The Biden administration has moved in early 2025 to widen the role of state and local law-enforcement in immigration enforcement, using a mix of presidential direction, federal coordination, and money. The key tools cited in public materials and policy analysis are expanded 287(g) partnerships, a new push for Homeland Security Task Forces, and large federal appropriations tied to immigration enforcement.
Together, these steps amount to federal “deputizing” in the practical sense: selected local officers can be trained and authorized to carry out certain immigration functions under federal supervision, while task forces create new channels for joint operations across agencies.
This matters because it shifts parts of interior enforcement—work many people assume is handled only by federal agents—closer to daily local policing. For immigrants and mixed-status families, that can change how safe it feels to report crimes, go to court, or contact schools and health providers. For local officials, it raises hard questions about budgets, community trust, and legal exposure. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the speed of the 2025 build-up has made it harder for communities to track what is changing in real time and where.
January 2025 White House memorandum: deputizing and nationwide task forces
The main policy marker in the source material is a January 2025 presidential memorandum titled “Protecting The American People Against Invasion.” The memorandum directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take “all appropriate action,” including authorizing “State and local law enforcement officials” to perform immigration-officer functions, as the Secretary finds them “qualified and appropriate.” January 2025 presidential memorandum
The memo also calls for a nationwide structure to tie these efforts together. Section 6 instructs the Attorney General and the DHS Secretary to “jointly establish Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs) in all States nationwide.” In plain terms, that is a directive to set up a standing framework in every state so federal agencies can coordinate with local partners in a more routine, organized way. Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs)
The memorandum points to existing federal authority, including 8 U.S.C. §1357(g)—better known by its shorthand, 287(g). That statute allows DHS to enter agreements with local agencies so trained officers can carry out certain immigration enforcement functions under federal oversight. While the memo does not, by itself, sign local agencies up, it sets a clear federal policy direction: encourage, expand, and formalize the role of local agencies in immigration enforcement through these established legal channels. 8 U.S.C. §1357(g)
How 287(g) partnerships work on the ground
287(g) partnerships operate through a written contract-like document called a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a state or local agency.
Typical mechanics described in the source:
1. A local agency signs an MOA with ICE.
2. Designated local officers receive ICE training.
3. Those officers may be authorized to help identify, process, detain, and in some models make civil immigration arrests, while working under ICE supervision and policy rules.
Two points that are easy to miss when the program is described in headlines:
– 287(g) is structured as supervised delegation, not a full handoff. Local officers must operate “under the supervision” of federal immigration officers, and the MOA sets the scope of authority.
– Participation is voluntary for agencies. The agency chooses to join; federal officials generally cannot force a police department or sheriff’s office to sign an MOA, even if federal policy strongly favors expansion.
Scale and rapid growth:
– Public data and reporting cited in the source show the number of 287(g) agreements rose from 135 in January 2025 to 649 by June 2025.
– That increase signals rapid growth in formal agreements during the first half of 2025, with many more local agencies becoming eligible to carry out immigration functions they previously did not handle.
For readers trying to confirm local participation, ICE maintains official program information online at the ICE 287(g) page:
ICE Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g)
Homeland Security Task Forces: a new nationwide coordination channel
Alongside MOAs, the source describes Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs) as a second major vehicle. The White House memorandum’s model is not a single program inside one agency; it is a coordinated task force approach “in every state,” combining DHS, the Department of Justice, and local partners.
In practice, HSTFs can mean:
– More joint operations between federal and local agencies
– More shared intelligence and coordinated targeting decisions
– A federal “home” for cooperation that simplifies decision-making by bringing many agencies together under shared priorities
The source frames HSTFs as covering both criminal and civil immigration enforcement. That distinction matters because civil immigration enforcement can include actions against people who have not been convicted of a crime—such as immigration detainers and arrest authority under certain program models.
The memo’s national scope—“in all States nationwide”—signals a shift away from patchwork cooperation. Even if the day-to-day impact differs by county, the structure is intended to exist everywhere, making it easier for federal agencies to expand local participation where political leadership is supportive.
Money and incentives pushing cooperation
The source ties the 2025 expansion to funding levels that make participation easier, and sometimes hard to refuse.
Key funding points cited:
– ICE received $75 billion over four years (per the source’s citation).
– More than $10 billion was earmarked for state/local border-related law enforcement support.
The Brennan Center warns that this type of funding structure will encourage jurisdictions to enter partnerships with ICE.
Why money matters:
– Federal dollars can address local needs such as staffing shortages, overtime, jail costs, or technology upgrades.
– For many local elected officials, grants can be framed as “support,” even when the practical effect is deeper involvement in immigration enforcement.
– The “voluntary” nature of MOAs can feel less voluntary when financial incentives and political pressure are present.
Local political dynamics:
– A sheriff’s office may not be forced to sign, but may face pressure from voters, state officials, or neighboring counties that do participate.
– Other local leaders may resist participation because of potential lawsuits, community trust concerns, or opposition to turning local police into immigration screeners.
Oversight limits, sanctuary policies, and civil-rights concerns
The source notes several constraints and concerns that shape what “deputizing” can and cannot mean.
Training and supervision requirements
– 287(g) authority requires training and that local officers operate under federal supervision.
– The MOA defines scope, and ICE keeps ultimate authority for immigration enforcement actions under the statute. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
Local policy friction
– Many jurisdictions have “sanctuary” or limited-cooperation policies that restrict civil immigration enforcement.
– The source describes federal pressure on such jurisdictions but also notes that internal policies and local law can still limit deputizing without an MOA or a formal policy change.
Civil-liberties warnings
– Civil-liberties groups and some local officials report increased arrests in community settings—such as schools, courts, and places of worship—and warn about chilling effects when immigrants avoid public services.
– Assessments vary across jurisdictions and remain part of active public debate and litigation.
Practical implications for immigrants and local policing
– For immigrants, the immediate question is often: “Will calling the police put me at risk?” The answer can change by county.
– In jurisdictions that join 287(g) or participate heavily in HSTFs, routine encounters—traffic stops, jail bookings, courthouse visits—may create more opportunities for immigration screening, detention holds, or transfer to ICE.
– For local law enforcement, deeper cooperation can align agencies with federal priorities but can also reduce witness cooperation in immigrant neighborhoods, making it harder to solve serious crimes.
Key takeaway: The combination of expanded 287(g) agreements, nationwide HSTFs, and significant federal funding in 2025 creates a practical form of federal deputizing—bringing immigration enforcement closer to everyday local policing, with major implications for community trust, public safety, and legal oversight.
The January 2025 presidential memorandum directed DHS and DOJ to expand local participation in immigration enforcement via 287(g) MOAs and nationwide Homeland Security Task Forces, backed by major federal funding. Between January and June 2025 the number of 287(g) agreements jumped markedly, reflecting rapid expansion. Advocates argue improved coordination addresses security concerns; critics warn deputizing local officers risks chilling community cooperation, expands civil immigration actions in daily policing, and raises oversight and civil-rights issues.
