Were all states' law enforcement willing to form cooperation agreements with ICE under Obama?
Executive summary
Not all state and local law enforcement were willing to form cooperation agreements with ICE during the Obama administration; participation was limited and contested, with many jurisdictions refusing 287(g) deputization or adopting “sanctuary” limits even as federal programs like Secure Communities expanded and generated friction [1] [2] [3].
1. The simple answer: no — participation was partial and uneven
By the end of the Obama administration, only a small fraction of state and local agencies had formal cooperation agreements with ICE, with reporting indicating just 32 participating agencies at that point — a far cry from universal willingness across states and localities [1]; moreover, many cities and counties explicitly maintained policies prohibiting or limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, commonly described as “sanctuary” policies [4].
2. How cooperation was structured, and why uptake varied
Federal tools such as 287(g) agreements — which deputize local officers to perform certain immigration functions — and programs like Secure Communities made it administratively possible for local authorities to work with ICE, but they were optional for jurisdictions and varied in form [3]. The Secure Communities expansion automatically routed fingerprint data to ICE, encouraging cooperation in many places but also provoking local debate and opt-outs; some local leaders and law enforcement resisted formal 287(g) sign-ups because of concerns about racial profiling, cost, community trust, or legal exposure [2] [3].
3. Local refusals, public backlash and sanctuary responses
Several jurisdictions explicitly refused to sign 287(g) agreements or to adopt policies that would facilitate ICE enforcement — Fairfax County, Virginia, is cited as an example of a locality that rejected 287(g) participation even as nearby counties took different approaches [2]. Reporting shows public opposition at local meetings when 287(g) agreements were proposed, with residents and advocates warning of racial profiling and harm to community-police relations, and some jurisdictions instituting sanctuary-style limits to refuse cooperation [1] [4].
4. Political context, incentives and competing narratives
Federal administrations framed the need for cooperation differently: Obama-era policy combined tools to prioritize removals while also instituting guardrails and supervisory review in some guidance, which some advocates and localities found insufficient or objectionable [3]. Critics of Obama later labeled him the “deporter in chief” in part because of high removal numbers, which in turn spurred sanctuary and anti-cooperation politics at the state and local level [4] [3]. Subsequent administrations expanded or contracted local participation — for example, the number of 287(g) partners rose sharply under Trump, a change documented by advocacy and policy groups that underscores the fact that cooperation was always a policy choice rather than a universal default [1].
5. What the sources can and cannot prove — limits of reporting
Available reporting documents that participation was far from universal and that many localities refused or limited cooperation [2] [1] [4], but these sources do not provide a complete, county-by-county inventory of every state or municipality’s stance under Obama; therefore, while it is clear that not “all states’ law enforcement” were willing, this reporting cannot map every jurisdiction’s internal deliberations or quantify informal cooperation that fell short of formal agreements [1] [3]. The recorded facts show a contested landscape: federal programs existed and encouraged partnership, some local agencies signed on, but numerous jurisdictions explicitly declined to participate and many communities pushed back politically and legally [3] [4].
Bottom line
The factual record in the provided reporting is unambiguous on the central point: cooperation with ICE under Obama was optional and uneven — many local and state agencies declined 287(g) or limited cooperation through sanctuary policies, and only a modest number of agencies had formal agreements by the administration’s end [1] [2] [4]. Political arguments and subsequent policy shifts changed participation levels in later years, but that does not erase the documented refusal of numerous jurisdictions to sign on during the Obama era [1] [3].