How does the 287(g) deputization program work and which local jurisdictions currently participate?
Executive summary
The 287(g) program deputizes state and local law enforcement to perform defined federal immigration functions under written agreements with ICE, using several enforcement “models” (jail, task force/patrol, and other variants) and formal training and oversight requirements administered by DHS/ICE [1] [2] [3]. Since early 2025 ICE has aggressively expanded the program: as of January 14, 2026 ICE reported 1,318 memoranda of agreement covering 40 states and 21 pending applications, while critics and advocates point to very different effects on community policing and civil‑rights outcomes [4] [5] [6].
1. How 287(g) actually delegates federal power to local officers
Under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE signs a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with a state or local law‑enforcement agency and designates specific officers who, after ICE training and background checks, may exercise delegated immigration authorities otherwise reserved for federal agents; in practice most MOAs have been with county sheriffs or jail systems but agreements can be tailored to other agency types [1] [4]. ICE describes different enforcement models — the jail model (immigration screening and charging at detention facilities), the task force/patrol model (officers exercising limited immigration authority during routine policing or on ICE task forces), and hybrid or patrol models — and emphasizes that ICE provides training, IT support, program management and oversight while federal funds cover much of those costs [2] [3] [7].
2. Training, oversight, funding and known implementation gaps
Officers nominated for 287(g) must be U.S. citizens, pass background checks and complete ICE‑administered training; ICE says it monitors participating officers, but past audits and independent reviews have warned about uneven training, limited oversight capacity and gaps in monitoring when ICE supervisors are responsible for multiple jurisdictions [4] [7] [8]. Congressional proposals in 2025–26 codify flexibility in models and propose expanded recruiting and oversight requirements, signaling a federal push to scale the program even as oversight challenges remain well documented [3] [9].
3. Scale, recent expansion and where participation shows up
ICE’s published numbers show dramatic growth under the current administration’s recruitment push: ICE reported 1,318 MOAs in 40 states as of January 14, 2026 and earlier reporting counted 669 agencies operating under the Task Force model across 34 states — numbers reinforced by trackers from advocacy groups that map active agreements and by reporting that ICE has actively recruited jurisdictions since January 2025 [4] [10] [5]. Independent trackers from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and civil‑rights organizations provide searchable maps and maintain lists of participating counties and municipal agencies, while state reports note clusters— for example, Maryland had eight counties with 287(g) agreements as state legislators debated bans in 2026 [1] [2] [11].
4. What supporters say versus what critics document
Supporters — including ICE and some local officials — frame 287(g) as a force multiplier that helps identify criminal noncitizens, leverages federal resources to bolster public safety, and allows jurisdictions to select models that fit local priorities [2] [3]. Civil‑rights groups and many policing associations counter that the program corrodes trust between immigrant communities and police, produces racial‑profiling and civil‑rights harms in some jurisdictions, and can redirect local law enforcement away from community policing; critics also document rapid expansion into states that previously had little participation and cite studies showing “universal” versus “targeted” implementations produce different outcomes [6] [12] [8] [13]. Both sides point to the same public data — ICE MOAs and local agreements — but interpret the program’s public‑safety tradeoffs very differently [4] [6].
5. Limits of available reporting and practical next steps for readers
ICE’s public pages and MOA counts are the authoritative snapshot for who participates, and advocacy groups maintain interactive maps; however, these sources differ in how they categorize models, and reporting notes pending applications and state laws that ban or compel participation [4] [1] [6]. For a precise, up‑to‑date list of specific counties and municipal agencies, the ICE 287(g) participant map and the ILRC/advocacy trackers should be consulted directly because this coverage changes rapidly with new MOAs, terminations, and state legislative action [2] [1].