Which U.S. cities have active 287(g) agreements with ICE and how do those cities vote in recent federal elections?
Executive summary
Public records from ICE and mapping projects show the 287(g) program has exploded since 2020, with well over 1,000 memoranda of agreement covering agencies in 40 states—but the available reporting and datasets describe the program mostly at the county and agency level rather than as a neat list of “cities” with active agreements, limiting any definitive city-by-city election analysis [1] [2] [3]. Local examples reported in the press include Bucks County, Pennsylvania; Miami-area pushback; and Utah County, Utah, but the primary sources emphasize counties and sheriff’s offices as the typical signatories, not municipal governments, which complicates direct mapping to how a given city voted in recent federal elections [4] [5] [2].
1. What the official roll call shows — a national program, not a tidy city list
ICE’s public tally reports 1,372 memoranda of agreement across 40 states as of January 30, 2026, and breaks them down by program model (JEM, WSO, TFM), underscoring that the legal vehicle is a contract between ICE and a named local agency—most often county sheriffs or jails—rather than “cities” per se [1]. Independent trackers and advocacy maps (the Immigrant Legal Resource Center/ILRC map and investigative compilations) corroborate hundreds to more than a thousand active partnerships and emphasize the geographic spread; those projects present searchable jurisdictional maps that list counties and agencies more reliably than news stories do [3] [2].
2. Examples reporters cite — counties and sheriff’s offices, with a few municipal flashpoints
Recent reporting highlights Bucks County, Pennsylvania—a high-profile suburban sheriff’s office that signed a 287(g) deal and later became the subject of lawsuits and political controversy before a newly elected sheriff ended it—as an illustrative case of how these agreements play out locally [4]. Journalistic coverage also records heated public opposition when county commissions or city meetings consider joining 287(g), notable examples being public comment fights in Utah County and large crowds in Miami-area meetings opposing municipal participation in law-enforcement immigration partnerships [5]. Those accounts show that the units actually entering agreements are usually county-level or sheriff-run agencies, which matters for any effort to attach “city vote” labels to them [4] [5].
3. Where 287(g) expansion is concentrated — states, not single cities
Civil-rights groups, the ACLU and the American Immigration Council, and DHS/ICE themselves point to rapid growth in specific states—Florida, Georgia, and Texas are repeatedly named by critics and advocates as areas of fast expansion—so the clearest geographic pattern in the reporting is state- and county-level concentration rather than a neat roster of named cities [6] [7] [8]. DHS’s public statements celebrate statewide recruitment of local partners and reimbursement incentives, while advocacy groups document similar concentrations and the social impacts in those states [8] [6].
4. Voting patterns and the mapping problem: why city-level election claims are fraught
The available sources include polling showing voter attitudes toward ICE and deportations at the national level (New York Times/Siena polling), but they do not provide a matched dataset linking each 287(g) jurisdiction to recent federal election returns [9]. Because most agreements are with county sheriff’s offices and because counties can contain both heavily Democratic cities and conservative suburbs, inferring how a named “city” with an active 287(g) partnership voted in recent federal elections would require combining the ICE/ILRC agency list with official county- or precinct-level returns—data not present in the provided reporting [1] [3] [2].
5. Bottom line and responsible next steps for reporters and researchers
The sources collectively demonstrate that 287(g) now covers hundreds of local agencies across 40 states and is concentrated in states like Florida, Georgia and Texas, and they provide case studies (Bucks County, Utah County, Miami-area meetings) that illustrate local politics and opposition [1] [6] [4] [5]. However, none of the supplied documents delivers a city-by-city list paired with recent federal election results, so producing a definitive table of “which U.S. cities have active 287(g) agreements and how those cities voted” requires merging ICE’s agency-level roster or the ILRC map with official election returns at the county/municipal/precinct level—an empirical step beyond the current reporting [1] [3].