States Receive Federal Checks for Immigration Enforcement Partnerships

A new federal funding model under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) replaces voluntary cost-sharing with direct reimbursements and performance awards for 287(g) partnerships, reshaping how local agencies participate in immigration enforcement.

Put simply, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have built a “check-and-metrics” system: agencies sign Section 287(g) partnerships, document their eligible costs, and receive federal payments on a set cycle.

Section 287(g) is a legal authority in the Immigration and Nationality Act that lets ICE train and authorize certain state and local officers to perform specific immigration enforcement functions under federal supervision.

Many readers will hear “287(g)” and think of two common models:

• Jail model: screening and processing for immigration purposes after someone is booked into a local jail.
• Task force model: immigration questioning and custody actions that can arise during routine police work, like traffic stops or investigations.

Funding rules change behavior. When local governments had to pay most program costs themselves, many agencies treated 287(g) as a staffing and budget tradeoff.

Under OBBBA, DHS/ICE has shifted toward a federally funded program that reimburses certain expenses and adds cash awards tied to performance metrics.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem framed the change on September 2, 2025 as part of a broader enforcement push.

ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan, also on September 2, 2025, urged agencies to sign agreements and pointed directly to reimbursement opportunities. Those statements matter because they signal the program’s core design: expand participation by reducing local financial friction.

Readers looking for a plain description of the reimbursement concept can compare it to a federal grant reimbursement program. Agencies typically spend first, then claim eligible costs later. A check follows.

For background on how the payroll piece was described publicly, see officer salary reimbursements.

This guide is about program mechanics and likely community effects. It is not individualized legal advice.

Funding, reimbursements, and performance awards

OBBBA set aside a large enforcement funding pool, including a dedicated $13.5 billion fund tied to state and local immigration enforcement activity.

DHS/ICE then built payment pathways that generally fall into two buckets: reimbursements for documented, eligible expenses tied to 287(g) work, and performance awards that pay extra based on defined success-rate tiers.

What “quarterly reimbursement” means in practice

Quarterly reimbursement usually means agencies need a repeatable documentation cycle. Think of it like closing the books every three months.

If cost tracking is sloppy, an agency can face delayed payments, questioned claims, or audit exposure. Cashflow also matters: a county may need to front payroll and overtime costs before a reimbursement check arrives.

Florida’s experience shows how visible these payments can become. On September 27, 2025, Florida became the first state reported as receiving funds, with Governor Ron DeSantis announcing reimbursements tied to the Florida Highway Patrol and local sheriffs.

That first-check moment also served as proof-of-concept for agencies watching from the sidelines.

What costs may be covered, and why caps matter

DHS/ICE statements described coverage for trained 287(g) officers’ salary and benefits, with overtime coverage subject to a cap.

Caps are not minor details. They shape scheduling, staffing ratios, and whether an agency must backfill shifts with local funds.

How performance awards are structured

Performance awards add a second incentive layer. In the described structure, an agency’s quarterly monetary award depends on success-rate tiers for identifying and locating noncitizens.

• 90–100% success rate: $1,000 per eligible task force officer
• 80–89% success rate: $750 per eligible task force officer
• 70–79% success rate: $500 per eligible task force officer

That tiering can push agencies toward measurable outputs. It can also raise hard questions about what counts as “success,” how errors are handled, and whether metrics encourage aggressive tactics.

✅ If you are a local agency, verify eligibility, begin cost-tracking now, and prepare for quarterly claims processes

Instead of a table, key funding components and how they map to reporting and caps are presented here in prose to support tool-based interactive displays:

• Personnel reimbursement: Salary and benefits for eligible trained 287(g) officers. Notes: overtime may be reimbursable only up to a stated cap. Reporting: payroll records, timekeeping, training/eligibility documentation.
• Overtime reimbursement: Overtime tied to eligible 287(g) activity. Notes: cap structure affects how much can be claimed. Reporting: overtime logs, duty narratives, supervisor approvals.
• Operational enforcement costs: Some costs connected to arrests, detention, and related activities. Notes: eligibility can depend on agreement scope and federal rules. Reporting: itemized expenses, case linkage, retention for audit.
• Performance awards: Cash awards per eligible task force officer based on tiered success rates. Notes: depends on metric definitions and validation. Reporting: quarterly performance reports, data integrity controls.
• Capital or construction-related expenses: OBBBA’s broader pool has been described as reaching beyond personnel in some cases. Notes: often stricter eligibility and documentation standards. Reporting: project accounting, procurement records, approvals where required.

Compliance: reporting, auditing, and agreement discipline

Participation is not only a funding opportunity. It is a compliance posture.

• Keep clean time and activity records that tie expenses to 287(g) functions.
• Submit quarterly claims with supporting documentation.
• Maintain policy and training files showing only authorized personnel perform covered tasks.
• Prepare for monitoring and audits, including questions about eligibility, record retention, and data accuracy.

For context on how broader federal resources may shape enforcement capacity, see funding boost effects.

Program growth and state adoption

Rapid growth is one of the clearest signals that incentives are working. By late 2025, 287(g) partnerships reportedly rose 609%, reaching 958 active agreements across 40 states.

Numbers like that can reflect several forces at once: more jurisdictions signing, older agreements being reactivated, and expanded program staffing inside ICE to process partnerships.

Care is needed when reading headline growth figures. “Active agreements” can be counted in different ways, and the time window matters.

A jump from a smaller baseline can look explosive even if the absolute number of participating officers is still uneven across regions.

Operationally, more agreements often mean more joint planning, more deputized activity, and more routine data exchange. It can also mean wider variation in quality.

Some agencies build strong compliance systems. Others may struggle with training, supervision, and reporting.

A closer look at adoption patterns is in agreement growth.

State mandates and fiscal incentives

State law can turn a “voluntary” federal partnership into a practical requirement. Texas is the clearest example.

Texas Senate Bill 8, effective Jan. 1, 2026, mandates that county sheriffs apply for 287(g) agreements. That mandate changes the decision frame for local officials. Instead of “Should we join?” the question becomes “How do we comply, staff it, and pay for it?”

Grants and reimbursements can stack, but they can also collide. A state grant may come with conditions about reporting, allowable uses, procurement rules, or public transparency. Federal reimbursements may have their own eligibility lines and audit expectations.

Agencies usually need to clarify:

• Which expenses will be charged to state funds versus federal claims
• Whether the same cost can be claimed twice (often barred)
• How to align state reporting deadlines with quarterly federal cycles

Texas also tied support to county size, including a grant cap of $140,000 for counties with populations over 1,000,000.

Even when federal reimbursements exist, a local agency may still need state money for startup costs, staffing bridges, or non-reimbursable overhead.

New York shows the other side of the state-federal tension. On January 14, 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul proposed restricting the use of future state grants for any local agency that collaborates with ICE using those funds.

That does not erase federal authority, but it can change what localities can do with state dollars.

Implementation is paperwork-heavy. Procurement for equipment, training schedules, intergovernmental agreements, and public records practices all matter. A county that skips process can invite budget disputes or litigation.

Context, criticisms, and policy implications

Reimbursement changes incentives in a direct way. Under older cost-sharing expectations, local taxpayers often absorbed the ongoing staffing burden.

Now, full-cost recovery language and performance awards can make participation feel like a revenue-positive choice, especially for cash-strapped jurisdictions.

Civil-rights groups warn that money tied to enforcement outputs can distort policing priorities. The Brennan Center for Justice has argued that large, flexible funding pools can operate like a financial “carrot,” drawing rural counties into federal enforcement roles that may reshape local policing.

Three recurring concerns come up in community debates:

• Profiling risk: task-force activity can increase immigration questioning during routine encounters.
• Community trust: residents may stop reporting crimes if they fear immigration consequences.
• Oversight strain: more agreements can test ICE supervision and local accountability systems.

Policy effects can show up fast. Departments may redirect officer time toward immigration duties. Local jail practices may shift. Public records requests may increase.

Litigation risk can rise when stops, searches, or detention decisions appear tied to race, language, or national origin rather than lawful factors.

Impact on individuals and communities

For individuals, the biggest day-to-day change often comes from the task force model. A routine traffic stop can escalate if an officer is trained and authorized to initiate immigration-related questioning or coordinate a detainer request.

That does not happen everywhere, and local policies vary. Still, expanded agreements can widen the number of touchpoints where immigration enforcement becomes part of local policing.

“Sanctuary” policies can limit certain forms of cooperation, especially when state or local rules restrict use of local funds or bar some detention practices. Yet those policies typically do not block federal officers from acting under federal authority.

The result is a patchwork. Experiences differ sharply by county and state.

Practical steps that may help families and community groups prepare include:

• Keep identification and key documents organized and accessible.
• Learn what to do during police encounters, including the right to remain silent in many situations.
• Seek qualified legal help early if someone is detained or placed in proceedings.

Community organizations often focus on education and referral networks rather than case-specific guidance.

For readers seeking plain explanations of how the model works and how to prepare, see task force model and community preparedness.

Official sources and references

Official sources matter because small wording changes can alter eligibility, payment timing, or what counts as a reimbursable cost. Agencies and community monitors should track three channels over time.

• Federal Register notices for related DHS rules and implementation signals, including items dated Nov 19, 2025.
• DHS releases and program pages tied to the reimbursement framework, including milestones dated September 2, 2025 and broader summaries dated Dec 19, 2025.
• State announcements for grant terms and compliance conditions, especially when state policy is shifting quickly after Jan. 1, 2026.

For legal grounding on the statute itself, readers can review Section 287(g) in the INA on law.cornell.edu. For immigration system context and updates, USCIS resources at uscis.gov can be a reliable starting point, even though 287(g) is administered through DHS/ICE.

For local officials, the near-term test is administrative: clean documentation, clear separation of funding streams, and audit-ready reporting.

For residents, the key date markers remain September 2, 2025 (program launch statements), September 27, 2025 (first reported state payment in Florida), Jan. 1, 2026 (Texas mandate effective), and January 14, 2026 (New York’s proposed funding restrictions).

This article discusses federal funding and enforcement policies that affect immigrants and communities; it does not constitute legal advice.

Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for individual circumstances. Policy details may change; verify against official sources.