Under the Trump administration, the 287(g) immigration enforcement program is rapidly expanding across the country. Through this agreement local and state authorities gain the legal ability to make immigration arrests or do other federal enforcement activities related to immigration. Risk to immigrants living or traveling in areas with 287(g) agreements increases along with the risk of arrest, detention, and deportation.
History:
In 2002, the first 287(g) agreement was signed by a Florida law enforcement agency. These agreements increased over the years. President Obama ended the task force model due to lawsuits and problems highlighted by an investigation by the Justice Department. The jail enforcement and warrant service officer models continued under Obama. When Trump entered the White House, he expanded the program with an executive order which swelled participation. The Biden years retained existing agreements but halted expansion.
During his first term, Trump signed an executive order to expand the 287(g) program, and this led to a large increase in participation. The Biden administration preserved these existing agreements but ultimately decided to halt any new agreements from being signed. When Trump began his second term, he signed another executive order dramatically expanding 287(g) agreements.
3 Levels of 287(g):
A local or state law enforcement agency must sign an agreement with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enter into any of these levels. Subsequent to the signing of the agreement and the training of officers under the arrangement, the newly empowered officers are able to act like ICE agents within their jails or when conducting other law enforcement activities as outlined by the level of the agreement.
Warrant Service Model: (WSO)
Grants limited powers to the local agency: Allows officers to serve
and execute administrative warrants on aliens in custody.
Jail Enforcement Model: (JEM)
Grants more enforcement power to the local agency but still only within jail operations: Allows officers to identify and process removable aliens who have pending or active criminal charges.
Task Force Model: (TFM)
Grants the most powers (local and state officers gain most of the powers of immigration enforcement agents): Allows officers to identify and
report suspected aliens not charged with crimes (under ICE oversight)
and exercise limited immigration authority on ICE-led task forces.
Financial Incentives:
Agencies signing the Task Force Model (TFM) may receive the following under the Reimbursement Plan Benefits:
$7,500 for equipment per trained Task Force Officer
$10,000 for new vehicles per Memorandum of Agreement
Salary and benefits reimbursed per trained Task Force Officer
Overtime funds up to 25% of salary
Proliferation of Agreements:
As of July 2026, 2126 agreements had been signed covering 39 states and 2 territories.
WSO agreements: 528 agencies (34 states)
JEM agreements: 177 agencies (30 states/1 territory)
TFM agreements: 1421 agencies (32 states/2 territories)
Some states (like Texas and Georgia) have passed laws requiring participation in 287(g) agreements. Florida passed a law making 287 (g) agreements mandatory for county jails.
Other states have laws banning local law enforcement from participating in 287(g) agreements. These states are California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont, New Mexico, and Washington.
287(g) in Your Community:
287(g) agreements allow designated officers the additional ability to stop, interrogate, arrest, or transport immigrants based solely on immigration violations. Generally local police enforce the laws of their state and do not get involved in federal enforcement activities. Because 287(g) agreements target immigrant communities, localities with these agreements are more prone to racial profiling in policing. With local police more involved with ICE, more detention and more deportation results further stressing communities where these agreements exist.
Some Effects on Community:
- Takes state and local police resources away from the community and focuses them on national deportation efforts. Local law enforcement efforts may be neglected.
- The ACLU has documented how 287(g) has increased racial profiling, civil rights abuses, and violence since its inception.
- Under Trump, an aggressive deportation enforcement style, including a present your papers approach, has fueled fear and self-deportation nationwide. Many vulnerable people have been unfairly caught up in the process.
- There has been a blurring of the line between police agencies. People caught up in these actions often can’t identify which law enforcement agents (local, state, federal) are responsible for what, so it becomes impossible to hold anyone accountable.
- Communities react by restricting their own movement and will often avoid interaction with law enforcement even avoiding reporting crimes or acting as witnesses. Some go into hiding.
- ICE has enlisted some unusual partners into their law enforcement operations. These include fire marshals, game wardens, and environmental protection personnel.
ICE Deputizing Local Law Enforcement Harms Migrants
and Local Communities:
https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=ihrlr
ICE.gov- info on 287(g)
https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g
287g Agreements v. ICE Detention Bed Contracts:
Understanding the Difference: 287(g) Agreements vs. ICE Detention Bed Contracts (IGSAs)
Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights:
Articles & Reports:
Deputized for Disaster | American Civil Liberties Union (Feb. 2026)
License to Abuse: How ICE’s 287(g) Program Empowers Racist Sheriffs | American Civil Liberties Union (Apr. 2022)
Students walk out of class to protest UF police contract with ICE – The Independent Florida Alligator (Nov. 2025)
These are the Louisiana police agencies with ICE agreements | News | nola.com (Dec. 2025, includes fire marshals, game wardens, environmental protection agency personnel)
Insurance Impacts on Local Agencies:
TAKING ACTION!
TOOLKITS:
Ending 287(g): A Toolkit for Local Organizers | Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ILRC
287G TOOLKIT 1.indd (ACLU-MN Toolkit)
Immigration Dragnet – The New Era of 287(g).pdf This policy brief reviews the recent history of 287(g) agreements and how they’ve proliferated, describes the three 287(g) agreement models, examines a case study of escalating 287(g) programs in Florida, delves into the programs’ dangers and harms, and provides some recommendations for local communities that want to stop 287(g) agreements in their tracks.
Ending 287(g) Toolkit – Google Docs This digital toolkit includes talking points and sample social media posts.
287(g) FOIA Documents | Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ILRC Collected pages from a FOIA to ICE that relate to the 287(g) program. Includes documents from all over the country, including 287(g) applications and needs assessments, emails about joining the program, MOAs, and other records.
You must be logged in to post a comment.