Tallahassee Has Not Upheld ICE 287(g) Pact, Review Continues

(TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA) The Tallahassee City Commission has not upheld its ICE enforcement pact with a 3–2 vote. Instead, as of October 23, 2025, commissioners are still reviewing the city’s 287(g) agreement and weighing legal options amid loud public debate and pressure from state officials.

Records show a series of votes to study the pact and its legal footing, not to approve or cement it. City leaders continue to ask whether Tallahassee must keep the agreement and what risks come with stepping away.

How the controversy began

The dispute started in March 2025, when the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD), under pressure from Governor Ron DeSantis, entered a 287(g) agreement with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agreement allows a designated local officer, under ICE supervision, to perform limited immigration enforcement tasks.

• Only one TPD officer has been trained under the program.
• TPD maintains that officers do not routinely take part in immigration enforcement within the city.

A central grievance fueling the political fight: the agreement was signed by the city manager and police chief without a public vote by the City Commission. That bypass of the commission sparked community anger and months of tense meetings. Commissioners who opposed that process argued the city should not have entered such a pact without full public debate.

Commission votes and procedural history

• In June 2025, the City Commission voted 3–2 to bring the issue back for discussion and review.
  • The vote was supported by Mayor John Dailey, Commissioner Jeremy Matlow, and Commissioner Jack Porter.
  • That vote was procedural — it did not uphold the ICE enforcement pact. It only required a deeper look at policy, legal risk, and options.
• During the summer of 2025, tensions continued. In August 2025, the 287(g) agreement was left off a meeting agenda, prompting protests and public frustration.

• Commissioners later voted unanimously to explore legal options, including whether Tallahassee should join or initiate litigation challenging the state’s role in encouraging cities to enter these agreements.

As of October 2025, the city has not taken a final vote to uphold or terminate the pact.

Legal backdrop and state pressure

Under a 287(g) agreement, local officers may perform certain immigration enforcement functions under federal direction. Supporters say the program targets violent offenders. In Tallahassee:

• Only one TPD officer has completed the training.
• The department reports no active participation by TPD officers in immigration enforcement inside the city.

Florida’s political environment has complicated the city’s choices:

• State leaders, including Governor DeSantis and Attorney General James Uthmeier, have warned local officials against resisting ICE enforcement pact arrangements.
• Officials have threatened removal of local leaders who do not comply with state-backed policies.
• However, state law does not clearly compel cities to sign a 287(g) agreement, creating legal gray areas and prompting court challenges.

This uncertainty is not unique to Tallahassee. Other Florida cities (for example, South Miami) have challenged state policies tied to immigration enforcement in court. Tallahassee commissioners say they want full legal advice before deciding. They have discussed joining or starting litigation to test the state’s authority to push cities toward federal immigration roles.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com highlights that debates over the 287(g) program often focus on tension between state directives and local control and public trust. Tallahassee fits this pattern: a city-led process review, a narrow 3–2 vote to reopen the issue, and ongoing questions about legal obligations.

City Hall remains cautious: staff are preparing legal briefings while commissioners signal they are not ready to make a final call.

Community response and policing concerns

Public input in Tallahassee has been strong and sustained.

• Immigrant rights groups, faith leaders, and community advocates have packed meetings and organized protests since the pact became public.
• Their central argument: a 287(g) agreement can erode trust between immigrant residents and local police, deterring people from reporting crimes or serving as witnesses.
• Advocates are urging the city to withdraw the agreement.

Law enforcement leaders have emphasized the program’s limited scope:

• TPD Chief Lawrence Revell has stated that, as of the most recent reports, no TPD officer has engaged in immigration enforcement inside city limits.
• The department characterizes the program as narrow and subject to ICE oversight.

Concerns about transparency persist because the agreement was signed without a commission vote. Commissioners Jeremy Matlow and Jack Porter have framed the discussion around:

• city autonomy
• open government
• the legal basis for the ICE enforcement pact

Mayor Dailey joined Matlow and Porter in June to reopen the matter for review, though he has not publicly stated whether he favors upholding or ending the pact. The remainder of the commission has supported seeking outside legal counsel and reviewing litigation options.

For families and small businesses, the uncertainty is tangible:

• Parents fear a routine traffic stop could escalate into an immigration matter.
• Small businesses with mixed-status workers are uncertain how to advise staff.
• The commission’s drawn-out review indicates those concerns are being heard, but also underscores the complexity of the legal landscape for local leaders.

What comes next — key items to watch

As of October 23, 2025, there is no 3–2 vote to uphold the ICE enforcement pact. The commission’s record shows repeated efforts to study the agreement, seek legal advice, and consider litigation over state pressure tied to immigration enforcement.

Residents should watch for:

1. Whether the commission places the 287(g) agreement on a future agenda for action rather than review.
2. Any recommendation from the city attorney to join or file a lawsuit challenging state measures.
3. Updates from TPD about training, procedures, and any enforcement activity tied to the pact.
4. Responses from the Governor’s Office and the Attorney General if Tallahassee challenges state pressure.

For federal background on the 287(g) program, see the U.S. government’s overview of 287(g) partnerships on ICE’s website. That page explains how ICE supervises local officers who receive training and the basic structure of such agreements.

Bottom line

The bottom line in Tallahassee is process, not approval. Commissioners have focused on transparency and legal clarity, not endorsement. They have voted to revisit the pact, explore legal options, and hear from counsel about state demands.

• Unless and until the City Commission takes a final vote, Tallahassee remains in a holding pattern.
• The public record is clear: the city has not upheld the 287(g) agreement with a 3–2 vote, and the matter remains under active review.

Residents who want to follow developments should monitor posted agendas and minutes for upcoming City Commission meetings — those records will show if and when the ICE enforcement pact comes up for a final vote.