Were there formal MOUs between ICE and sanctuary cities under the Obama administration?
Executive summary
There is no evidence in the provided reporting that the Obama administration entered into formal memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with jurisdictions that identified as "sanctuary" cities to cooperate on immigration enforcement; instead, the period saw federal programs and specific local agreements—like 287(g) deputization pacts and the Secure Communities/PEP fingerprint-data arrangements—that operated separately from sanctuary policies and were often the subject of controversy [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows the Obama administration moved to limit some ICE-local cooperative tools (scrapping Secure Communities in favor of Priority Enforcement Program) and did not broadly convert sanctuary jurisdictions into formal MOUs to carry out federal removals [2] [3].
1. What “formal MOUs” usually meant in this landscape
When analysts speak of “formal MOUs” between ICE and localities they most commonly mean explicit local agreements like 287(g) deputization MOUs, under which local officers are authorized to perform certain immigration enforcement tasks; those kinds of written agreements existed historically between ICE and local law enforcement but were politically distinct from the policies adopted by sanctuary cities to limit cooperation [1].
2. Obama-era federal programs vs. local MOUs
The Obama administration relied more on nationwide data-sharing and priority-setting programs—most notably Secure Communities (later replaced by the Priority Enforcement Program, PEP)—than on converting sanctuary jurisdictions into cooperative MOUs; Secure Communities funneled arrest biometrics to the federal government via FBI channels and was framed as a federal program rather than a patchwork of city-by-city MOUs, and PEP was explicitly designed to narrow ICE requests to convicted criminals in line with enforcement priorities [2] [3].
3. 287(g) deputizations: formal agreements, but not typically with sanctuary jurisdictions
Separate from Secure Communities/PEP, 287(g) agreements are formal written deputization contracts between ICE and local agencies; the reporting notes that task-force–style 287(g) arrangements were a major part of the broader set of local-federal enforcement agreements and that some models were discontinued during the Obama years amid concerns such as racial profiling—showing that formal agreements did exist, but they were politically and operationally different from sanctuary policies that limited cooperation [1].
4. Sanctuary policies resisted formal cooperation, and Obama policy reflected that tension
Sanctuary jurisdictions tended to adopt laws or policies prohibiting or limiting local cooperation with ICE (for example, limits on honoring detainers or sharing information), which is why the Obama DHS moved to limit tools that had caused broad local pushback and why PEP emphasized criminal convictions before seeking custody; sanctuary laws and local resistance meant formal MOUs to cooperate with ICE were not the norm in those jurisdictions [2] [4].
5. Competing narratives and the limits of available reporting
Some commentators have portrayed Obama as presiding over record deportations while others emphasize his administration’s efforts to pare back blanket local cooperation and focus enforcement priorities; the sources show both the high volume of removals and the Obama-era policy shift from Secure Communities to PEP, but they do not provide a list of any MOUs that the Obama administration signed specifically with jurisdictions that self-identified as sanctuaries—so any claim that Obama cut formal MOUs with sanctuary cities into wide use is not supported by these sources [2] [3] [5]. The available reports document federal programs and discrete 287(g) agreements, and they document sanctuary policies as obstacles to cooperation, but they do not document MOUs formalizing cooperation between ICE and sanctuary cities.
6. Bottom line and alternative readings
Bottom line: the sources indicate that formal, written deputization agreements (287[g]) and federal data-sharing programs existed, and that the Obama administration moved to limit some cooperative tools (shifting Secure Communities to PEP) rather than forging MOUs with sanctuary jurisdictions to carry out enforcement; sanctuary cities generally enacted policies to restrict cooperation, and the reporting does not show formal MOUs between ICE and those sanctuary jurisdictions under Obama [1] [2] [3]. An alternative interpretation offered by critics is that Obama’s removal totals and some federally mandated data flows functionally pressured localities, even where no cooperative MOU was signed—an argument reflected in debates but not proven by the documents cited here [5].