287(g) Agreement Type
Task Force Model
1,220 participating agencies · as of June 5, 2026
See in glossary →Overview
This is the broadest grant of authority. Local officers can question and arrest people for immigration violations at any time — traffic stops, 911 responses, street encounters. Authority is not limited to jail settings.
The key distinction from JEM is that TFM officers make first contact and can arrest based solely on suspected immigration status. JEM officers only encounter people already in custody on state charges.
Key distinction: Unlike JEM, TFM officers can initiate contact and make arrests in the community based solely on suspected immigration status — not limited to individuals already booked into jail.
Officers can
- → Question anyone about immigration status during any encounter
- → Access DHS databases (IDENT/IAFIS)
- → Make civil immigration arrests (no state criminal charge required)
- → Issue detainers
- → Initiate removal proceedings
Training requirements
Officers complete a 40-hour online course. Before the program was terminated in 2012, training was a 4-week in-person course at FLETC.
Key findings & history
- Origins (2006)
- Program originated in 2006. Maricopa County (Sheriff Arpaio) was among the first and most prominent participants.
- Terminated by Obama administration (December 31, 2012)
- The Obama administration terminated all TFM agreements, citing documented racial profiling in Maricopa County, AZ and Alamance County, NC.
- Melendres v. Arpaio
- Federal court found Maricopa County deputies arrested people where "roughly 77% of all arrests...with Hispanic surnames" by one deputy. Another "arrested only Latinos during the operations he participated in." Deputies circulated emails "comparing Mexicans to dogs." Total cost to Maricopa County taxpayers: over $300 million. As of 2025, 640+ deputy misconduct claims remain uninvestigated.
- Not revived during first Trump term (2017–2021)
- Even Executive Order 13768 did not restore the Task Force Model.
- Revived January 20, 2025 — EO 14159
- Training requirements cut from 4 weeks in-person to 40 hours online.
- Rapid growth (2025)
- 141 agencies in the first 50 days → 338 by June 2025 → 1,182+ agencies in 32 states.
- Notable expansions (2025–2026)
- Florida and Texas National Guard. University campus police (Florida A&M, New College of Florida, others). Texas Attorney General's Office. State environmental and wildlife agencies.
- Alamance County, NC
- Sheriff ordered deputies to "bring [him] some Mexicans." DOJ found Latino drivers "up to 10 times more likely to be stopped" — described by DOJ's own expert as "some of the highest rates of racial profiling ever documented in the United States." DOJ terminated the agreement and filed a civil rights lawsuit.
- Law enforcement opposition
- The International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, and a coalition of 63 sheriffs and police chiefs have expressed opposition, citing interference with community policing and trust.
- Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (September 2024)
- Held that race/ethnicity can be a "relevant factor" in immigration enforcement stops — removing a key legal barrier that was central to the Obama-era termination.
Program-wide oversight findings
- ▪
DHS OIG (2010): More than half of immigrants identified through JEM were arrested for misdemeanors, primarily traffic offenses. ICE and local agencies were not complying with MOA terms. At least 33 recommendations were issued.
- ▪
ACLU "License to Abuse" (2022): Of 142 participating agencies, 65% had documented patterns of racial profiling, 77% operated detention facilities with documented inhumane conditions.
- ▪
UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2022): Called on the Biden administration to terminate the program, describing it as "indirectly promoting racial profiling."
- ▪
Cato Institute (2018): Analysis of North Carolina counties found no causal relationship between 287(g) apprehensions and crime reduction. Unexpectedly found a correlation with increased assaults on law enforcement, attributed to community trust erosion.
- ▪
Detainer authority (legally contested): Courts in multiple jurisdictions have held that civil immigration detainers are not binding on local jails, and that holding someone solely on a detainer past their legal release date may violate the Fourth Amendment. ICE maintains they are lawful requests. See Morales v. Chadbourne, 1st Cir. 2015.
How the three models compare
| WSO | JEM | TFM | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | Jail only | Jail only | Anywhere |
| Can interrogate suspects | No | Yes | Yes |
| Can initiate removal | No | Yes | Yes |
| Can arrest without state charges | No — warrant required | Yes (in facility) | Yes (anywhere) |
| Training | 8 hrs online | 160 hrs (4 weeks) | 40 hrs online |
| Compliance inspections | None | Biennial | Unclear |
| Agencies as of June 5, 2026 | 504 | 179 | 1,220 |
Primary sources
- ICE 287(g) program page
- GAO-21-186 (2021)
- DHS OIG-18-77 (2018) — "Lack of Planning Hinders Effective Oversight"
- DHS OIG-10-63 (2010) — "The Performance of 287(g) Agreements"
- ACLU "License to Abuse" (2022)
- ILRC — 2020 MOA changes analysis
- ILRC — Understanding the Warrant Service Officer Program
- Cato Institute crime study (2018)
- Lawfare — liability analysis
- NIF — TFM training explainer
- ProPublica — Maricopa County investigation
- ACLU — Melendres v. Arpaio
- CRS IF11898
- American Immigration Council — 287(g) overview