(UNITED STATES) President Trump has ordered the most sweeping expansion of 287(g) partnerships in U.S. history, directing local police across the country to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in immigration enforcement and deportations.
In January 2025, he signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to clear a backlog of local requests and to “maximize” police participation. By August 2025, ICE reported 896 active agreements across 40 states, a 563% increase since President Biden left office with 135 agreements. ICE also listed 20 more applications pending as of August 29, underscoring the administration’s rapid push to widen the program.
What 287(g) Does and How It’s Changed
Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE can deputize local officers to carry out certain federal immigration duties after training and supervision.
- The revived Task Force Model now comprises half of all agreements — 434 out of 896 — allowing officers to join field operations and community arrests, not just jail screening.
- The Jail Enforcement Model focuses on operations inside local jails: trained officers can question people about immigration status, lodge detainers, and begin removal paperwork after state charges are resolved.
Supporters say the program helps identify “criminal noncitizens,” transfer them to ICE detention, and speed deportations. Critics say it risks civil rights abuses and erodes trust between police and immigrant communities, especially mixed‑status families with U.S. citizen children.
Policy Moves, Scale, and Political Backing
The administration’s approach rests on three pillars:
- Executive orders that set the pace for expansion.
- Aggressive approvals by ICE, including restoration of the Task Force Model that previous administrations limited.
- Congressional backing to codify timelines and oversight, making the program harder to unwind.
Key developments:
– On July 23, 2025, Senator Jim Risch (R‑Idaho) introduced the “287(g) Program Protection Act.”
– The bill would require DHS to decide on applications within 90 days.
– It would require DHS to send Congress written reasons for any denial.
– It would bar the department from ending an agreement without cause or warning lawmakers first.
– Representative Michael Cloud (R‑Texas) and other Republicans support the bill, arguing it improves public safety and federal‑local cooperation.
– Attorney General Bondi has issued charging policies prioritizing serious immigration offenses, aligning the Justice Department with the enforcement‑first strategy.
ICE’s snapshot shows nearly 900 agencies deputized. Examples of spread:
– New York went from one 287(g) agreement in 2024 to at least seven agencies in six counties by July 2025 (including Nassau, Broome, and Niagara Counties).
– The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) tracks adoption across suburban and rural areas as well as traditional enforcement hubs.
Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests the scale and speed point to a long‑term redesign of interior immigration enforcement, with local police acting as a force multiplier for ICE.
How the Two Models Operate
- Jail Enforcement Model
- Operates inside jails.
- Officers can question people about status, lodge detainers, and begin removal paperwork after state charges are addressed.
- Task Force Model
- Allows officers to join field operations and community arrests.
- Enables joint operations targeting people ICE believes are removable.
- Under both models, ICE provides training, oversight, and may assign officers to support local teams.
The pending Risch bill would add reporting rules requiring Congress be notified if an agreement is ended, increasing legislative visibility into any cutbacks.
Community Impact and Legal Pushback
Advocacy groups, civil rights lawyers, and some large-city police leaders warn of negative consequences.
- Reported community effects:
- Families staying home, pulling children from activities, and skipping medical appointments out of fear.
- Community groups say people avoid police, resulting in unreported crimes and potentially less safe neighborhoods.
- Civil rights organizations reporting concerns: ACLU, NYCLU, and the ILRC.
Litigation and legislative responses:
– Lawsuits have been filed challenging the use of the Alien Enemies Act in broader removal efforts and seeking to block specific 287(g) expansions (e.g., in New York).
– Maryland lawmakers debated bills to end state participation but did not pass them.
– Legal issues likely to be examined by courts:
– The scope of delegated authority under 287(g).
– The boundaries of local policing power.
– Whether the Task Force Model leads to constitutional violations in practice.
Special concerns for mixed‑status families:
– Under the Jail Model, ICE contact may occur after booking.
– Under the Task Force Model, joint neighborhood operations can bring ICE to a person’s door, raising the odds of immediate detention and expedited deportation.
– Community groups report spikes in hotline calls and drops in school and clinic attendance following visible enforcement surges.
Administration defenders point to Bondi’s charging guidance prioritizing serious immigration offenses. Critics counter that Task Force operations frequently involve collateral arrests — people encountered incidentally during sweeps — which chill cooperation with police (including among victims and witnesses).
Important: Collateral arrests and the perception that routine police contact can lead to ICE involvement are central concerns cited by community and civil‑rights groups.
Local Politics, Pressure, and Cost
State and local dynamics shape where 287(g) grows fastest.
- Supporters (often in conservative areas) argue:
- The program gets serious offenders off the street.
- Field access helps track people who skip court or have outstanding warrants.
- Booking and transfer processes improve when jail staff can alert ICE early.
- Opponents warn:
- 287(g) exposes counties to lawsuits, legal fees, and lost trust that can take years to repair.
- County boards are hosting contentious public meetings where residents testify both for and against participation—often with personal stories about crime, safety, and family separation.
Some sheriffs say without 287(g) they cannot hold people for ICE without an agreement and risk legal exposure; civil‑rights groups dispute that tradeoff and highlight litigation risks.
What Comes Next
- The Senate will weigh the Risch bill in the months ahead. If passed, it would:
- Set clear deadlines for DHS decisions.
- Make it harder for a future administration to unwind partnerships without congressional notice.
- DHS and ICE have signaled plans to keep approving applications and expand the Task Force Model; 20 agreements are already queued, suggesting the count could surpass 900 agencies soon.
Historical context:
– 287(g) expanded under President George W. Bush.
– It was narrowed by President Obama after profiling reports and community pushback.
– It was ramped up during President Trump’s first term (2017–2021).
– President Biden sought to scale it down but left 135 agreements in place by January 2025.
– The current expansion (“Trump 2.0”) restores the Task Force option at scale and links the program to faster deportations.
Practical Advice for People at Risk
Lawyers and community organizations recommend basic steps:
- Carry the phone number of a trusted attorney.
- Know your rights during police encounters.
- Have a family plan in case of detention.
- Keep copies of identification documents in a safe place.
- Ask for a lawyer before answering questions about immigration status.
These precautions are more urgent given the speed at which transfers from local custody to ICE detention can occur once 287(g) officers are involved.
Resources and Monitoring
For current details on where agreements exist and what powers they grant, consult official and advocacy sources:
- ICE official overview and program page: https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g
- ICE lists program contacts at 500 12th St SW, Washington, DC 20536, and a tip line at 1-866-DHS-2-ICE.
- ILRC public map: county‑by‑county tracking of adoption.
- Congressional websites: bill status updates for the pending 287(g) legislation.
Final Stakes
Officers deputized under 287(g) can:
– Identify, detain, and process noncitizens in local jails.
– Assist ICE with field arrests.
– Facilitate transfers to detention for removal.
For supporters, this enables faster removals of people with criminal records. For critics, it broadens enforcement in ways that encourage profiling and damage community trust. The legal fights and the Senate’s deliberations will determine whether this surge becomes a lasting feature of interior immigration enforcement or a peak that future leaders attempt to unwind.
This Article in a Nutshell
The administration ordered a rapid expansion of 287(g) partnerships, directing DHS and ICE to approve hundreds of local deputizations for immigration enforcement. By August 2025, ICE reported 896 active agreements in 40 states — a 563% rise from 135 — and 20 more applications pending. The Task Force Model returned at scale, comprising roughly half of agreements and permitting local officers to participate in field operations and community arrests. Supporters praise improved removal speed and federal-local cooperation; critics and civil-rights groups warn of profiling, civil-rights violations, and erosion of trust that reduces crime reporting. Legislation from Sen. Jim Risch would impose 90-day decision deadlines and require DHS to notify Congress before ending agreements. Ongoing litigation, state-level debates, and Senate deliberations will shape whether this expansion becomes permanent or is constrained by courts and future policymakers.
