In the summer of 2025, President Trump and Republicans in Congress passed a reconciliation bill, or “One Big Beautiful Bill,” that funneled a total of $75 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), nearly tripling the agency’s prior (already historically high) annual budget, along with another $116 billion to CBP and elsewhere at DHS. This is an extraordinary level of new spending that requires either new or existing infrastructure to absorb it. Coverage has fairly focused on ICE more than doubling its workforce and converting or bringing online new detention centers, but there has been less focus on the way the vast and already built out criminal justice system is a key part of the ramp up in spending. ICE has found a new way to distribute billions of dollars throughout the United States, through a new funding model for an old, and once rejected, idea — the 287(g) Task Force Model. Based on current participation, we estimate ICE could distribute between $1.4 billion and $2 billion to local and state law enforcement agencies in 2026, adding thousands of additional law enforcement officers with immigration enforcement powers and putting communities throughout the country at increased risk of criminalization and incarceration.
What is a 287(g) Task Force Model?
In 1996, Congress authorized the Attorney General to enter into agreements with local and state law enforcement agencies which allow their officers to carry out certain immigration enforcement actions under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In essence, 287(g) is a set of parameters under which state and local law enforcement collaborate with the federal government to enforce immigration law. Over time, the form of these agreements shifted as national policy shifted, but most commonly these have been agreements between ICE and sheriffs offices to check immigration status at jails, alert ICE to any immigrants in custody, and transfer immigrants from jail into ICE custody. Early on, these agreements were relatively rare, although other programs, including Secure Communities, were also used to push cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE. In the first Trump administration, the number of 287(g) agencies with agreements more than tripled from the previous administration. Under the current administration, they have increased almost 1000%. In Trump’s first term, there were approximately 150 total 287(g) agreements across the country, falling to 135 in January of 2025. As of January 26, 2026, there are 1,372 agreements across 1,169 agencies.
FIGURE 1: THE NUMBER OF 287(G) AGREEMENTS WENT UP OVER 900% IN THE FIRST YEAR
OF THE SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

During the early period of 287(g) agreements, another model known as the Task Force Model (TFM) was available. Under this model, deputies were trained by ICE to police and arrest people for civil immigration infractions in the community. This practice led to many harms including racial profiling, like documented abuses in Maricopa County, Arizona under Sheriff Joe Arpaio and in Alamance County, North Carolina. Because of these abuses and public outcry, this model was discontinued by the Obama Administration at the end of 2012.
Immediately after taking office for the second time last January, President Trump revived the Task Force Model, signing up over two hundred agencies to this model within the first three months of his term.
How Has the Task Force Model Changed in Trump’s Second Term?
In September of 2025, as Task Force Model sign-ups slowed, ICE announced a new funding model for 287(g) TFM agreements. Previously, under 287(g) agreements, ICE paid for training and IT infrastructure for local law enforcement departments. In September, ICE announced that it would pay for the full salary and benefits of any trained and certified officer, one-time start-up costs to the agency, overtime, and bonuses based on “performance,” i.e. how many immigration arrests officers make. This comes despite the Immigration and Nationality Act that lays out 287(g) powers stating that any designated officer “may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision.”1









