source: Austin Kocher
Mapping 1,200 ICE Partnerships: A visual report on the 287(g) Agreement Program
Park rangers, lottery officials, and our new immigration police state.
Quick Background
Back in April, I wrote about Tom Homan’s plan to build what Austin Kocher aptly referred to as a “deportation army” through a rapid expansion of newly-signed 287(g) agreements — partnerships that essentially allow ICE to deputize local and state police to help enforce federal immigration law.
Then in early November, I documented how this enforcement infrastructure had more than doubled to over 1,097 agreements. Meanwhile, a broader mobilization has launched, including plans for armed private contractors in Texas, bounty hunters, and social media monitoring teams.
Today, the number of active agreements stands at 1,202. Nearly 10x the number of active agreements back in January 2025. In just the first three weeks of November, 92 applications were approved.
To help visualize what this expansion actually looks like, I’ve built an interactive Google Looker Studio report to map active 287(g) agreements across the United States.
You can explore the full report click here
The Numbers Tell a Jarring Story
Nearly 1,100 new agreements have been signed since January, each representing a partnership that allows local or state law enforcement agents to cooperate with ICE on civil immigration law enforcement.
The agencies span 39 states + Guam and include almost 900 different law enforcement agencies. Lots of local police departments and county sheriffs’ offices are on the list. But also: a few state highway patrols, fish and wildlife agencies, and even Florida’s Gaming Control Commission and Department of Lottery Services.
The raw numbers only tell part of the story though. When you dig into the data, you start to see why this program’s expansion this year is so concerning.
The Task Force Model
Local and state police officers who participate in two of the three 287(g) program models are theoretically constrained to certain activities, like assisting with immigration detainers and ICE administrative warrants.
The jail enforcement model is focused on cooperating with ICE on detainers for individuals already in custody in the local or county jail system. The warrant service model, meanwhile, limits officers to execute pre-existing warrants.
But the 622 active task force model agreements, all signed this year — give deputized officers the power to question individuals and make arrests for suspected immigration violations in the course of regular police work. This wide-net model was previously dismantled in 2012 due to documented issues of racial profiling and discrimination, only to be brought back online in January. It has since surged to, now represent a majority (51.7%) of active agreements.
The County-Level Takeover
When you first look at 287(g) agreements, the sheer dominance of county partnerships might surprise you. As of December 5th, 2025, 801 of the 1,202 active agreements (two-thirds) are with sheriffs’ offices and other county-level agencies.
And these partnerships aren’t evenly distributed. In certain states/regions, county sheriffs have become a backbone of ICE’s enforcement strategy. Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia lead the way, but the program has also expanded far beyond these traditional strongholds.
But this focus on county partnerships makes strategic sense for ICE: sheriff’s departments typically operate jails, meaning they have regular contact with detained individuals. It also means that, in hundreds of counties across America, a traffic stop or minor infraction can now trigger a chain of events leading to federal immigration detention and possible deportation.
State-Level Reach: 150 Million+ People
While county agreements dominate numerically, 73 state-level agencies across 26 jurisdictions (25 states + Guam) are also partnering with ICE. Based on 2024 Census estimates, these state-level agreements cover a combined population of just over 150 million people.
These state partnerships include:
20 state prison systems
6 state highway patrols (Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming)
4 national guards (Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and West Virginia) plus the Florida State Guard²
3 attorneys general offices (Guam, Mississippi, and Texas) plus Florida’s Office of the State Attorney Sixth Judicial Circuit
At least 9 state regulators with law enforcement components, including 3 fish and wildlife agencies
State-level agreements play a different role in the enforcement campaign. While county sheriffs provide the jailing infrastructure, state police and correctional agencies extend ICE’s reach across state highways, government facilities, and prison populations.
And partnerships with other state-level authorities, like wildlife services and auditors, expand their reach to more remote areas — both physical (like state parks) and figurative (like financial data).
The Surge Strategy
As I explained in November, understanding the 287(g) program is critical to understanding how ICE and CBP have the capacity to move from Los Angeles to Chicago to Charlotte to New Orleans en masse, conducting high-visibility enforcement operations in sanctuary cities.
In states like Florida and Texas, where local cooperation is virtually mandated, ICE can rely on hundreds of deputized local and state police officers to actively enforce immigration law. This frees up actual federal agents to “surge” their presence in sanctuary cities, where policies explicitly prohibit this cooperation.
Exhibit A: You’ll notice the Texas Lone Star patch (and Texas license plates) in a lot of video/photo documentation from "Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago. That’s not a coincidence: it’s the practical result of this force multiplication strategy, where ICE and CBP units typically based in Texas, California, etc. have been relocated as part of these campaigns of terror in sanctuary cities.
The quiet mobilization of nearly 900 local and state police agencies isn’t separate from the highly visible raids in sanctuary cities: it’s the logistics backbone and reserve elements of this deportation army taking shape — seemingly to run more of these campaigns across more cities and towns across the US.
The Broader Infrastructure
The 287(g) program is just one part of this mobilization. As I wrote in November, the surveillance and supply chain/logistics support elements of the larger enforcement infrastructure now includes:
An ICE proposal to hire armed contractors for a 24/7 transport operation in Texas to create what Wired calls “the logistical backbone of an industrialized deportation machine” (October 30, 2025).
Plans to hire thousands of private bounty hunters with “monetary bonuses” for successfully tracking down individuals wanted by ICE (Wired, November 25, 2025).
A contract social media monitoring team hired in Vermont (VT Digger, October 6, 2025).
Expanding contracts with the usual suspects in our immigration enforcement industrial complex: CoreCivic, GEO Group, Palantir, Booz Allen Hamilton, and charter airlines supporting “ICE Air” (like Avelo).
And all of this is backed by an influx of federal funding that’s set to continue.
Explore the Data Yourself
The interactive report breaks down the program data in a few ways:
A state-by-state comparison of total agreements and agreement types.
A breakdown of agreements by the three 287(g) program models.
A county-level mapping to show the geographic coverage of the nearly 800 counties with active agreements.
A breakdown of state-level agreements and unique partnerships.
Timeline trends showing how the program has rapidly expanded since January.
Is your local government cooperating with ICE?
What You Can Do
If your county sheriff or local police department (or other state or local authority) has signed a 287(g) agreement, here are some next steps to consider:
Learn More:
Immigrant Legal Resource Center has helpful explainers, FAQs on the three program models, and toolkits for local organizers
ACLU’s breakdown of how the expanded program works (September 2025)
American Immigration Council explainer on the program’s evolution and relationship to sanctuary policies
Take Action:
Contact your local elected officials to demand accountability for why these agreements were signed and what oversight mechanisms exist to protect residents.
Support local organizations that are documenting enforcement activities, advocating against 287(g) program participation, providing legal resources in your area, etc.
Share information about rights and resources with your neighbors. Even if it seems obvious at this point, just sharing these materials can help affirm to people going to bed scared these days need to know they’re not alone
Stay Informed:
Support local media organizations, independent journalists, and others who cover the local/state authorities who authorize these partnerships.
The 287(g) program’s expansion in 2025 has been (largely) quiet, systematic, and devastating in its scope. But it marks a fundamental shift in how local police can operate in communities across America. And it’s happening largely out of the public’s view.
That’s why mapping this data matters: to build a smarter, more well-informed resistance
