President Donald Trump has quietly but decisively transformed a once-obscure federal program into a nationwide force multiplier for immigration enforcement, extending its reach even into some of the countrys most liberal strongholds.
According to Western Journal, newly reviewed Immigration and Customs Enforcement records show that since 2019 more than 1,350 local law enforcement agencies have entered into formal cooperation agreements with ICE under section 287(g) of federal immigration law. That tally includes 68 agencies in states dominated by Democrats and another 88 in politically competitive swing states, reflecting how deeply the program has taken root despite sustained opposition from the left and from activist legal groups.
The 287(g) framework, created by Congress in 1996 but largely dormant for years, allows local police and sheriffs to assist federal authorities in identifying, processing, and transferring illegal immigrants for deportation. Liberal activists and Democratic officials are now scrambling to dismantle or block these agreements after Trumps first and second terms gave ICE a durable foothold inside local jails and police departments across the country.
Supporters of the program argue that it is a textbook example of cooperative federalism, enabling federal and local authorities to work together to remove dangerous criminals who should never have been in the country in the first place. The contracts, known as 287(g) agreements, are the most effective tools [ICE] agents can use to integrate with local and state law enforcement, Chad Wolf, former Department of Homeland Security secretary under Trump, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Wolf, who now oversees homeland security and immigration policy at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, has been one of the most prominent defenders of the programs expansion. He emphasizes that 287(g) is not some ad hoc Trump-era invention but a statutory tool that Congress itself authorized nearly three decades ago.
Congress enacted the 287(g) authority in 1996, long before the current border crisis and years before the Bush administration signed the first agreement in 2002 as part of its post?9/11 counterterrorism strategy. Under Wolfs leadership at DHS, ICE expanded the program dramatically, growing it from 35 participating jurisdictions to nearly 150, he noted in his comments to the DCNF.
The agreements fall into three distinct categories, each tailored to different operational needs and levels of local involvement. One model allows jail officials to identify deportable inmates and transfer them directly to ICE custody, another authorizes officers to question or arrest individuals for immigration violations encountered during routine policing, and a third provides for ICE to train local officers to execute immigration warrants on migrants already in jail.
The agreements force-multiply immigration enforcement and create safer conditions for federal agents, local law enforcement, and detainees, Wolf said, underscoring the conservative argument that cooperation inside secure facilities is far safer than street-level operations. From this perspective, 287(g) is not only about enforcement but about minimizing risk to officers, suspects, and bystanders alike.
By contrast, Democrats and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union insist that local police should confine themselves to local crime and avoid any role in immigration enforcement. Critics claim that 287(g) partnerships erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, while supporters counter that the program simply allows ICE to take custody of criminal aliens in jails rather than hunting them down in neighborhoods, a scenario that inevitably increases the likelihood of confrontation.
Wolf argues that the sharp policy reversal under former President Joe Biden severely undermined this cooperative model. Former President Joe Biden acted against 287(g) contracts to open our borders and limit immigration enforcement, Wolf said, framing the Biden approach as a deliberate weakening of national sovereignty and public safety.
Bidens team froze new 287(g) agreements and terminated others, according to an archived ICE webpage documenting those decisions. ICEs current database shows that no active agreements were initiated during Bidens tenure, a fact conservatives cite as evidence of the administrations hostility to serious interior enforcement.
Today, federal officers are faced with the enormous task of locating, detaining and removing millions of people many of whom are criminals that came in under Biden, Wolf told the DCNF, pointing to the sheer scale of the problem created by lax border policies. Sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with ICE, and in cases like Minneapolis, residents violently protest their presence, he added, highlighting how progressive jurisdictions both obstruct enforcement and then complain about the visible consequences when ICE is forced into street operations.
Trumps return to office has reversed that trajectory and accelerated the programs growth. ICE records show that Trumps second term has already produced more than 1,000 287(g) partnerships in 2025 alone, with over 100 more added in 2026 so far, signaling a renewed emphasis on interior enforcement to complement border security efforts.
Monthly ICE reports indicate that local law enforcement working under 287(g) agreements have helped federal agents locate and apprehend convicted child rapists, other sex offenders, murderers, drug traffickers, and a range of serious criminals since Trump resumed the presidency. From a conservative law?and?order standpoint, these outcomes underscore why empowering sheriffs and police to assist ICE is not a theoretical debate but a concrete public safety imperative.
We have had tremendous success when local law enforcement work with us including 40,000 arrests in Florida, Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told the DCNF, offering a striking example of the programs scale in a single state. Her comments reflect the view that 287(g) is not about targeting law?abiding immigrants but about ensuring that those who commit crimes face removal rather than release back into American communities.
Elected officials who refuse to cooperate with DHS law enforcement are wasting law enforcement time, energy, and resources, while putting their own constituents in danger, McLaughlin said, directly criticizing Democratic leaders who prioritize ideological opposition to ICE over the safety of their own residents. That critique goes to the heart of the conservative argument: that sanctuary policies and anti?ICE activism are not cost?free moral gestures but decisions with real victims.
Despite the documented successes, a growing list of blue states has moved to block 287(g) partnerships altogether. Washington state, Oregon, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, and New Mexico already have statewide policies banning such agreements, according to ICEs website and state records, and Democrats elsewhere are working to replicate those restrictions.
Marylands Democrat?controlled legislature voted on Tuesday to prohibit 287(g) contracts, even though nine local agencies in the state had already signed on to cooperate with ICE. Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signaled on Friday that he is looking forward to signing the bill, telling local media, We are going to do everything in our power to keep people safe, but that does not mean deputizing the people who are keeping people safe to go perform functions by a rogue ICE agency.
Democrats in Massachusetts and New York have likewise introduced legislation in 2025 aimed at abolishing existing ICE agreements and preventing new ones. These efforts reflect a broader progressive project to wall off liberal jurisdictions from federal immigration enforcement, even as those same jurisdictions struggle with crime, drug trafficking, and the fiscal strain of large illegal?immigrant populations.
Some liberal governors are not waiting for their legislatures and are acting unilaterally to curtail cooperation with ICE. Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, whose state has a 287(g) jail partnership established in 2020, signed a January executive order instructing state agencies not to enter new agreements unless they are based on a specific, articulable public safety risk or need and are limited to 12 months in duration.
In Virginia, Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger issued a Feb. 4 directive ordering state law enforcement agencies to terminate the five 287(g) agreements they had signed in 2025 under former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. Her order, however, cannot touch the more than two dozen county sheriffs offices and two county jail authorities that also entered 287(g) partnerships in 2025, because those entities are locally controlled and not directly subordinate to the governor.
Democrats in the Virginia legislature are therefore pushing a bill that would effectively hobble future cooperation by imposing a series of restrictions on ICE as a condition of any 287(g) contract. Among those provisions is a requirement that ICE be barred from inquiring about an individuals immigration status without first obtaining a judicial warrant or subpoena, a constraint that critics argue would make routine enforcement nearly impossible.
Outside the legislative arena, the ACLU has turned to the courts to try to dismantle the program. The group filed lawsuits in Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota in 2025 challenging local participation in 287(g), according to its public announcements and court filings, seeking to persuade judges to do what voters and sheriffs have refused to do voluntarily.
In Colorado, the ACLU announced in January 2025 that it had reached a settlement with the Teller County Sheriffs Office, which agreed that its participation in the ICE program since 2020 was unlawful and accepted new restrictions. That settlement effectively crippled Colorados only active 287(g) agreement, illustrating how litigation can be used to neutralize cooperation even in jurisdictions where elected sheriffs support it.
The legal pressure has had ripple effects in other states as well. Two sheriffs in Minnesota voided their 287(g) contracts after Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a non?binding opinion in December questioning the legality of such agreements, local media reported, demonstrating how even advisory opinions can intimidate local officials into retreat.
Wolf contends that states hostile to ICE are acting against their own stated interests when they block 287(g) and then complain about federal enforcement actions in their communities. If states critical of ICE want to avoid encounters with agents in the streets like those involving Minnesota protesters they should welcome the system ICE is offering, Wolf told the DCNF, arguing that cooperation inside jails is the obvious alternative to high?profile raids.
If states chose to partner with ICE through 287(g) agreements, ICE could focus on taking custody of illegal aliens in a safer jail setting, rather than conducting operations in local communities where the possibility of violence is amplified, the former Trump appointee said. That logic encapsulates the conservative case: when progressive politicians block structured, lawful cooperation, they do not stop enforcement; they merely push it into more dangerous and disruptive forms.
As Trumps second term advances, the clash over 287(g) has become a proxy for the larger national debate over sovereignty, the rule of law, and the proper role of local government in upholding federal immigration statutes. On one side stand sheriffs, ICE officers, and a White House determined to restore order after years of border chaos; on the other, Democratic officials and activist groups intent on shielding illegal immigrants from removal, even at the cost of public safety and institutional cooperation.
The numbers emerging from ICEs own reports thousands of arrests, including violent offenders and repeat criminals suggest that the stakes are not abstract but measured in real crimes prevented and real victims spared. Whether liberal states continue to prioritize ideological resistance over practical security, or whether mounting public concern over crime and border failures forces a political recalibration, will determine how far Trumps revived 287(g) network can extend and how effectively the federal government can reclaim control of immigration enforcement inside the nations borders.
Login