Hello and welcome to this month’s edition of ICE Watch. This month I focused on ICE resistance efforts and ICE partnerships with state and local authorities. After all, how will they fill the existing detention centers—and the ones yet to be built? It is important to be informed on how this is happening on a local level as that is where we have the most impact. Read on for the outlook on Texas and immigration law enforcement activities in your local community.
If this newsletter speaks to you, be sure to share it with your friends, family, and community. Is there a story not being covered that you’d like to see? Join as a paying supporter and engage in the comments below. Let me know what you want to see in our next newsletter!
—Roxana Rojas
Is Your Local Police Chief Working With ICE? What About the Town Next Door?
Understanding 287(g) Agreements—and Who’s Got One
While people across the country continue to fight the expansion of immigrant detention nationwide, so too does the Trump regime’s commitment to the promised largest deportation action in U.S. history with a goal of a million deportations a year. Hiring fairs and recruitment efforts across the country continue to draw many, with the most recent events even luring in prospects with free Spurs tickets to a three-day U.S. Customs and Border Protection career expo in San Antonio, Texas.
With the December 2026 deadline for Texas sheriffs to sign onto 287(g) agreements with ICE, effectively granting local cops the powers of federal immigration agents, Texas is already ahead of the curve nationally with 361 agreements active in 205 of the 254 total counties. That’s more than 80 percent of the total counties in the state, placing Texas second only to Florida, which has 370 such agreements in place. These agreements include municipalities, state agencies (such as the Department of Public Safety, in the case of Texas), and counties operating jails. In Florida, even university campus police have entered into these agreements.
The federal data no longer lists entities with pending agreements. This makes it more difficult for communities to anticipate if an agreement is in the works or what model will be adopted. It is important to note that under the recent Texas state law that codified cooperation between ICE and state and local law enforcement, SB8, only sheriffs are required to enter into 287(g) agreements. That didn’t stop 68 municipalities (which include city and township police departments) and four state agencies from voluntarily signing on.
So what is a 287(g) agreement and how does it impact your community? Well, the impact will be determined by the type of agreement model. There are three primary models listed below as described by ICE: