How do 287(g) agreements affect interactions between local police and ICE, and where are such agreements active?
Executive summary
1. What 287(g) legally does: deputizes local officers to enforce federal immigration law. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to delegate specified immigration-enforcement functions to designated state and local law enforcement officers under ICE direction, turning local officers into agents who may perform defined immigration tasks as set out in memoranda of agreement (MOAs) [1] [2]. All 287(g) MOAs follow a standard template and designate which immigration functions local officers may perform, meaning the legal framework is uniform even if local use varies [3] [1].
2. How it changes day-to-day interactions between local police and ICE: operational integration and role blurring. Under active 287(g) agreements, local officers trained and delegated by ICE can question, detain, and in some models initiate immigration enforcement actions that previously would have been conducted only by federal officers, producing direct operational integration where local arrests and jail screenings can lead to immigration detainers or transfers to ICE custody [2] [1]. ICE describes this as giving local and state officers “tools and authority” to identify and remove immigration violators, framing the partnership as targeting criminal noncitizens [4]. Civil‑rights and immigrant‑advocacy groups argue the same operational integration expands the dragnet for immigration enforcement, increases the risk of arrest, and can push local policing into immigration enforcement roles that erode community trust [5] [6].
3. Models and scope: multiple program models with different footprints. ICE runs several 287(g) models — including Jail Enforcement Model (JEM), Warrant Service Officer (WSO) agreements, and Task Force Model (TFM) — each designed for different enforcement settings, and collectively they account for hundreds of participating agencies across states [1]. ICE’s public tally shows more than 1,300 MOAs covering agencies in 40 states as of January 8, 2026, with separate counts for JEM (147 agencies), WSO (448 agencies), and TFM (723 agencies), and a small number of pending applications [1]. DHS has similarly touted more than 1,000 partnerships as evidence of program scale and national reach [4].
4. Local impacts: policing, public safety claims, and the counterarguments. Supporters and DHS/ICE officials argue 287(g) helps “remove the worst of the worst” and enhance homeland security by enabling local officers to play a role in identifying dangerous criminals with immigration violations [4]. Opponents — including civil‑rights groups and immigrant‑rights organizations — document that 287(g) agreements can fuel racial profiling, lead to deportations following routine contacts with police, sow fear that deters cooperation with law enforcement, and disproportionately affect immigrant communities, undermining public‑safety goals [6] [7] [5].
5. Oversight, accountability, and documented concerns. The Government Accountability Office has found that ICE can strengthen its planning and oversight of state and local 287(g) agreements, implying gaps in supervision and consistency across partnerships [8]. Advocacy groups and legal researchers have repeatedly urged stronger safeguards; the existence of a uniform MOA template does not eliminate variations in training, implementation, and local practices that produce different outcomes on the ground [3] [8].
6. Where 287(g) is active and how to find specifics. Active 287(g) agreements are widespread: ICE publishes an active-agency list and aggregate counts on its 287(g) page, and immigration‑service groups and investigative outlets maintain maps and trackers that list participating counties, agencies, and the model used [1] [2] [9]. While some states and localities are expanding participation, other states (for example, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado) have enacted laws that restrict or bar local cooperation with ICE and therefore limit or prohibit local participation in 287(g) [10] [11].
7. The political and policy landscape: expansion, pushback, and continuing debate. Recent years have seen rapid increases in partnerships under some administrations and legislative pushes in several states either to mandate or to ban participation, situating 287(g) at the center of broader debates over federalism, local policing priorities, and immigration enforcement strategy [1] [10]. The evidence base, including GAO findings and reporting from civil‑liberties groups, shows both operational benefits claimed by DHS and clear risks identified by critics — a tension that keeps 287(g) both widely used and hotly contested [4] [8] [6].