ICE’s 287(g) Agreements: Fueling Trump’s Deportation Agenda in 2025

June 8, 2025 | Boncopia.com | News & Politics: U.S. News & Politics

As Los Angeles reels from violent protests sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and the deployment of National Guard troops, a lesser-known but critical piece of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is driving the chaos: the 287(g) program. This federal initiative, which deputizes local law enforcement to act as immigration agents, has exploded in scope since January 2025, with hundreds of new agreements transforming police and sheriffs into extensions of ICE’s deportation machine. From small towns to urban centers like L.A., 287(g) agreements are reshaping communities, raising alarms about racial profiling, eroded trust, and mass deportations. Here’s a detailed look at what these agreements are, how they’ve evolved, and why they’re sparking such fierce debate.

What Are 287(g) Agreements?

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), enacted in 1996, authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to partner with state and local law enforcement agencies through Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs). These agreements delegate specific immigration enforcement powers to local officers, effectively turning them into arms of ICE under federal supervision. The program, named after its INA section, aims to “enhance public safety” by identifying and detaining immigrants for removal, particularly those with criminal records, though its scope has broadened significantly.

There are three main models of 287(g) agreements:

1. Jail Enforcement Model (JEM): Local officers in jails screen inmates for immigration status, issue ICE detainers (requests to hold individuals for up to 48 hours for ICE pickup), and initiate removal proceedings. As of December 2024, ICE had 60 JEM agreements across 16 states.

2. Warrant Service Officer (WSO) Model: Local officers are trained to serve and execute ICE administrative warrants in jails, focusing on arrests without interrogating individuals about immigration status. As of December 2024, 75 WSO agreements existed in 11 states.

3. Task Force Model (TFM): Revived in 2025, this model allows officers to enforce immigration laws during routine duties, such as traffic stops or DUI checkpoints, making it the most expansive and controversial. As of June 6, 2025, ICE had 315 TFM agreements across 30 states.

Officers in all models undergo a four-week ICE training program, with biennial refreshers, and operate under ICE oversight. Training includes multicultural communication and anti-racial profiling measures, though critics argue these are insufficient.

The 2025 Expansion: A New Era of Enforcement

Since President Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, the 287(g) program has seen unprecedented growth, fueled by Executive Order 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” This order mandates DHS to maximize 287(g) agreements, prioritizing states like Florida, Georgia, and Texas. As of June 6, 2025, ICE has signed 649 MOAs across 40 states, including 102 JEM, 232 WSO, and 315 TFM agreements, with 79 applications pending. This is a dramatic leap from December 2024’s 135 agreements across 21 states.

The revival of the Task Force Model, discontinued in 2012 due to legal challenges and racial profiling concerns, is particularly significant. TFM allows officers to question and detain suspected immigrants during everyday policing, expanding ICE’s reach far beyond its 6,000 deportation agents. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that over half of the nation’s 287(g) agreements involve Florida agencies, including the Highway Patrol and Fish and Wildlife Commission.

How 287(g) Works in Practice

Under 287(g), local officers gain authority to:

• Identify immigrants in custody or during routine patrols (TFM only) using ICE databases.

• Issue detainers to hold individuals for ICE pickup, often without judicial warrants.

• Initiate removal proceedings by serving Notices to Appear (NTAs) for immigration court.

• Detain individuals until ICE assumes custody, typically within 48 hours.

ICE covers training costs, but local agencies bear personnel, overtime, and legal expenses, which can be substantial. For example, a 2018 report noted settlements up to $255,000 for detainer-related claims in North Carolina. Participating officers remain local employees, not federal agents, but act under ICE supervision, with MOAs specifying compliance with civil rights laws.

In Los Angeles, where protests erupted over June 6 raids, 287(g) agreements have amplified tensions. The city’s sanctuary policies limit local cooperation with ICE, but new TFM agreements in nearby counties have led to increased patrols in immigrant neighborhoods, fueling fears of racial profiling.

The Controversy: Public Safety or Public Fear?

Proponents’ View: ICE and supporters, like the National Sheriffs’ Association, argue 287(g) enhances safety by targeting “criminal aliens” involved in gangs, drug smuggling, or violent crimes. Florida Sheriff T.K. Waters cited a “surge of dangerous drugs” as a reason for participation. The program is voluntary, and ICE claims it strengthens federal-local collaboration, with 625 TFM officers deputized by April 2025.

Critics’ Concerns: Immigrant advocates, the ACLU, and the American Immigration Council warn that 287(g) erodes community trust, deters crime reporting, and leads to civil rights violations. Studies show:

• A 2011 Migration Policy Institute report found lower crime reporting rates among immigrants in 287(g) jurisdictions.

• A 2018 Cato Institute study found no evidence that 287(g) reduced crime.

• A Texas A&M study showed Hispanic drivers were stopped more often in 287(g) areas, suggesting racial profiling.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office under Joe Arpaio, which lost its 287(g) agreement in 2011 after unconstitutional roundups of Latinos, remains a cautionary tale. In New York, advocates like the NYCLU push for laws like the New York for All Act to ban 287(g) agreements, citing their “devastating” impact on communities.

Impact in Los Angeles and Beyond

In Los Angeles, the 287(g) expansion has intensified fears following ICE’s June 6 raids, which arrested 118 people, including legally residing immigrants. Protesters clashed with federal agents, and the National Guard’s arrival on June 8 escalated tensions. Local leaders like Mayor Karen Bass argue that 287(g) agreements in surrounding counties undermine L.A.’s sanctuary status, creating a “police state” atmosphere.

Nationwide, the program’s growth—especially the TFM—has raised alarms about:

• Community Trust: Immigrants avoid reporting crimes or interacting with police, fearing deportation. A 2018 study found undocumented Mexicans were 61% less likely to report witnessed crimes in 287(g) areas.

• Economic Costs: Immigrant households contribute $66 billion in spending power in 287(g) jurisdictions, and deportations risk economic losses.

• Legal Risks: Lawsuits over racial profiling and unlawful detentions have cost localities millions, with ICE offering no indemnification until recent proposals.

The Future of 287(g)

With Trump’s administration aiming for 3,000 daily ICE arrests, 287(g) is a cornerstone of its strategy. Border Czar Tom Homan has pushed to reduce training from four weeks to one and offer indemnification to protect officers from lawsuits, signaling further expansion. However, resistance is growing. States like California, Washington, and Illinois have laws limiting 287(g) participation, and advocates are mobilizing to end existing agreements.

In Los Angeles, protests are set to continue, with organizers demanding an end to 287(g) and ICE raids. The program’s rapid growth—456 agreements by April 2025, with nearly half in Florida—suggests a nationwide push, but public opposition, with 6 in 10 Americans against aggressive enforcement tactics, could shift the tide.

Why This Matters to You

The 287(g) program is more than a bureaucratic partnership—it’s a lightning rod in America’s immigration debate. For immigrant communities, it means living in fear of routine encounters with police. For law enforcement, it strains resources and risks alienating the public. For all Americans, it raises questions about fairness, safety, and the role of local police in federal agendas. As Los Angeles burns with protest, the 287(g) expansion is a stark reminder of the human and societal costs of mass deportation policies.

Thought Questions:

1. Do 287(g) agreements genuinely enhance public safety, or do they prioritize deportation over community trust and crime prevention?

2. How can local governments balance federal pressure to adopt 287(g) agreements with sanctuary policies and the need to protect immigrant communities?

3. With the Task Force Model’s revival, what steps can advocates take to address potential racial profiling and ensure accountability in 287(g) jurisdictions?

Sources: Information compiled from ICE.gov, American Immigration Council, NYCLU, CBS News, CNN, The Conversation, National Immigration Forum, ACLU, Center for American Progress, and posts on X, accessed June 8, 2025.