93% of ICE’s active 287(g) agreements were signed in the last 17 months
The finding: of the 1,934 active agreements deputizing state and local police for immigration enforcement under INA § 287(g), only 131 predate February 2025. The other 1,803 — 93% — were signed in the 17 months between February 2025 and June 2026, a pace of roughly 106 new agreements per month, or about three and a half every day. All figures come from ICE’s own participating-agencies workbook, as of ICE’s published date of June 10, 2026.
Five things the data shows
- The program is effectively new. A program authorized since the 1990s signed 93% of its current agreements in the last 17 months. The busiest single month was April 2026, with 175 agreements signed; in 2026 the pace has averaged about 116 per month.
- Two states hold 40% of it. Texas (416 agreements) and Florida (349) together account for 39.6% of the national total. The next tier — Pennsylvania (107), Arkansas (106), Missouri (106) — is a quarter of their size.
- The growth is one specific model. The Task Force Model, which gives officers street-level immigration-enforcement authority and was discontinued in 2012, was reinstated in early 2025. It now accounts for 1,248 of 1,934 agreements (64.5%) — more than the jail-based models combined.
- Twelve states have zero agreements: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Coverage spans 38 states plus Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
- 1,640 distinct agencies hold the 1,934 agreements — many sheriff’s offices hold two or all three program models at once, so agreement counts overstate the number of participating departments.
What a 287(g) agreement means in practice
The three models differ in where deputized officers can act: Jail Enforcement (180 agreements) screens people already booked into local jails, Warrant Service Officer (506) lets jail officers serve ICE administrative warrants, and Task Force (1,248) extends limited immigration-enforcement authority to officers on regular duty. What that means for an encounter with local police — and which rights apply in each case — is covered in our plain-language guide: 287(g) agreements and ICE detainers — know your rights, with the live by-state table of every agency.
Method and caveat
This is a signing-date analysis of ICE’s current workbook, refreshed monthly and parsed into a stable JSON schema. One caveat keeps it honest: the workbook lists agreements currently in force, so agreements terminated before the scrape date are absent. That slightly undercounts the pre-2025 era — and means the 93% figure describes today’s program, not all agreements ever signed. The chart and totals on this page are regenerated from the dataset on every site build, so they stay current as ICE signs new agreements.
Download the data: ice_287g.json — every agreement with agency, county, state, model, and signing date. Full schema notes on the dataset page.
Suggested citation: MigrantUSA, “287(g) growth analysis,” migrantusa.com/datasets/287g-growth/, retrieved [date].
Related
- 287(g) and ICE detainers — know your rights — what the models mean in an encounter, by-state table
- ICE detention facilities — facility-by-facility cluster
- 287(g) agreements dataset — schema, method, download