The 287(g) program is set to take off in 2025, concentrating arrest power in republican states.

 

Let’s start with a clear fact: In the United States, immigration is not a local or state matter: it is a federal matter. The Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, which means that the regulation of entry, residence, citizenship, or deportation of foreigners falls solely to the federal government. 

However, several states have implemented policies to tighten immigration enforcement at the regional level. In this research, I seek to explore why immigration, which is a federal matter, has been shaped by state-level programs such as 287(g), which allows state and local authorities to assume immigration functions under the supervision of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

 The expansion of this program, 287(g), has grown exponentially during Donald Trump’s second term. I reviewed the figures reported directly by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and found several findings that I will explain throughout this article. 

 The first is that, since January 20, the number of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed between state agencies and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has grown at an unprecedented rate, marking a shift toward law enforcement cooperation on the immigration agenda. Now let’s review more information. 

 Although it is present in 37 of the 52 states of the US, it is those governed by Republicans that concentrate the largest operational force for immigration arrests, thanks to the number of ICE-certified service officers, who are the only ones authorized to carry out arrests under this policy. 

 In practice, this means that every officer on duty has the legal authority to arrest and prosecute people under federal immigration laws, a power that is normally the exclusive purview of ICE. Police departments and local authorities become extended arms of federal immigration policy. 

 

What is the 287(g) program?  

Let’s start with the basics: the 287(g) program is a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), incorporated by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996. Its objective is precisely to delegate federal immigration control functions to state and local police forces.  

Something we should keep in mind is that, although it existed since 1996, the 287(g) program wasn’t implemented until 2002, when Florida became the first state to sign a cooperation agreement with ICE following the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York. Since then, its expansion has been intermittent. 

 

How do the 287g program operating models work?  

There are three models under the 287(g) program: 

Jail-based enforcement: This model applies to state or local jails. When a person is arrested for a crime and taken into custody, ICE-trained officers check to see if they have irregular immigration status or an outstanding deportation order. If so, they can initiate the process of turning them over to ICE before they are released. 

For example, a person is arrested for theft in Texas. In jail, an officer detects that he has a deportation order. ICE takes him into custody when his process in Texas is complete. 

Task force: In this type of model, local agents act as «auxiliaries» to ICE during community operations. During routine checkpoints (for example, at checkpoints or patrols), they can identify individuals in an irregular situation and report them to ICE for further intervention, working together. 

For example, the police stop a driver for not wearing a seatbelt. During the search, they suspect he lacks legal status and notify ICE to proceed. 

On-duty officers : In this model, ICE trains and certifies local officers so they can execute administrative arrest warrants issued by ICE, but only within their jail. These officers do not investigate immigration status; they simply execute existing warrants. 

After executing the warrant, ICE must take custody of the detainee within 48 hours, unless otherwise agreed. For example, if a person is serving their sentence in one state and the judge orders their release, but ICE has an administrative order, then an officer on duty may hold them until ICE arrives. 

 

How has your expansion been in 2025? 

 Let’s focus on what happened in 2025, as the scenario has changed radically. While public documents should exist for this type of program, detailing the agreements signed between states and federal immigration authorities over the years, the reality is different. When reviewing the information published by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), I found records of agreements signed and in force in 2019, 2020, and, surprisingly, a jump to 2025. There is no reported data for the period from 2021 to 2024.

2025 marks a record for signed memoranda  

The 287(g) program is experiencing a historic year: by 2025, the number of active memoranda skyrocketed to 766, representing an increase of more than 2,500% compared to the beginning of the year , when there were only 30 agreements in force. This growth reflects a more aggressive policy in extending immigration powers to local and state agencies.  

The month-to-month behavior shows a striking pattern: 

 

• January started with low figures, practically unchanged from the previous year. 

• February was the big turning point, with 154 new memos, the biggest jump of the year. 

• March and April maintained the momentum, adding 134 agreements, although at a slower pace, with the task force standing out as the dominant modality . 

• In April, May, and June, steady increases were recorded, with 105, 99, and 108 agreements signed, respectively, consolidating the growth. 

• July closed with high volume, especially in task force. 

• August, although still ongoing, shows a slowdown trend following the mid-year peak.

The following graphic shows the details by month and by modality (Execution in Prison, Task Force and Duty Officers): 

 

How does your application change depending on the party in power?  

An analysis of the memoranda signed under the 287(g) program reveals a clear partisan bias: Republican-governed states account for the vast majority of agreements, demonstrating a greater openness to collaboration with ICE on immigration enforcement issues. 

On the other hand, Democratic states show minimal participation, although some stand out for adopting specific modalities such as task forces in strategic locations. 

In short, the overall growth to 766 memoranda is not evenly distributed across parties, but rather shows a marked concentration in conservative states favored by President Trump. Let’s review the distribution below: 

 

Republican states with the most signed memoranda 

1. Florida – 271 settlements (91% task force, 8% on-duty officers, 1% jail execution) 

1. Texas – 112 settlements (63% on-duty officers, 26% task force, 11% jail execution) 

1. South Carolina – 27 agreements (56% service officers, 44% task force) 

1. Georgia – 25 agreements (64% on-duty officers, 24% jail enforcement, 12% task force) 

1. Alabama – 24 settlements (38% jail enforcement, 38% on-duty officers, 25% task force) 

 

Democratic states with the most signed memoranda 

1. Pennsylvania – 30 agreements (90% task force, 10% service officers) 

1. Virginia – 30 agreements (77% task force, 13% on-duty officers, 10% jail enforcement) 

1. New Hampshire – 12 agreements (100% task force) 

1. New York – 9 agreements (56% service officers, 44% task force) 

1. Minnesota – 8 agreements (50% task force, 50% service officers) 

 

National Overview: States with the Most Weight in the 287(g) Program 

 The implementation of the 287(g) program is not uniform: some states concentrate the majority of the agreements and, with them, the operational power to enforce immigration laws. 

 Florida and Texas are the big players: together they account for more than half of the memoranda signed nationwide, albeit with very different strategies:  

• Florida dominates in agreements, but Texas leads in potential arrests. In the graph above, we see that the concentration of signed memoranda presents an uneven distribution, with Florida dominating the map with 271 memoranda, that is, 35% of the total, well above the other states. Its operational mix is 91% working groups , 8% on-duty officers (22). and 1% jail . 

• Texas, for its part, occupies second place with 112 memoranda (15%) but has 71 officers on duty (63%) , more than any other state. 

• If we combine Florida and Texas, they represent more than 50% of the national total, while most other states have low numbers, with no more than 30 signed memoranda. In contrast, most other states have modest numbers, with few memoranda and limited structures. 

• For their part, Pennsylvania and Virginia, both with 30 memoranda and Democrats, rely mainly on working groups (90% and 77%, respectively), with few service officers, 3 and 4 respectively. 

Task force, the model most felt on the street 

Within the 287(g) program, the task force approach has the greatest impact on the daily lives of immigrants. Unlike the prison model, here there is no waiting for someone to be arrested for another crime: local officers act as an «extension» of ICE in the community, accompanying operations and checkpoints. 

This multiplies ICE’s presence: more eyes, more hands, and more power to detain people in common spaces: on a farm, in a restaurant, at a traffic checkpoint. For the immigrant population, this means that a routine encounter with state police can end in deportation proceedings. With this type of support, local agents act as «auxiliaries» to ICE during community operations. 

 Of this model, there are 445 memoranda signed by 2025 nationwide, but they are not evenly distributed. Florida takes the lion’s share, with 247 (more than half of the total), followed by Texas with 29 and Pennsylvania with 27. 

 In contrast, in states like Arizona, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, there isn’t a single one. This shows that in the South and East, especially Republican states, this model is very popular; while in others, where there are more limits on cooperating with ICE, it’s practically nonexistent. 

 

Where are the officers on duty? 

This model, which involves ICE training and authorizing some jail officers to execute arrest warrants already issued by ICE, only applies to the detention center itself. It’s important to remember that these officers don’t investigate whether someone is undocumented; they only execute existing warrants. 

After serving the warrant, ICE must pick up the person within 48 hours, unless otherwise agreed. For example, someone completes their sentence and a judge orders their release, but ICE already has a warrant for that person; the officer may detain them until ICE arrives. 

Today there are 258 agreements signed under this model, but they are not distributed equally: 

• Just six states account for more than half (57%) of all these, showing that cooperation is highly concentrated. Texas tops the list with 71 authorized officers, nearly three times as many as Florida, which is in second place with 22. Georgia (16), South Carolina (15), Tennessee (13), and Kansas (11) form the group with the highest participation. 

• All of these states have governments that tend to support tougher immigration policies, mostly Republicans. Further down the list are Alabama (9), Arkansas (8), Wisconsin (8), North Carolina (7), and Utah (7), but with much less weight compared to Texas and Florida. From there, the numbers drop significantly: some states have just one or two agreements, and some—like Iowa, Maine, and Montana—have none at all. 

• This pattern shows that the model is concentrated primarily in the south and southeast of the country, areas that have traditionally collaborated more with ICE. 

If we compare it with the task force model, which has 445 agreements, we see that they operate differently: the task force focuses on street operations, while the Duty Officer model only operates inside prisons. Even so, it is key for ICE because it ensures that people are not released after serving a sentence without being reviewed by immigration. 

 

THE TOP 10 STATES THAT HAVE COLLABORATED THE MOST WITH ICE 

Florida: The state that most promotes the 287(g) program 

 Florida leads the way with 271 signed memoranda, accounting for nearly half of the national total in the top 10. The state saw a significant upswing in the first few months of the year: 106 agreements in February (39% of the state total) and 37 more in March. Although the pace slowed in April (64) and May (12), it picked up again in July with 33 new agreements. 

 Florida leads not only in volume but also in the intensity with which it launched the program under the second Trump administration , demonstrating that the state’s strategy was highly concentrated in the first months of the year. 

 

Texas: Strong but Stable 

 Second , Texas accumulated 112 agreements , well below Florida, but with a more balanced pattern over time :  

• From February to August, growth was sustained, with July being the most active month with 25 deals (22%) . 

• Unlike Florida, there was no single extreme spike, indicating a continuing policy rather than a one-off crackdown . 

 

The Democratic advance: Pennsylvania and Virginia surprise  

Despite being states with Democratic governments, Pennsylvania (30 agreements) and Virginia (30 agreements) appear in the Top 10, although with very different dynamics:  

• Pennsylvania saw most of its growth in July (43% of the total) , suggesting a late addition to the collaborative strategy.

• Virginia , on the other hand, had a staggered growth , with its strongest point in May (37%) , maintaining constant increases since March. 

 Why do Democratic states contribute, even to a lesser extent, to ICE? The reasons are not entirely clear, but there are hypotheses: political pressure at the legislative level , possible conditions for accessing federal funds or even local initiatives to demonstrate collaboration in security . 

In any case, this reveals that even in Democratic states, the pressure to strengthen cooperation with ICE does not disappear, even if it is implemented more gradually or strategically . 

 

THE TOP 10 STATES THAT HAVE COOPERATED THE LEAST WITH ICE 

While some states have accelerated the signing of 287(g) memoranda, others show little movement. The top 10 with the lowest growth total only 34 agreements, a very low figure compared to the 574 of the top 10 that collaborate most with ICE. This contrast highlights the existence of a bloc of states, both Democratic and Republican, that maintain a stance of minimal collaboration with ICE. 

North Carolina: First among the last 

Although North Carolina tops the list, with seven agreements, it remains at a low point. March was its only dynamic month, with four agreements (57%), and then it declined to almost zero increases: just two in May and one in June. 

This indicates that there was an initial attempt, but it was not followed through, probably due to local political factors or social pressure. 

Democratic states: moderate resistance 

Among the least cooperative states, several Democratic states stand out: Michigan, Nevada, Maryland, Maine, and New Mexico. 

• Michigan (6 agreements) adopted a staggered but minimal growth, with monthly increases of 1 or 2 agreements. 

• Nevada (5 deals) surprised with a spike in June (60%), but did not record any other significant growth. 

• Maine and New Mexico were virtually non-existent: just one agreement each in a single month. 

• This reveals that Democratic governments, while not completely blocking, prefer a policy of symbolic cooperation. 

Republicans with resistance: isolated cases 

While collaboration with ICE is often associated with Republicans, some states also appear on the list of slower growth: 

• Idaho, with 5 deals, saw its highest activity in February (40%), but then dispersed into smaller increases. 

• Arizona, with two agreements, and Montana, with one, barely made any progress, despite their hardline image on immigration. 

• Iowa, with one agreement, made a single signing in March and has not moved since. 

States awaiting approval in 2025: What does it mean and why does it matter? 

In addition to the states that already have active agreements under the 287(g) program, seven states are awaiting approval of new memoranda in 2025. These states are: 

• Texas leads the list with eight pending memoranda under the on-duty officer model. This is consistent with its trend of expanding collaboration with ICE, strengthening its immigration enforcement policy at the local level. 

• Virginia and Louisiana are the two states pursuing a combination of models, demonstrating a hybrid approach: task forces (joint operations) on the one hand, and service officers on the other, which involves delegating functions directly to local personnel. 

• Nebraska appears for the first time with the intention of implementing the service officer model, indicating an expansion into states where 287(g) previously did not have a significant presence. 

The total number of 18 pending memoranda confirms that the 287(g) program continues to expand in 2025, especially in key immigration debate states such as Texas and Florida. 

An analysis of the 287(g) program in 2025 reveals an expanding and changing landscape. With 766 agreements signed and in force in 32 states and 18 applications pending, the strategy of collaboration between federal agencies and local authorities remains a pillar of U.S. immigration policy. 

 States traditionally aligned with restrictive policies, such as Texas and Florida, are strengthening their role by leading both in approved agreements and new applications, while others, such as Nebraska and West Virginia, are seeking to join the movement with more limited models. 

The approval of new applications will consolidate an even broader network, which could redefine local and federal immigration enforcement in the coming years, intensifying the debate over whether these measures strengthen public safety or, on the contrary, create greater risks of discrimination and family separation.