs frame the surge as policy-driven and dangerous, while DHS spokespeople contested characterizations of poor conditions and said detainees receive meals, medical care and legal access—highlighting competing agendas in the reporting [6] [4]. Congressional funding and political directives also reshaped capacity and enforcement incentives, with critics pointing to new appropriations and Republican-led legislation as enablers of the rapid expansion [6] [12].