Key Takeaways
• By May 2025, Florida required all 67 sheriffs to sign 287(g) agreements, ensuring complete state participation in ICE cooperation.
• Texas’s Senate Bill 8 mandates sheriffs in large counties to seek 287(g) agreements and provides $20 million in grants for smaller counties.
• In April 2025, 456 active 287(g) agreements existed nationwide, with that number growing to 571 by mid-May across 40 states.
State governments across the United States 🇺🇸 are giving new and sometimes very different guidance to sheriffs on how to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In 2025, these strategies have become a central part of state-level immigration policy. Some states, like Florida, have made ICE cooperation a top priority. Others, like some in the West, now pass laws to limit local involvement in immigration enforcement. This split has led to a patchwork of approaches—leaving sheriffs and communities to adjust to different rules and expectations.
This article looks at the rising role of Florida in ICE cooperation, the ways other states like Texas and Wisconsin are changing the rules for local police, and how 287(g) agreements shape daily work for sheriffs. We also cover the latest national numbers on ICE-local partnerships, explain what these programs look like in practice, and look at arguments on all sides about the impact for public safety, local rights, and immigrant communities.
Florida’s Statewide ICE Cooperation: Setting the Pace
Florida has quickly become a national leader in strong cooperation with ICE. In February 2025, Governor Ron DeSantis announced that every one of the state’s 67 sheriffs had signed 287(g) agreements with ICE. This makes Florida the only state where all county sheriffs’ offices take part in these agreements. Governor DeSantis described Florida as “leading the nation” when it comes to supporting federal immigration enforcement.
Why does this matter? The 287(g) program allows local sheriffs and officers to act almost like ICE agents after training. These officers can identify non-citizens who may have broken immigration law, often while the person is already in local jail. They can then hold these individuals until ICE picks them up for possible deportation.
Florida has put in place a State Immigration Enforcement Council to help steer this effort. The Council includes four experienced sheriffs. They work with the State Board of Immigration Enforcement, share guidance with local police, and partner with ICE on training, planning, and possible expansion of jail space.
Florida’s approach covers:
- Mandatory participation of all sheriff’s offices in ICE cooperation, under 287(g)
- State-level planning through a new enforcement council
- Special programs to boost training for sheriffs’ staff
- Guidance on expanding detention (jail) capacity if needed
With these steps, Florida aims to present a clear, united front on immigration matters. Local law enforcement leaders get both direction and resources from the state to support this drive.
Texas: New Laws Force Sheriff Participation
Texas has built its ICE cooperation program through new state laws. In April 2025, the Texas Senate passed Senate Bill 8, a bill that takes a tough stance on county sheriff involvement with ICE. If the bill becomes law in its full form, sheriffs in counties with over 100,000 people must ask ICE to sign a 287(g) agreement. Smaller counties can join with help: Texas is setting aside a $20 million fund to give grants to those that take part, covering the added costs of ICE cooperation, like more jail staff and legal work.
Another key part of the bill lets the Texas Attorney General sue sheriffs who refuse to follow these rules. That means sheriffs who don’t cooperate could face court action and pressure from state leaders.
The result is a new kind of state power over sheriffs, aiming to bring more counties into ICE’s network. Texas lawmakers backing the bill say it will lead to safer communities by helping police find and remove dangerous people who break immigration law. Critics, however, point out concerns about local rights and the possible effect on trust between communities and police.
Wisconsin: Political Debate and County Decisions
In Wisconsin, ICE cooperation has also become a hot topic, with plenty of debate from both political sides. In March 2025, the state’s Republican-led Assembly passed a bill ordering all county sheriffs to comply with ICE when asked. Supporters say the bill is about fighting crime more effectively. Opponents, mostly Democrats, argue that it weakens sheriffs’ ability to decide what’s best for their communities.
Right now, Wisconsin law gives local police the choice to check immigration status or honor requests from ICE called “detainers”—notices that ask the jail to hold someone for ICE. At least nine Wisconsin counties already work with ICE in some way, even though there is no statewide rule. If the Assembly’s bill becomes law, this would change, forcing uniform compliance and taking away local control over these decisions.
Three Main Models: How 287(g) Agreements Work in Practice
Not all ICE cooperation looks the same. In fact, the 287(g) program offers three main ways for sheriffs and their officers to work with ICE:
1. Task Force Model
In the task force model, local officers are given special powers by ICE to check, detain, or arrest people they think have broken immigration law—even when these people are not already in jail. Officers do this work as part of their daily patrol. This model has grown fast in 2025, especially in states like Idaho, Nevada, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida. Some communities say it brings more safety, while others warn of increased fears and risk of mistakes.
2. Jail Enforcement Model
The jail enforcement model is now the most common in the country. Under this approach, officers only act as ICE partners while dealing with people already in their jails. If someone is arrested for something else, like theft or a traffic crime, local officers can check their immigration status. If they find a possible violation, the officer can issue a hold—meaning the jail keeps the person for up to 48 hours past their normal release date so ICE has time to pick them up.
This model aims to limit ICE cooperation to people who have already been charged with some local crime. It is seen as less sweeping but still gives ICE access to large numbers of non-citizens through the jail system.
3. Warrant Service Officer Model
The warrant service officer model lets local jail staff serve special warrants from ICE—legal documents that say ICE wants to hold a person for breaking immigration rules. The officer does not question the person about their status. They just act when ICE sends a warrant, mostly after an arrest on other grounds.
This model is seen as a middle ground. It reduces extra interviews by local staff but still gives ICE a way to hold people already in jail.
For readers who want more information on these programs, the official ICE page on 287(g) agreements provides current details about each model and participating departments.
National Growth: Record Levels in 2025
ICE cooperation with local sheriffs is growing fast. As reported by VisaVerge.com, the Trump administration in 2025 put special focus on expanding these partnerships. By April 17, 2025, there were 456 active 287(g) agreements across the country—more than triple the number from just a few months before, in December 2024. Another 63 agreements were being reviewed at that time.
Even more striking, by May 16, 2025, ICE had signed 571 official Memorandums of Agreement for 287(g) programs in 40 states. While almost half of these are in Florida, 38 states now have at least some sheriffs or police departments taking part. The numbers keep growing, as the administration has made it easier and faster for local police to join—the required training for officers dropped from four weeks to just one week, making it much simpler to get programs off the ground.
Officials have also recruited sheriffs at major national law enforcement conferences, offering support and resources to those who sign on. These steps show a big push to connect as many local departments as possible with ICE, especially in states that back strong cooperation.
States with Opposite Rules: Limiting Local ICE Engagement
Not all states want more ICE cooperation. Several have passed laws to stop or limit their sheriffs and police from working closely with ICE. For example, California and New York have passed major laws that often block or slow requests from ICE to local jails. Some of these states even limit when local police can share information with ICE about people in custody.
Groups like the Immigrant Legal Resource Center track these rules with helpful maps, showing at a glance which states are “ICE-friendly” and which try to protect communities from more federal enforcement. These maps make it clear that there is no single national rule: instead, the U.S. has many systems, from strict cooperation states like Florida to sanctuary states that put up roadblocks to ICE.
The Law: Why States Can Choose
Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government handles immigration law, but state and local governments can decide if they want to help carry out these laws in their own jails and police offices. This idea, called federalism, gives states strong powers over how far their local police go in civil immigration enforcement.
Even if a president or Congress pushes for more ICE-local partnerships, the federal government can’t force states to act unless Congress changes the law. States and even cities can take part, choose not to help, or sometimes shift their position as political goals change.
This means that sheriffs in states with strong backing for ICE, like Florida and Texas, might have more tools and funding, while those in states with limits or bans often must say “no” to ICE, even when asked for help.
Arguments For and Against Local ICE Cooperation
Supporters of increased ICE cooperation believe these programs cut crime by identifying dangerous people who may not have permission to stay in the U.S. They also argue that tying local law enforcement more closely to ICE gives communities more control over who gets released from jail and who may be subject to deportation.
Opponents argue that strong ICE cooperation can hurt trust between immigrant communities and local police. Some people may become scared to report crimes or testify in court for fear of bringing attention to their immigration status. Critics also say that 287(g) agreements can lead to racial profiling, mistakes, and broken families.
The debate is especially heated in places like Florida, where all sheriffs must now participate in these agreements, and in states like Texas and Wisconsin where lawmakers are debating how much power local officers should have.
What This Means for Immigrants, Sheriffs, and Communities
For immigrants, the spread of 287(g) agreements can lead to more frequent checks on status and more detentions, even for people booked on minor charges. It’s important to note that being stopped or jailed for a small offense can now put someone at risk for ICE involvement in many parts of the country.
Sheriffs and local officers get more funding and training when they join, but they also must spend more time on immigration work. In some areas, officers must choose between local priorities and federal rules.
Communities may see changes in policing as sheriffs respond to new state laws and ICE partnerships. Local budgets and jails may feel pressure as more people are held on ICE detainers. Concerns about family separation and community trust often come up at public meetings and in the news.
The Path Forward
The current U.S. system for ICE cooperation is marked by state-by-state differences and fast-changing rules. Florida is leading with mandatory ICE partnerships for all sheriffs, supported by statewide guidance and special councils. Texas and Wisconsin are moving toward stronger state pressure on sheriffs through new laws, grants, and potential lawsuits.
The future of ICE cooperation will likely stay complex. Many states will keep changing their rules as federal and local leaders debate what is best for safety and local power. The 287(g) agreements are now at the heart of this debate, touching the lives of sheriffs, immigrants, and communities across the country.
For those wanting more details or updates, the latest information on ICE’s official 287(g) program page provides current data on locations, agreements, and news about state partnerships.
Whether you are a community member, local official, or someone affected by these regulations, it’s key to stay alert to changes and understand how rules in your state could shape local law enforcement and immigration outcomes in the years ahead.
Learn Today
287(g) Agreements → Formal partnerships letting local police act like ICE agents, identifying and detaining non-citizens for possible immigration violations.
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) → A federal agency responsible for enforcing U.S. immigration laws and managing detention, removal, and investigations.
Detainers → Official requests from ICE asking local jails to hold someone up to 48 hours after release to allow ICE pickup.
Warrant Service Officer Model → A program allowing local jail staff to serve specific ICE warrants for immigration law violations without broader questioning.
Federalism → A political principle where powers are shared between national and state governments, allowing states control over local enforcement actions.
This Article in a Nutshell
In 2025, states sharply diverged on local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE, creating a national patchwork. Florida mandated statewide cooperation; Texas and Wisconsin increased pressure through new laws. With 287(g) agreements expanding rapidly, communities, sheriffs, and immigrants face shifting rules, resources, and debates about public safety, trust, and local rights.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Bay County sheriff leads immigration sweep with 21 arrests in Florida
• Florida Woman Hit With Record $1.82 Million Fine
• Columbia Metropolitan Airport Lands Nonstop Flights to Florida
• Florida faces criticism over Ron DeSantis’s immigration crackdown plan
• Florida’s SB 846 restricts academic jobs for Chinese students
