State index

The single biggest driver of Texas's numbers is a state law. Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8 in June 2025 after it cleared the legislature, requiring sheriffs in counties with populations over 100,000 to enter 287(g) agreements with ICE, with a deadline that arrived at the end of 2025. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick championed the measure's passage, while opponents filled the Capitol in protest during the debate. Earlier versions of the effort had specifically targeted Harris County, the state's largest.

The result was a steady climb in signed agreements as the deadline neared. By early 2026, more than 250 Texas law-enforcement agencies had signed with ICE, and by May roughly 200 counties and 90 cities had entered partnerships. ICE's published roster now lists 369 participating agencies in Texas — more than any other state. Statewide reach expanded further when the Department of Public Safety entered a task-force agreement giving troopers immigration-enforcement powers, and constable and municipal offices from Bexar County to small East Texas towns like Bullard signed on.

The sharpest confrontation is in Dallas. Attorney General Ken Paxton demanded that Dallas County enter a formal agreement by June, warning of legal action; the sheriff responded that the county already cooperates through its jail. The city drew separate attention after its police chief rejected a $25 million federal offer to take part, prompting the mayor to call for a review and immigration advocates to push back. Not every jurisdiction has signed: the city of Whitehouse declined to join, and Fort Worth council members said a partnership was not imminent.

During legislative hearings, some sheriffs testified about the practical strains the mandate would impose, and the state sheriffs' association weighed concerns over cost and jail capacity. Counties have since sought help covering those costs — Tarrant County applied for a state grant to support its ICE partnership. As the June compliance deadline passed, the Houston Chronicle reported that some sheriffs were still hesitating over how far the law compels them to go.

Florida's participation is the product of a deliberate state campaign. Gov. Ron DeSantis began announcing additional memoranda between local police and ICE in February 2025, and Attorney General James Uthmeier followed with a series of removal threats against local officials who hesitated. When Key West commissioners initially voted to break ties with ICE, Uthmeier demanded they reverse the vote; days later the commission reentered the agreement. Similar pressure landed on Fort Myers, where the AG threatened the city council with removal, and on the Orange County mayor, who signed an ICE addendum "under duress." By early 2026 the AG had also threatened Tampa Mayor Jane Castor.

With 284 participating agencies, Florida trails only Texas (369) in the number of enrolled agencies. The buildout reached deep into state government: the Department of Law Enforcement, the Department of Agriculture, the Highway Patrol, and Fish and Wildlife officers were all certified as task-force officers, and universities became a distinct front — at least 15 Florida institutions, including FIU, FAU, and campuses in the state system, signed agreements, drawing faculty and student organizing against them. The New York Times reported the campus partnerships were stoking anxiety among students.

Money has flowed alongside the mandates. ICE moved to award Florida millions for the partnerships, and leaked documents reviewed by the Miami Herald showed federal officials had earmarked $149 million for Florida agencies. State CFO Blaise Ingoglia distributed reimbursement checks to participating departments, and Tampa Bay sheriffs requested $1.9 million in grants, records showed.

Not every local government complied quietly. South Miami's lawsuit questioning the legality of the agreements was dismissed with prejudice, Tallahassee's commission declined to rescind its pact on a 3-2 vote, and Miami commissioners declined to vote on unwinding the city's participation despite public calls to exit. Gulfport's police chief said the city was unlikely to withdraw. Tensions also emerged between the state and its own sheriffs, who accused ICE of "poaching" deputies, and DeSantis publicly slammed sheriffs over arrest-quota concerns even as Palm Beach County held its course.

Enforcement operations followed. State and federal officials said the partnerships produced over 10,000 arrests, including a four-day operation with more than 750 arrests and Central Florida sweeps that ICE said netted 400 people. The Florida Phoenix reported that arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions rose sharply. Meanwhile, a secret ICE directive has tested Florida's open-records tradition, with a Sarasota case showing where courts stand on whether federal confidentiality rules override state disclosure law.

According to ICE's published 287(g) roster, 107 Pennsylvania agencies now participate, the third-largest count in the nation behind Texas (369) and Florida (284). The enrolled agencies span county sheriffs' offices, municipal police departments, and — in an arrangement that has drawn scrutiny — elected constables, a category unusual among the states.

Bucks County became the flashpoint. After the sheriff signed a task-force agreement with ICE in spring 2025, the county commissioners disputed his authority to do so and the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed suit to void it. A Bucks County judge ruled the deputies could act as ICE agents, finding the challengers lacked standing — a decision America First Legal, which defended the sheriff, claimed as a victory. The politics settled the matter: the sheriff was voted out in November, and his successor Danny Ceisler terminated the agreement days after taking office in January 2026, barring deputies from asking about immigration status.

Enrollment continued to widen elsewhere. Butler County's sheriff entered an agreement, and through 2025 and into 2026 municipal departments including Hazleton, Bradford, and Mahoning Township signed on, with the Hazleton city council later ratifying the deal. York County saw multiple police agencies join the program, even as York's mayor declined to sign and one regional chief said cooperation would continue regardless. In the Pittsburgh area, Munhall and Stowe Township walked back agreements they had quietly signed.

Money and liability have surfaced as recurring concerns. Emails obtained by Pittsburgh's PublicSource and the Beaver County Times showed federal cash incentives — deputy-salary reimbursement and arrest bonuses — alongside officials' fears of voter backlash. Separately, a Pennsylvania insurance pool ruled that counties' ICE deals would not be covered under current liability insurance, a finding with practical weight for participating agencies.

Opposition has been organized and vocal in several counties. Advocates including Make the Road Pennsylvania and local Indivisible chapters rallied against the agreements, and more than 2,700 people petitioned the Lancaster County sheriff to end that county's partnership. Statewide, participation remains far above Pennsylvania's Northeast neighbors, where New York lists 12 agencies and New Jersey, Maryland, and most others list none.

At the start of 2025, participation in Missouri was minimal: the Missouri State Highway Patrol was one of only two agencies enrolled statewide. That changed sharply over the following year. ICE now lists 97 participating agencies in Missouri — the fifth-most of any state, behind Texas (369), Florida (284), Pennsylvania (107), and Arkansas (98). Local outlets tracked the expansion in real time, with ABC17 noting that many more agencies had joined since April 2025, and a Kansas City Star count finding 76 Kansas and Missouri agencies making immigration arrests under the program.

The Christian County Sheriff's Office was the first local agency to sign on. Through 2026 the roster widened to include municipal departments. Branson's board approved a policing agreement with DHS in February over vocal objection; the Springfield News-Leader later reported that an ICE officer had warned the police chief the agency would face a federal "blitz" without a contract. In St. Charles County, officials introduced and then unanimously passed a task-force agreement in late March, giving county officers immigration authority and sparking public debate.

Enforcement activity followed the agreements. In Sedalia, the Pettis County Sheriff's Office said a joint ICE operation led to 18 arrests, months after the office entered an additional agreement. The presence of Hillsdale police working with federal agents near a North County school, including a warrantless visit to Ritenour Middle School, raised community concerns about officers operating around children.

The buildout drew organized pushback and scrutiny of jail conditions. A group petitioned the Greene County Commission to end its detainee contract, and the sheriff's office responded to protesters demanding the same. The Marshall Project examined the risks of rural jails seeking ICE contracts after an immigrant's death, and Missouri lawmakers said immigrants held at the Ste. Genevieve County jail were being neglected. Advocates cited by First Alert 4 warned that ICE's offer of cars, cash, and training could drive profiling and overpolicing. Not all political pressure ran one direction: after the shooting of a 15-year-old in Springfield, some state lawmakers urged local departments to sign 287(g) agreements.

State participation expanded sharply in 2025 after lawmakers moved to force cooperation with ICE. Republican legislators pushed a measure mandating the program and adding penalties, and in August the Arkansas State Police signed a task-force agreement with ICE, allowing troopers to double as immigration agents under the revived model that lets officers question and arrest people in the field. ICE currently lists 98 participating agencies statewide — the fourth-highest count in the nation, behind Texas (369), Florida (284) and Pennsylvania (107).

The most concrete enforcement pipeline runs through the Benton County jail. An AP investigation found the jail handed hundreds of detainees to ICE over the year, driving a surge in arrests and, by the account of immigrants and advocates, spreading fear across the northwest corner of the state. Cooperation has also reached into state institutions: corrections officers can now interrogate and turn over suspected undocumented people held in Arkansas prisons.

The state police role drew legislative scrutiny in January 2026, when the agency's director told lawmakers troopers had turned 48 people over to ICE since September. The department has also sought funding for the work, requesting $12.5 million for equipment and services and ultimately receiving $4.2 million. Local governments have not moved uniformly: one city paused a decision to partner with ICE, while Franklin County approved a funding agreement tying its sheriff's office to Homeland Security operations.

The expansion has met organized objection. Advocates and the ACLU of Arkansas have raised concerns over the agreement models spreading through Northwest Arkansas and the River Valley, echoing earlier opposition to the delegation of federal immigration authority to local officers.

Tennessee's expansion accelerated through 2025 as sheriffs' offices and state agencies signed on. The Tennessee Highway Patrol applied for the program in the wake of Nashville-area operations and gained new enforcement powers that spring, while the state Department of Corrections joined 287(g) in June. Putnam County became the first Tennessee agency to adopt ICE's task-force model, and counties including Sumner, Sevier, Greene and Rutherford added agreements over the year. ICE now lists 81 participating agencies statewide — more than any Southeastern state except Florida (284) and Arkansas (98), and the sixth-highest total nationally.

In Shelby County, the sheriff signed a jail-enforcement agreement with ICE in November to hold jailed immigrants on request. The Hamilton County sheriff forged a partnership that ICE and local officials described in enthusiastic terms, and county commissioners later said they could not unwind it. The Tennessee Lookout noted the state's immigration posture was shifting with limited public debate, and reported that a state immigration-enforcement division distributed nearly $900,000 in law-enforcement grants.

The expansion drew organized opposition. More than 100 people protested Hamilton County's involvement at a county meeting, and residents in Rutherford County demonstrated against that county's agreement, prompting the sheriff's office to defend the partnership publicly.

In April 2026, the legislature moved from voluntary participation to compulsion: both chambers passed a bill requiring every county sheriff to enter a 287(g) agreement, sending it to the governor's desk. Related measures would require sheriffs to hold ICE detainees for up to 48 hours. Davidson County's sheriff has since claimed an exemption from the mandate, questioning whether the state can compel his cooperation. Separately, questions have emerged over Tennessee constables assisting ICE outside their home counties.

State-level immigration enforcement in Oklahoma officially began in early 2025 and expanded quickly through the year. Logan County deputies entered an agreement to perform immigration duties under ICE supervision in February 2025, and by year's end small-town police departments had taken on federal roles alongside county sheriffs. ICE now lists 78 participating agencies statewide, the seventh-largest count in the country, ahead of Georgia and behind Tennessee. By February 2026, more than 30 additional agencies had signed agreements in a single wave, according to Oklahoma Watch.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol became a central player. State officials said all troopers are now credentialed under ICE, and the agency partnered with federal officers on Interstate 40 operations that detained dozens of truck drivers and impounded trucks; a second I-40 raid in November 2025 arrested 34 drivers ICE described as "illegal aliens." The former trooper tied to that posture was later nominated to lead ICE.

Money has emerged as a driver. An Oklahoma Watch analysis found the state could collect $175 million annually through its enforcement agreements, and reporting by The Oklahoman documented that the arrangements have netted agencies millions already. Oklahoma Watch also scrutinized a claim that the state ranks No. 3 nationally for turning people over to ICE.

The rollout has not been friction-free. A school district landed at the center of a first-in-the-nation controversy after nearly entering a 287(g) partnership; the district said it had hoped for training and denied signing anything, unwinding the arrangement within 48 hours. Separately, a state immigration law remains tied up in the courts in a case that could shape how local agencies cooperate, and the 10th Circuit affirmed the conviction of a man transferred to ICE after a Tulsa County jail handoff. Lawmakers were also weighing a flurry of bills on ICE partnerships and citizenship verification during the 2026 session.

Georgia's expansion follows a 2024 state law that requires local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE and penalizes jurisdictions that refuse, prompting a wave of agencies to apply to the program in early 2025. ICE now lists 61 participating agencies in Georgia, the eighth-most of any state by count, behind Texas (369) and Florida (284) and roughly on par with regional neighbors Tennessee (81) and Alabama (53). Georgia Public Broadcasting documented how these once-obscure agreements expanded sharply under the Trump administration.

The state itself joined early: Gov. Brian Kemp and the Department of Public Safety announced in March 2025 that state troopers would receive ICE training, extending enforcement to Georgia's highways. A Chattanooga Times Free Press analysis of arrest data found one trooper in Walker County accounted for 78% of her agency's arrests that led to ICE custody. Across the state, much of the enforcement flows from ordinary traffic stops — broken brake lights, driving without a license — that funnel drivers into detention, a pattern documented in bodycam footage and case after case.

Sheriffs' offices form the backbone of participation, with early adopters in northwest Georgia — where four of seven sheriffs had signed by mid-2025 — and later additions including Bibb, Glynn and Jasper counties. City police departments have followed: the Marietta Police Department signed a task-force agreement in February 2026, a move its department framed partly as protecting state funding. Members of the Cobb County House delegation issued a statement criticizing that decision.

Resistance has been concentrated but real. Several metro Atlanta jurisdictions have declined to join, and in south Georgia the Cairo city council voted against a proposed agreement after a packed, contentious meeting. Teachers in one metro county asked their sheriff to pause cooperation, citing empty classrooms, and a No Kings rally in Macon ended abruptly amid protest over the local sheriff's ICE ties. Georgia Democrats have moved to repeal the state's sanctuary-city ban and roll back the mandated collaborations, though the effort faces long odds in the Republican-controlled legislature.

An 11Alive investigation found that many resulting ICE arrests stem from low-level charges, and Capital B reported that with local help immigration arrests were running at roughly 41 per day statewide. Georgia Public Broadcasting also reported that ICE has begun paying local police to assist with enforcement, adding a financial incentive to the state's legal mandate.

Alabama's 287(g) footprint grew across 2025 as county sheriffs and municipal departments signed agreements deputizing local officers to assist federal immigration enforcement. Three sheriffs signed up early after President Trump's second term began, and by June more counties and north Alabama agencies had joined; smaller-town police continued signing into 2026. ICE now lists 53 participating agencies in the state — the ninth-highest count nationally, behind Southeast neighbors Florida (284) and Arkansas (98) but ahead of Louisiana (51). Arrests of immigrants rose sharply as deputies took on what AL.com described as the role of "mini-immigration officers"; an AL.com review found most detained as "criminals" had only low-level offenses.

The enforcement push extended beyond jail agreements. State and federal officers ran joint traffic stops and Alabama's first state-federal checkpoint operations, detaining more than 20 people. Baldwin County resumed housing ICE detainees after federal restrictions were lifted, and several counties directed federal funds toward equipment — including backup firearms for deputies in one north Alabama department. Attorney General Steve Marshall invited ICE to expand its operations statewide in February 2026.

Even so, an AL.com analysis found Alabama holds relatively few immigrants for ICE compared with nearby states. Enforcement has drawn documented errors and local unease: a Baldwin County man said he was detained twice despite proof of citizenship, and residents in Huntsville publicly opposed their sheriff's ICE partnership.

In the Legislature, a bill to broaden local police immigration-enforcement authority — framed around the Laken Riley Act — cleared a House committee and passed the House in March 2026 amid testimony warning of racial-profiling fears; one sponsor said "righteous anger" drove the measure, 1819 News reported, while other lawmakers called citizen concerns "fear-mongering". The immigration-related bills ultimately stalled before the 2026 session ended. Meanwhile, Alabama law enforcement rejected liability warnings tied to partnering with ICE, signaling continued appetite for the program regardless of the legislative outcome.

The expansion accelerated in early 2025 after ICE revived its task-force model, which lets local officers make immigration stops on the street rather than only in jails. In March, two Louisiana agencies teamed with ICE as Landry and the Trump administration pressed a hard line; by May the governor had signed an executive order directing state cooperation, and five state agencies — including, notably, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries — entered partnerships under 'Operation GEAUX'. ICE now lists 51 participating agencies statewide, the tenth-highest count in the country and the most in the Southeast after Florida, Arkansas, and Tennessee.

The legislature hardened the posture further with a new state law requiring police to cooperate with ICE or face potential prison time, a mandate New Orleans officials would later blame for reshaping the city's police policy. Kenner became an early flashpoint, where a routine traffic stop can now route a detainee toward deportation after the police department linked with ICE to access detainee immigration data.

Lafayette drew the most intense local backlash. After the parish sheriff's office signed agreements empowering deputies to enforce immigration law in January 2026 — following earlier talks to open a local detention facility — residents crowded a council meeting, rallied outside the sheriff's office, and pressed the office to end the cooperation. By spring the partnership had grown to include detention and active enforcement, and the sheriff's office confirmed eight people detained at an ICE checkpoint after retracting a claim about a 'phony' ID.

New Orleans, a sanctuary city, became the central legal battleground. The police department's chief responded to the attorney general's letter urging cooperation, and City Council President Helena Moreno said NOPD would not sign an ICE agreement before an agreement was reached to keep its policy within the new law. Separately, ICE sued Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson, alleging she would not share information on immigrants in the city jail; the two sides faced off in court over the jail's data-sharing policy, and a judge earlier allowed Attorney General Liz Murrill to intervene in a related detainer case. State police, meanwhile, agreed to support but not lead 'Swamp Sweep' immigration raids, leaving some local officials in the dark about the operation.

Participation expanded quickly after President Trump's return to office. In early 2025 only three counties took part; by mid-year, more agencies were joining and partnerships had doubled within weeks. The Charleston County Sheriff's Office rejoined the program in March, and the state's own agencies moved in — SLED signed on to street-level enforcement, and the Highway Patrol and Transport Police joined in August. ICE now lists 47 participating agencies in the state, placing South Carolina 11th nationally by number of participating agencies, in the middle of its Southeast peers, ahead of North Carolina (26) and Virginia (28) but behind Georgia (61) and Tennessee (81).

Beaufort County drew the most sustained local conflict. Sheriff PJ Tanner applied for a task force in March and signed the agreement in August despite crowds of residents demanding answers — at one July meeting roughly 150 attendees pressed him as he stood behind the program. The office took part in a June 2026 ICE operation in Bluffton that drew protests. The ACLU of South Carolina, which has urged residents to check where their local police stand, said the sheriff was ignoring public outcry.

At the Statehouse, House Republicans advanced a bill to mandate ICE-cooperation agreements at jails and among local law enforcement statewide. The measure cleared committee in February 2026 and passed the House in April. Supporters at the federal level pushed in the same direction, with Sen. Lindsey Graham calling for more partnerships and proposing to reward agencies that assist most. Sponsors argued the bill would not invite federal agents into the state but simply require existing agencies to sign on; opponents, led by the ACLU, warned of damage to public trust. When WPDE contacted lawmakers, none of 53 sponsors answered its question about the bill.

The requirement collided with practical limits on the ground. In Bluffton, police said they couldn't spare officers for an ICE agreement even as the bill threatened to compel one. Enforcement operations escalated: ICE and state officers arrested 114 people in a June 2026 highway operation along I-26 and I-85, and about 50 were detained in a July raid targeting a manufacturing plant. In Greenville County, tensions turned personal after the sheriff called protesters "whack-jobs" when ICE comments were blocked at a county council meeting.

Kentucky's participation in the 287(g) program expanded sharply through 2025. The Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the number of Kentucky agencies with ICE agreements had doubled in six months, and by mid-June a wave of sheriffs' offices had signed on to assist enforcement. ICE's published list now counts 47 participating agencies in the state — placing Kentucky in the middle of its Southeast region, comparable to South Carolina (47) and Mississippi (41), and well below Florida (284) and Tennessee (81). A Courier-Journal accounting later found roughly 25 agencies actively partnering, reflecting the mix of task-force and jail-based agreements ICE catalogs differently.

Local decisions drove much of the activity. Sheriffs' offices in Madison and Daviess counties explored or entered agreements early in 2025, with Daviess County Sheriff describing a focus on "criminals, not immigration status" to the Owensboro Times. Jails in Oldham, Kenton, Campbell and Warren counties became flashpoints as residents questioned indefinite ICE holds and detainee conditions, and Louisville dropped its sanctuary designation in July after Justice Department pressure. Northern Kentucky saw sustained public pushback in Kenton and Campbell counties, though critics themselves drew counter-pressure at local meetings.

The 2026 legislative session escalated the fight. Republican-backed bills would require police agencies statewide to enter ICE agreements and ban sanctuary policies, a move the Kentucky Lantern reported as a statewide mandate proposal. Related legislation creating a "halo" buffer zone around officers and ICE agents neared final passage over Democratic First Amendment objections. Governor Andy Beshear and ICE traded barbs after he called for removing agents from the state.

The human and fiscal scale drew scrutiny. A Kentucky Lantern analysis found more than 1,000 people held in Kentucky jails on immigration matters, and reporting tied the buildup to financial incentives for counties paid to house detainees; one jail was ordered to disclose how much it received. Louisville police also came under examination for sharing license-plate data with a national immigration effort.

Mississippi's 287(g) footprint expanded through 2025 and 2026, with ICE now listing 41 participating agencies statewide — a mid-tier figure by national count that nonetheless places the state ahead of several Southeastern neighbors like North Carolina (26) and Virginia (28) while trailing Louisiana (51), Alabama (53), and Tennessee (81). Local reporting documented that agreements tripled in 2026, with counties such as Clay and Noxubee among those signing on to expand local immigration enforcement.

State officials embraced the program early and visibly. In March 2025, the attorney general announced a partnership with ICE and joined a roundup of undocumented migrants. By fall, the state auditor's office signed a 287(g) agreement to train its agents for immigration enforcement, an unusual step for an office focused on public accounting, and multiple additional agencies came aboard that October.

The Legislature moved on a parallel track. Building on 2025 proposals to encourage local partnerships with ICE, lawmakers in the 2026 session advanced a package including a grant program to underwrite local agencies working with ICE, and an anti-sanctuary measure. The House passed a bill to require public entities and law enforcement to cooperate with ICE, though the measure drew concerns over police protections before moving closer to approval.

Infrastructure followed the policy. NOLA.com reported how a Gulf Coast jail quietly became an ICE holding facility during the Trump crackdown, a role the Sun Herald described as important to federal detention operations. A separate analysis by the Mississippi Independent examined how race and geography shaped who was detained and deported in the state's early 287(g) experience.

Indiana's push began in earnest in January 2025, when Braun promised cooperation with federal immigration efforts and the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office moved ahead on its own, establishing an immigration commission and joining the program without waiting for a state order. That county became the first in Central Indiana to formalize the arrangement; "We want to collaborate with ICE," the sheriff's office signaled early. Other counties, including Noble County, entered agreements over the following months.

The state's role deepened in August 2025, when the Braun administration signed enhanced agreements placing the Indiana State Police and the Department of Correction under 287(g) authority, and pledged up to 1,000 prison beds at the Miami Correctional Facility — a repurposing the federal Homeland Security department nicknamed the "Speedway Slammer." Enforcement activity was visible on the ground: state troopers joined a roadway operation that DHS said produced 223 arrests, and ICE agents detained more than 1,000 people at the Marion County jail over roughly two years before that jail hit capacity and stopped holding people for ICE beyond 48 hours.

The state's 38 participating agencies place Indiana 14th nationally by count, in the middle of its Midwest neighbors — more than Ohio (17) or Wisconsin (21), fewer than Missouri (97), and far above Illinois, which has none.

The legislature spent two sessions catching up to the executive branch. A 2025 bill to require sheriffs to help ICE and offset some costs stalled, but a revived measure cleared the Senate and passed the House in early 2026, mandating that local governments, public schools and colleges comply with ICE. Braun signed it in June 2026. Attorney General enforcement accompanied the buildup: his office sued Indianapolis Public Schools over alleged obstruction and later accused a town of "sabotage" for blocking a new ICE facility.

The expansion has drawn organized pushback. New billboards in Indianapolis criticized a sheriff's cooperation with ICE, and a proposed ICE move to Carmel drew heated public reaction. Several departments, including those in South Bend, Mishawaka and St. Joseph County, said they follow the law and evidence rather than joining raids, and authorities in Evansville and Vanderburgh County declined to take part. A new state law calls for ICE-related officer training, though The Indiana Lawyer found it unclear whether that training has actually been provided.

Kansas participation grew steadily over 2025. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation moved early, with the KBI director and Attorney General Kris Kobach clearing agents to work with ICE in February; by November the bureau said it had detained 10 people with prior convictions and turned them over to federal custody, an operation the attorney general described as catching people "hiding in plain sight." On the local side, the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office entered a task-force model partnership in July, and by mid-November the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office became one of roughly 20 agencies to sign detainment agreements, with the sheriff publicly explaining the role his office would play.

Participation was never uniform. Early in 2025, KCUR reported that many Kansas agencies declined to deputize officers, with departments in Johnson County saying their officers weren't helping ICE and the Abilene police and Dickinson County sheriff declining to sign. Some officials cited federal capacity: ICE was so "overburdened" that local officers could not rely on it, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported. In Douglas County, Lawrence police and the sheriff said they had no advance notice of February 2026 ICE arrests in their jurisdiction.

The legislative fight defined 2026. A bill extending state law-enforcement liability protections to federal ICE agents passed the Senate in March and advanced over objections; dozens of residents testified against it, while the Ellis County sheriff backed the detainer and liability provisions. A companion measure would criminalize "unlawful approach" of first responders, including ICE agents. Kelly vetoed the package, but lawmakers overrode the veto in April, enacting a law that also lets police enter ICE agreements without county oversight — removing the commission-approval step some counties had used as a check.

By absolute count, Kansas's 37 participating agencies place it 16th nationally and behind Midwestern neighbor Missouri, which lists 97. The Kansas City Star reported in March 2026 that 76 Kansas and Missouri agencies had begun arresting people for ICE, part of a broader regional expansion KCUR tracked across dozens of departments.

Gov. Patrick Morrisey moved early to align West Virginia with the Trump administration's immigration agenda, pledging coordination with ICE in late January 2025 and announcing the state would join the 287(g) framework days later. By August, the administration had signed formal agreements putting state agencies — including the State Police and National Guard — under ICE training and delegation. ICE now lists 38 participating agencies statewide, placing West Virginia 15th nationally by agency count, in the middle of its Southeastern neighbors and well below leaders like Florida (284) and Texas (369).

Enforcement escalated through late 2025 into 2026. State Police and ICE announced 12 arrests in September, 18 over Bridge Day weekend in October, and a series of operations targeting Mexican restaurants, including a raid in Nitro and operations in North Central West Virginia. The activity culminated in a two-week January operation that ICE and the governor said netted more than 650 arrests, spanning Berkeley and Jefferson counties and beyond. Morrisey's office touted the "professionalism" of agents, and officials framed the effort as a contrast to enforcement clashes elsewhere.

The arrest figures drew sharp scrutiny. A report disputing the state's claims found that roughly 75% of those detained had no criminal record, and an ACLU-backed analysis questioned ICE's numbers. Mountain State Spotlight reported that the arrests appeared to overstep constitutional limits, and after federal judges ruled that a third immigrant had been wrongly jailed, state officials declined to answer questions about the partnership.

The legislature meanwhile advanced a Senate bill requiring law enforcement to notify ICE and turn over people identified as undocumented, making cooperation mandatory rather than optional. Opposition mobilized outside the Capitol: a March rally targeted Morrisey's ICE pact over due-process concerns, and rapid-response networks organized in the deep-red state. West Virginia Watch also documented the program's financial dimension, reporting that jails renting beds to ICE earned the state at least $330,000 — though by late March, amid overcrowding, jails stopped accepting new federal civil immigration detainees.

The Youngkin-era buildup came first. In late February 2025, then-Governor Glenn Youngkin directed the Virginia State Police and the state prison system to cooperate with ICE, deputizing troopers as immigration agents. State troopers went on to assist in nearly 200 ICE apprehensions under that directive, and Youngkin later touted a gang and immigration sweep with more than 500 arrests. Through spring and summer 2025, local sheriffs signed on: 13 sheriff's offices inked agreements by June, with the Chesapeake, Loudoun, Greene County and Hopewell offices among those partnering or expanding. Not every locality followed—the Portsmouth sheriff cancelled a pending agreement, citing confusion over a federal 'sanctuary' list.

The pivot came on Spanberger's first day in January 2026, when she rescinded Youngkin's order. Sheriffs quickly said their own arrangements were unchanged, since the governor's authority reaches state agencies, not independently elected sheriffs. On February 4, Spanberger terminated the state agencies' ICE agreements outright and set principles for state law enforcement; the State Police cooperation did not halt immediately. Central Virginia offices including Hopewell continued their collaboration afterward, underscoring the limit of the governor's reach.

The Legal Aid Justice Center counted 32 active agreements across Virginia in late January 2026—a figure that runs higher than the 28 agencies ICE currently lists, a gap that reflects differing tallies and the shifting nature of ICE's published dates. By absolute count, Virginia's 28 participating agencies place it in the middle of its Southeastern peers, well below Florida (284), Tennessee (81) and Georgia (61).

The legislative fight followed. The General Assembly sent a slate of immigration bills to Spanberger's desk, including measures to restrict local cooperation; she sought changes rather than immediate signature. Republicans pushed back, with U.S. Representatives Ben Cline and Jen Kiggans proposing legislation to reinstate police partnerships with ICE. Loudoun Sheriff Mike Chapman warned in Hill testimony that a proposed state law would likely end his county's cooperation, telling WTOP that under the bill 'you're going to have more ICE out here.' One conservative locality, by contrast, declined a 287(g) agreement even as advocates pushed for one.

The reversal also drew a factual dispute: DHS claimed Spanberger had banned Virginia law enforcement from working with ICE, which experts said was not what happened. And as national attention landed, WVTF reported that many GOP critics' home localities never had 287(g) agreements in the first place. On the ground, enforcement continued into mid-2026, with the Greene County Sheriff's Office joining ICE in a Ruckersville operation and a mass detention in June and July.

North Carolina's 287(g) footprint expanded through 2025 and into 2026, with more agencies signing agreements after President Trump's inauguration and several counties adopting the task-force model that lets deputies question and detain people on immigration grounds beyond the jail. By early 2026, that more aggressive model was spreading across additional jurisdictions. ICE lists 26 participating agencies in the state — a mid-pack figure nationally, fewer than regional neighbors Florida (284), Tennessee (81) and Georgia (61), and closer to Virginia (28) and South Carolina (47).

The defining development was legislative. After the state House passed a broad immigration bill requiring cooperation with ICE, Republicans overrode Gov. Stein's veto in June 2026, enacting a law that ends local sanctuary policies and mandates ICE cooperation by sheriffs and, newly, four state agencies. The measure also bars sanctuary policies at UNC campuses and requires that any State Highway Patrol agreement with ICE be reported to the General Assembly.

Sheriffs did not move in lockstep. In Mecklenburg, Sheriff Garry McFadden long resisted honoring detainers, telling the public it was "not my fault" when releases drew federal criticism, and later met with ICE to "air frustrations" over the new law. In Alamance, the pro-Trump sheriff ended the county's agreement to house and move detainees — a move The Assembly examined in detail in asking why he "iced out" ICE. In Pender County, commissioners voted against an ICE resolution after the sheriff spoke out publicly against it, while Union County leaders aligned on tougher enforcement amid local pushback.

Durham's sheriff told a U.S. Senate panel that local police should not serve as immigration enforcers, and a WRAL fact check scrutinized claims that some jails "refuse" to hand inmates to ICE. Enforcement politics are also shaping the 2026 elections, with a longtime ICE-aligned sheriff facing a challenger and Mecklenburg candidates largely agreeing on ICE policy while differing on style. The Assembly has mapped where ICE is looking to expand next across the state.

New Hampshire's entry into 287(g) accelerated in early 2025, when the state police applied to be deputized for immigration-enforcement powers and finalized a partnership with ICE that May. County sheriffs followed: by June 2025 four of the state's ten counties had signed on, including Hillsborough, whose office was deputized to carry out immigration enforcement, and Rockingham, whose deal drew concern from local Democrats. Manchester, the state's largest city, declined to join. ICE now lists 25 participating agencies in New Hampshire — the 19th-highest count of any state, and well ahead of Northeast neighbors such as New York (12) and Massachusetts (1).

The growth ran heavily through small-town police departments, and money became a central thread. NHPR reported departments had received over $300,000 from their ICE agreements within a year, and WIRED detailed one town where ICE is paying salaries for essentially the entire police force. Lawmakers took up a measure to let communities bill ICE for that assistance. Enforcement itself remained modest in scale: New Hampshire departments logged 51 immigration arrests over the program's first year.

The agreements repeatedly landed on town-meeting floors. Voters delivered mixed results in March 2026, Troy's partnership went to a public vote, and a Gorham meeting turned contentious, with the chief defending the arrangement. In Hampton, the police chief rejected a pact before voters weighed in, calling the matter a "non-issue," he told Seacoastonline. Grafton County saw the most visible reversal, where the sheriff's contract inspired opposition and he ultimately pulled out of the agreement in late May 2026, even as new towns joined.

Transparency and civil-liberties questions ran alongside the expansion. The state declined to disclose which troopers would be ICE-certified, citing sensitivity, and the ACLU of New Hampshire filed suit seeking the underlying training documents. Advocates also raised racial-profiling concerns over the state police role, while legislators debated a bill to bar participating officers from wearing masks or turning off cameras. Separately, county-run jails entered talks with ICE about housing detainees for a fee, a Rockingham proposal that drew protesters.

Wisconsin's participation grew steadily through 2025 as county sheriffs signed agreements to identify and hold people in their jails for ICE. Washington and Winnebago counties signed agreements in early March, prompting immediate condemnation from the ACLU of Wisconsin, and additional sheriffs followed through the spring and summer. ICE now lists 21 participating agencies in the state, placing Wisconsin around the middle of the pack nationally by agency count and well below regional neighbor Missouri, which has 97.

Most of the Wisconsin agreements follow the jail-enforcement model, and the money is part of the appeal. A WUWM examination detailed how counties are paid to cooperate, and an ACLU of Wisconsin report documented sheriff's offices earning revenue tied to detention and deportation. Kenosha County's sheriff reversed his earlier stance and entered an agreement in January 2026, one of several late signers; Dunn County followed in March with a limited warrant-service deal.

The most aggressive proposal came not from a sheriff but from the Palmyra Police Department, which applied for a task-force agreement that would have let officers question and arrest people in the field for ICE — a Wisconsin first. The ACLU condemned the plan as "taking it a step further" than jail-based cooperation, and in November the village dropped it.

The central legal question is now before the state's high court. Acting for Voces de la Frontera, the ACLU filed an original action asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to end the practice of honoring ICE detainers in county jails, and the court agreed to hear the case in December 2025. In July 2026 the court issued a stay, leaving the underlying dispute unresolved.

Politics has sharpened around the issue. A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel survey of all 72 Wisconsin sheriffs early in 2025 found them split on immigration enforcement, and a later Journal Sentinel report found some deepening ICE ties while others pulled back. A state Senate bill would require sheriffs to assist ICE, all Waukesha County sheriff candidates backed 287(g), and Democratic gubernatorial candidates have said they want to halt the jail program.

Ohio's participation in 287(g) accelerated through 2025 as sheriffs across the state signed on. Portage County was an early mover, with Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski having deputies join the immigration crackdown that spring, followed by three more sheriff's departments by May and Butler County deputies gaining authority to make ICE arrests in June. Lake County signed on in September and Clermont County became the second in southwest Ohio to authorize such arrests in October. ICE now lists 17 participating agencies in the state — a substantial increase over the year, though the Springfield News-Sun tallied county-level agreements as having grown 600% since 2025. That places Ohio at #21 nationally by number of participating agencies, mid-pack and well behind neighboring Missouri (97).

Money has been a visible driver. A Columbus Dispatch review found Ohio counties are cashing in on housing federal detainees, and reporting placed Butler County's federal-prisoner revenue in the hundreds of millions, with ICE agreeing to pay more per detainee. That flow of funds fueled sustained protests: Butler County residents crowded the commissioner's office and activists demanded an end to the sheriff's ICE contract, while demonstrators in Lake County rallied against the sheriff's agreement they said erodes immigrant trust.

Transparency fights reached the Ohio Supreme Court, which sided with the Geauga sheriff against an ACLU records request, ruling a jail need not divulge its ICE contract. The ACLU of Ohio, which had earlier urged sheriffs to reject participation, also demanded the release of detainees it argued were being held without legal authority; Attorney General Dave Yost countered that counties can jail detainees indefinitely under ICE contracts.

The most striking episode came in April 2026, when a police chief from the small village of Gratis — two counties away — visited Cincinnati schools claiming ICE authority for what he called immigration "wellness checks." An officer resigned and the village suspended its involvement with the program. Even Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones criticized the chief. As The Statehouse News Bureau reported, some rural departments that signed up have found staffing shortages limit what they can actually do, and several Ohio cities began rethinking cooperation amid the enforcement surge.

Utah's 287(g) footprint expanded steadily through 2025, built mostly on county sheriff's offices that agreed to identify and hold jail inmates for federal immigration authorities. Washington County was among the first to ink accords with ICE in April, and by late July seven sheriff's offices had signed on, including Beaver, Kane, Sanpete, Tooele and Utah counties. Wasatch County became the ninth sheriff's office in August, and Cache County agreed to assist within its county jail that same month. The Utah Department of Corrections also signed an agreement in May to streamline the transfer of prison inmates without legal status to ICE custody.

The program broke past the county-jail model in early September, when a suburban police department became Utah's first city to sign a pact granting officers immigration-enforcement powers, following Riverton's move to become the first municipal department in the state to partner with ICE. ICE lists 12 participating agencies in Utah, a count that places it 24th nationally by absolute number — roughly in line with Mountain West neighbors Wyoming (13) and Idaho (11), and well below Texas, which has more participating agencies than any other state at 369.

Utah County became the sharpest flashpoint. The county commission unanimously approved an agreement in July despite heavy opposition from residents, and Sheriff Mike Smith drew a line at labor raids, saying his office would help ICE but not join workplace operations. Pushback resurfaced a year later, when residents again urged commissioners to reconsider and the sheriff and commission defended the contract amid renewed citizen criticism.

Not every department followed. Ogden police stated they have "no authority to enforce immigration law," and Murray police rebuffed talk of an ICE partnership. Tensions also emerged between local sheriffs and the federal agency itself: after ICE began offering $50,000 signing bonuses to recruit deputies, Utah sheriffs called the effort "classless," with the Utah County sheriff saying "this needs to be fixed."

At the Legislature, a bill that would have limited local police assistance to ICE and restricted officer face coverings was tabled in a Senate committee in January 2026. A KSL review in mid-2026 found that while a dozen Utah agencies had signed deals, many were reluctant to discuss the details publicly. Utah has no dedicated ICE detention facility, though some county jails hold detainees under the agreements.

Wyoming's 287(g) footprint expanded sharply through 2025. Gov. Mark Gordon formalized a contract putting the Wyoming Highway Patrol into the program in late July 2025, empowering state troopers to conduct immigration enforcement during traffic stops — a rollout the patrol's chief described as limited in scope. The Laramie County Sheriff's Office secured the first such agreement in June 2025 and sworn in 25 deputies that October, with the county positioning itself as "not a sanctuary state." By June 2026, Hot Springs County had become the state's 13th participating agency; ICE's published list now shows 13 agencies statewide.

That count places Wyoming in the middle of the pack nationally by number of participating agencies, and roughly in line with Mountain West neighbors like Utah (12) and Idaho (11) — well below leaders such as Texas (369). A Wyoming Public Media analysis found that Mountain West agreements rose fivefold over the year, reflecting a regional surge rather than a Wyoming-specific outlier.

Enforcement has been concentrated in Laramie County. Deputies there conducted a three-day truck crackdown in February 2026 that turned 32 drivers over to ICE, and the office topped the nation in immigration arrests during an April operation. Deputies were also making more arrests around Cheyenne through late 2025. Separately, the county sheriff invoiced ICE nearly $75,000 for 287(g) services, part of a debate the ACLU joined by arguing sheriffs shouldn't take dollars for detainees.

The program now faces a legal challenge. In May 2026 the ACLU of Wyoming, on behalf of a church and nonprofit group, sued the Laramie County Sheriff's Office, alleging the ICE partnership is unlawful under state law. The sheriff has asked a judge to dismiss the case. The ACLU has also filed public records requests to the Highway Patrol and other counties, and signaled it is examining additional participating agencies, including Campbell and Crook counties. Not every sheriff has joined: the Albany County Sheriff's Office said early on it was not partnering with ICE.

New York's 287(g) footprint remains modest by national standards — ICE lists 12 participating agencies, far below Texas (369), Florida (284) and even regional neighbor Pennsylvania (107). Most of that activity accumulated during 2025, when a string of upstate sheriffs signed on. Madison County's office formed a partnership that summer, St. Lawrence County lawmakers approved an agreement in early 2026, and Broome and Steuben counties also entered deals, joining a handful of counties and one village that signed on to work with ICE. Some enrollments proved unstable: the Niagara County sheriff was reported pulling back, and ICE at one point wrongly listed Lake Placid as cooperating.

The center of gravity was Nassau County, the site of what Bolts described as ICE's only contract with a blue state. In early 2025 the county deputized local police as ICE officers and began embedding detectives with the agency; by that fall it was on track to detain 3,000 people under a Homeland Security agreement. The NYCLU and the Central American Refugee Center sued over the arrangement, and after a State Supreme Court setback the group appealed.

Governor Kathy Hochul moved against the partnerships in January 2026 with the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, citing what she called "tyranny" and seeking to bar police from aiding ICE on non-criminal matters. Immigrant-rights advocates and lawmakers including Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Reyes pressed for the broader New York For All Act, calling the governor's plan a "good first step" that stopped short. The measures culminated in a May 2026 budget deal that would end 287(g) agreements and bar ICE agents from wearing masks, though Central Current noted it did not ban informal cooperation.

The pushback was immediate. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman vowed to keep the local ICE deal alive — "Make my day," he told the New York Post — and separately defied the state plan. The state sheriffs' association warned the policies could harm public safety, and Fox News reported members were "mad as hell." White House border czar Tom Homan blamed Hochul for a promised enforcement surge and threatened a "flood" of agents if the state withheld help.

The most consequential development of the period was a repeated clash between Republican lawmakers and Idaho's own sheriffs. Beginning in early 2026, the House advanced a bill requiring police and sheriff's offices statewide to apply for 287(g) agreements with ICE, passing it and sending it to the Senate. A Senate committee rejected it, Republicans revived the effort, and in the session's waning hours lawmakers attempted a "hostile" takeover of an unrelated E-Verify bill to attach the mandate. That third attempt died in the Senate in early April.

The opposition came from law enforcement itself. The Idaho Sheriffs' Association sent legislators a letter voicing its "unequivocal opposition" to the mandate, and individual sheriffs objected on grounds of local control, jail capacity, and cost. "We don't need a law to tell us to do so," sheriffs told Idaho News 6, arguing they already cooperate with ICE where they choose to. The Ada County sheriff publicly criticized the Legislature, writing an opinion piece laying out his opposition. Some North Idaho officials questioned intertwining their duties with federal immigration work. The White House weighed in with a letter urging passage, and sheriffs said the Trump administration was pressuring lawmakers — a dynamic the Idaho Statesman framed as GOP legislators ignoring police concerns despite "Back the Blue" politics.

Participation nonetheless grew through voluntary sign-ups rather than any mandate. The Idaho State Police partnered with ICE in June 2025 at Gov. Brad Little's direction to transport inmates to detention facilities, an agreement the Idaho Statesman reported gave broad powers; ISP has since transported dozens of people from state prison to ICE custody. County sheriffs joined incrementally — Owyhee County signed on in April 2025, and a southeast Idaho sheriff who had fought the mandate signed up voluntarily in May 2026. An InvestigateWest investigation documented coordination between Kootenai County deputies and immigration officials, and found one rural sheriff's office received at least \$116,000 for ICE-related work.

Idaho's 11 participating agencies place it in the middle of the national field by count, and roughly in line with Mountain West neighbors Wyoming (13) and Utah (12) and ahead of Montana (6) and Colorado (1). Some local posts and reports have implied slightly different totals as agencies were added; ICE's published list of 11 is the authoritative count, and its signing dates can shift over time.

North Dakota's participation in the 287(g) program is modest by national measure: ICE's published list counts 10 participating agencies, compared with 369 in Texas and 284 in Florida. Within the Midwest, that count sits toward the low end, ahead of Minnesota (9), Michigan (8) and South Dakota (7) but well behind Missouri (97).

Much of the on-the-ground activity has centered on jails rather than street enforcement. The Grand Forks County jail saw a more than 400% increase in the number of people brought in by Border Patrol and ICE, and by early 2026 detention cases were moving through state courts.

City police departments have moved to clarify their limited role. Leaders in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks said their officers don't enforce federal laws but would protect federal agents if needed, and the Fargo police chief similarly described how local police handle immigration-related situations. As of September 2025, North Dakota National Guard troops had not been asked to assist immigration enforcement.

Public opinion has run in favor of cooperation: an April 2026 poll found broad support among North Dakotans for local law enforcement working with ICE. Recent enforcement encounters nonetheless sparked conversations across communities, and the ACLU of North Dakota published an explainer on how 287(g) agreements work, naming counties including Dunn, Dickinson, Eddy and McKenzie.

A generation after Sheriff Joe Arpaio made Maricopa County a national symbol of local immigration enforcement, most Arizona police agencies are steering clear of 287(g). A ProPublica and AZ Luminaria investigation found that departments once at the forefront of the practice are now largely avoiding it, and when federal officials invited Arizona agencies to sign up in early 2025, there were initially no takers. ICE currently lists nine participating agencies statewide — a count that places Arizona in the middle of the national pack and far below regional peers Texas and Oklahoma.

The defining conflict of this period unfolded in Pinal County, where the county attorney signed a 287(g) agreement with ICE in December 2025 without the Board of Supervisors' approval. Supervisors declared the deal void and accused the prosecutor of acting as a "vigilante", voted to sue him, and asked the state attorney general to investigate. The county attorney vowed to keep the agreement, but a judge temporarily blocked it in February 2026 and in May ruled he had exceeded his authority, finding the contract void.

Elsewhere, several departments moved to reassure residents that they are not enforcing immigration law: Flagstaff police clarified they have no role, Page police denied active enforcement, and Phoenix police addressed community concerns. Mesa's long-standing arrangement drew resident pushback over a 16-year relationship with ICE. In Cochise County, the Phoenix New Times scrutinized the sheriff's ICE ties and a quarter-million-dollar arrangement, and every county police agency moved to adopt the same iris scanners ICE deploys.

At the Legislature, Republicans pushed bills to force local cooperation with ICE, including a Senate measure requiring police to notify ICE of an immigrant's arrest that passed the Senate and won House committee support. Governor Katie Hobbs, meanwhile, agreed to fund 50 state troopers for immigration enforcement in June 2026. Financial incentives loom over the debate: KJZZ reported ICE could pay as much as $2 billion to local law enforcement under 287(g) agreements nationally.

The current wave began in March 2025, when the Itasca and Cass county sheriff's offices became the first in Minnesota to sign onto ICE's revived task-force model. Within weeks, several more greater-Minnesota sheriffs inked agreements to help identify and process people for deportation, and by late fall roughly eight counties had signed some form of deal. ICE's published roster lists nine participating agencies statewide — a count that places Minnesota around the middle of the pack nationally and below Midwest neighbors such as Missouri (97 agencies) and Wisconsin (21), though above Michigan and Iowa. Isle, a town of about 800, became the only Minnesota city to sign an agreement.

The agreements provoked a sharp legal question. In December 2025, Attorney General Keith Ellison issued an opinion finding that sheriffs may not unilaterally enter 287(g) agreements — that authority, he said, rests with county boards, not sheriffs. Some sheriffs pushed back hard; one told Alpha News he was "not intimidated by him whatsoever." Several northern counties moved to clarify how they cooperate, and county attorneys in some jurisdictions advised against letting sheriffs coordinate on their own. The ACLU of Minnesota sued Freeborn County over its agreement, arguing it violated state law.

The fight escalated in early 2026 amid a federal enforcement surge in the Twin Cities. Border czar Tom Homan and a Minnesota sheriffs' group negotiated a blueprint under which expanded ICE access to local jails could trigger a federal drawdown, and feds entered talks with counties over jail access. Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt denied cutting a deal to end the surge and blasted what she called misinformation about her cooperation, while sheriffs in the two biggest metro counties stayed mum on whether they would agree.

At the Capitol, DFL lawmakers introduced bills to bar local governments from entering 287(g) agreements, but in the divided Legislature those proposals have stalled, and Republicans defeated a measure that would have banned the partnerships. A MinnPost analysis noted that the "sanctuary" label obscures the actual, varied levels of ICE cooperation across the state's counties.

Gov. Jim Pillen set the state's direction early, ordering Nebraska agencies to align with the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in January 2025 and issuing a follow-up immigration order that summer. In August he announced a partnership with DHS and ICE on what his office framed as national security efforts, including a new ICE detention facility at a former state prison in McCook. The Nebraska State Patrol subsequently outlined plans for troopers to take part in immigration enforcement.

Those moves drew organized pushback. Advocates asked Kearney's city council not to adopt enforcement agreements, and civil rights groups have pressed Dakota County to drop its agreement with ICE. In the Legislature, lawmakers introduced accountability bills and a measure to void the McCook partnership; an immigration-related hearing drew hours of largely anti-ICE testimony, according to the Nebraska Examiner. In Douglas County, a Latino civil rights group called its portrayed role in the sheriff's ICE proposal "inaccurate," and courtroom disputes followed arrests near county courts.

Separately, a federal DHS "sanctuary jurisdiction" list named 10 rural Nebraska counties as noncompliant, a designation state and local officials called a mistake; one sheriff disputed the report directly. Nebraska's seven listed agencies leave it below Midwest leader Missouri, which has 97 participating agencies, and roughly even with South Dakota's seven. The earliest signing dates mark the first signals of these partnerships, and ICE's published dates can shift over time.

The Jackson County Sheriff's Office became first in the state to sign a 287(g) agreement in April 2025, an arrangement one immigrant-rights group called a "lose-lose". Within weeks, the Taylor Police Department became the first in metro Detroit to enroll, with its chief downplaying the significance of the pact and insisting officers were "not hunting anyone", as one department leader told MLive. Additional agencies followed through the summer and fall of 2025, including the Metro Police Authority of Genesee County, a Flint-area department, and West Branch, extending participation into small municipalities across the state.

That expansion drew sustained pushback. In late September 2025, the ACLU of Michigan and allied groups urged agencies to step away from the program and publicly pressed departments to reconsider. The pressure produced reversals: the Metro Police Authority of Genesee County rescinded its partnership in October, and the Center Line Police Department terminated its contract in November after concerns from residents, making it a second agency to back out.

Agencies that stayed in faced repeated confrontations. In Jackson County, residents packed a commissioners meeting in January 2026, prompting the county to weigh new public-comment rules after hours-long protests; the sheriff stuck with the agreement citing the killings in Minnesota. New enrollments continued into 2026, including a Saginaw County village — described as the first since November — and Oakley's one-man police department. Meanwhile, many Michigan sheriffs declined to participate at all, telling Bridge Michigan they were too overwhelmed to help round up immigrants, and the Washtenaw County sheriff advised against cooperation.

A recurring driver has been money. Michigan Advance reported that federal incentives are fueling closer partnerships, and Michigan Public documented ICE giving local police substantial funding for immigration enforcement. Separately, officials in Oakland County questioned a contract granting ICE access to a law-enforcement database and called for greater transparency when police work with ICE. ICE's published roster currently lists 8 participating agencies in Michigan — placing it 29th among states by count and behind Midwest neighbors such as Missouri, which lists 97.

Gov. Larry Rhoden set the state's direction in May 2025 when he announced a partnership between the Highway Patrol and ICE, one of the first such state-police arrangements in the country. Attorney General Marty Jackley moved to clarify the scope of the agreement soon after, and the following year reflected that the deal had held up largely as intended nearly a year on. ICE currently lists 7 participating agencies in South Dakota — a mid-pack figure nationally that places the state just behind neighboring North Dakota (10) and far below Midwest leader Missouri (97).

The centerpiece has been Operation: Prairie Thunder, announced in late July 2025 as a state-funded effort to assist ICE with deportations and boost Sioux Falls law enforcement. The state also called in its corrections department and National Guard, and Guard troops began processing immigration paperwork for ICE that August. The first state-funded patrol produced 44 felony drug arrests in Sioux Falls, and the operation ran repeated saturation efforts through the fall, completing a sixth operation by November before continuing into 2026. By May 2026, Rhoden announced expanded partnerships and said state cooperation had helped ICE deport hundreds, while the Highway Patrol planned to increase the number of troopers assigned to immigration work.

The expansion has met resistance. In February 2026 the Centerville Police Department became the first city agency to join 287(g), but larger cities kept their distance: Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken distanced his police department from the state program, and Operation Prairie Thunder saturated Brookings without city cooperation or notification. The effort also drew sharp criticism at a Sioux Falls council meeting in August 2025.

Tribal governments have pushed back hardest. The Oglala Sioux Tribal Council rejected a 287(g) deal and voted to ban ICE activity on Pine Ridge in January 2026, and tribal leaders spent that month searching for answers about detentions in the state. South Dakota News Watch reviewed the year's activity from small towns to Prairie Thunder, tracing how the enforcement reached across the state — including dozens of immigrants detained, among them men arrested in Madison, and ten state inmates transferred to ICE for deportation.

Montana's six participating agencies rank it 32nd nationally by absolute count — far below states like Texas (369 agencies) or Florida (284) — and comparable to regional peers Wyoming (13), Utah (12) and Idaho (11). Statewide, the story of 2025 and 2026 has been less about expanding these agreements than about who cooperates with ICE, and on what terms.

At the state level, Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Governor Greg Gianforte pushed local governments toward closer federal cooperation. In February 2026 the two opened an investigation into Helena, alleging the capital city violated Montana's ban on sanctuary-city policies after its commission adopted a resolution restricting when local police interact with immigration agents. Under threat of a lawsuit, Helena officials voted to scrap the resolution in March 2026.

Gallatin County became the sharpest flashpoint. Knudsen repeatedly pressed the county attorney over a policy the state said failed to recognize ICE, later invoking supervisory control over the office and demanding it share confidential criminal-justice records with federal agents; the county turned to the Montana Supreme Court to challenge that takeover. Separately, residents sued the commission and sheriff over the county's 2020 ICE agreement, arguing it was void. After public hearings, commissioners ended the disputed 287(g) agreement in June 2026, and the county paused the pact as litigation continued.

Elsewhere, cooperation has run through jails and informal channels. Cascade County holds ICE detainees at its detention center, an arrangement Montana Free Press reported functions as a revenue generator for the jail. Law enforcement in Billings has continued informal cooperation with ICE, and Flathead County's sheriff defended his office's federal agreement amid resident calls to withdraw. Public sentiment is mixed: a May 2026 poll found six in ten Montanans support local law enforcement working with ICE, even as protesters in Billings and Helena demanded the opposite.

The most contested development came in Clark County, where the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department re-applied to rejoin the jail program in June 2025, a day after Las Vegas landed on the Trump administration's "sanctuary" list. The sheriff framed the deal narrowly, telling KLAS the department would not conduct immigration "roundups" because "that's not my job", and describing the arrangement as a way to turn over people already booked into jail. The Las Vegas mayor voiced support for the agreement.

The ACLU of Nevada sued over the Metro pact in October 2025, arguing the cooperation violates state law, and separately asked a judge to halt holds on inmates for ICE. A Las Vegas judge dismissed the suit in March 2026 — by which point ICE had taken 240 people from the Clark County jail under the agreement — and the ACLU appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court that April.

Outside Las Vegas, the picture is uneven. The Douglas County sheriff signed a task-force agreement in February 2025 that allows stops touching on immigration status, telling legislators the partnership was "a way to remove them". Nye County moved the other direction, parting ways with ICE over a negative audit and thin funding and signaling "no desire" to revive the deal. Washoe County commissioners and the sheriff's office discussed cooperation in September 2025, with the state planning to use FEMA funding to upgrade the Washoe jail, while Henderson evaluated its policy under pressure from the Nevada Immigrant Coalition, which urged the city to end collaboration.

Nevada's four participating agencies place it in the middle of the national field by count — far below states like Texas (369) and Florida (284) — but a regional NPR analysis found Mountain West agreements rose roughly fivefold in 2025, and the state's growth mirrored that broader increase across neighboring states.

According to ICE's published 287(g) list, two Iowa agencies participate — a low count nationally, and consistent with a Midwest where only Missouri (97 agencies) shows heavy uptake while Illinois has none. The most consequential state-level step came in April 2025, when the Iowa Department of Public Safety signed an agreement with ICE creating an immigration task force, an action that immediately drew organized opposition; immigrant workers and advocates delivered a letter asking the state to cancel it.

At the county level, sheriffs have largely declined to sign on. The Dubuque County sheriff publicly rejected an ICE agreement despite pressure from the sheriffs' association, calling the program "not a good fit" for his office, as he told KGAN, and by June 2025 Iowa Starting Line reported that no county sheriff had signed. A separate flashpoint emerged when the state attorney general sued a sheriff over a social media statement questioning ICE detainers, later seeking penalties when the statement was not retracted.

Legislative efforts to mandate cooperation have repeatedly stalled. A 2025 bill requiring local law enforcement to enter ICE agreements failed to advance, and a companion measure would have made defiance of state immigration law a felony. Renewed 2026 versions requiring all officers to cooperate drew opposition from officials in Johnson County and Davenport, and two immigration-bill subcommittee meetings were canceled, while Democrats moved to unveil counter-protections.

Reynolds has expanded executive-branch involvement where the legislature has not. In August 2025 she ordered the Iowa National Guard to provide administrative support to ICE, and by March 2026 the Iowa Capital Dispatch reported that the State Patrol was helping ICE arrest truckers at weigh stations.

The fastest-growing dimension is detention. The Iowa Capital Dispatch found one jail's ICE contract increased detention funding, another projected a $2.3M increase from housing detainees, and jails statewide have seen a sharp rise in immigrant inmates held for ICE. Muscatine County's detention agreement has remained secret, with officials later asserting "federal law" bars disclosure, and ICE was sued over alleged FOIA violations tied to county jail records. Errors have surfaced too: a Polk County jail issued an ICE detainer by mistake, nearly leading to the deportation of a Native American man.

ICE lists two participating 287(g) agencies in New Mexico, the sheriff's offices in Curry and Torrance counties — a small footprint that puts the state 36th nationally by agency count. That is consistent with the wider Southwest picture outside Texas (369 agencies) and Oklahoma (78): Arizona lists nine and New Mexico two. The Curry County sheriff signed an ICE agreement in June 2025 to assist in the federal immigration crackdown, with the sheriff publicly explaining the partnership that spring.

The legal landscape shifted sharply in early 2026. Lawmakers folded a ban on local agreements with ICE into the Immigrant Safety Act, the Senate sent the bill to the governor, and she signed it into law in February, also closing ICE detention facilities in the state. The Curry County sheriff decried the new restriction, and by May two sheriffs said they would not end their contracts despite the law.

That standoff drew litigation from both directions. In May 2026, Attorney General Raúl Torrez sued Torrance and Curry counties and their sheriffs over what his office called illegal ICE agreements, saying the deals violate the new statute. Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice sued New Mexico and Albuquerque to block the anti-ICE laws, and the state moved to dismiss that federal suit in June. Earlier reporting had noted that ICE adapted its tactics as New Mexico jails declined to honor detainers.

New Mexico thus joined a small group of states — alongside Maryland — barring local contracts with ICE, even as its two listed 287(g) agencies remain contested in court.

Alaska's formal local involvement in federal immigration enforcement is thin: ICE's published 287(g) roster shows just two participating agencies statewide, ranking Alaska #36 nationally by absolute count. That places it well behind states like Texas (369 agencies) and Florida (284), and largely consistent with its Pacific neighbors — Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii list zero participating agencies, and Nevada lists four.

Despite the limited number of formal agreements, enforcement activity has climbed sharply. Immigration arrests more than tripled in Alaska during the first year of the Trump administration, and most of those detained had no criminal record, according to the Juneau Independent.

Across the state, local departments have taken varying approaches to working with DHS and ICE. The Anchorage Police Department has said it is willing to cooperate with Homeland Security in what it characterizes as criminal cases, while other agencies have kept their distance as fear spreads among immigrant residents, Alaska's News Source reported. Where reporting suggests broader entanglement than the two listed agreements, the authoritative measure remains ICE's published roster, and its signing dates can shift over time.