287(g) Enforcement Agreements Reform

Summary#

This bill changes how the federal government makes and manages 287(g) agreements. 287(g) agreements let state and local law enforcement carry out some immigration functions under federal supervision. The bill would make it easier for states and local agencies to get such agreements, limit the Secretary of Homeland Security’s ability to refuse or end them, set uniform training rules, and require new reporting and recruitment plans.

  • Main change: The Secretary must approve bona fide requests for 287(g) agreements unless there is a compelling reason, must act on requests within 90 days, and may not limit the number of agreements.
  • Termination rules: Agreements may not be ended except for a compelling reason, require 180 days’ written notice with evidence, and remain in effect during appeals or lawsuits.
  • Training and rulemaking: DHS must adopt uniform training that matches Federal Law Enforcement Training Center standards and start a rulemaking on training within 180 days.
  • Funding: The law allows part of an existing breached-bond/detention fund to be used for 287(g) administration and renames that fund to include 287(g).
  • Reporting and recruitment: DHS must publish yearly performance reports and a yearly recruitment plan with specific data about arrests, removals, complaints, approvals, denials, and outreach.

What it means for you#

  • State and local law enforcement: Agencies that want a 287(g) agreement would likely find it easier and faster to get one. They can ask for different enforcement models (patrol, task force, jail model, or other reasonable models) and must follow DHS training standards.
  • DHS / Secretary of Homeland Security: The Secretary has tighter deadlines and limits on denying or terminating agreements, new reporting duties, and must run a recruitment plan.
  • People in communities with 287(g) officers: Local officers may carry out more immigration-related investigations, arrests, detentions, and transfers to federal facilities.
  • Courts and administrative judges: The bill gives jurisdictions the right to appeal terminations to an administrative law judge or bring civil suits, and keeps agreements active while those challenges proceed.
  • Taxpayers / local governments: States and political subdivisions pay for the immigration functions they perform under these agreements, but federal law allows an existing federal fund to cover some administrative costs.
  • Technology or federal programs: The bill says broad federal programs or tech that identify removable people cannot substitute for these agreements; they must operate in addition to them.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on a full cost estimate is included in the bill materials.

  • The bill renames and expands an existing fund (the breached bond/detention fund) so it can pay for expenses associated with administering 287(g).
  • Shifting or allowing funds to be used this way could free or direct federal money to support program administration.
  • The bill also creates new DHS requirements (annual reports, recruitment plans, training rulemaking, and quicker processing of requests) that could increase DHS administrative, staffing, training, and rulemaking costs.
  • It is not specified how much state or local governments must spend; the bill says functions under an agreement are carried out “at the expense of the State or political subdivision.”

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to clarify Congress’s support for state and local participation in immigration enforcement under 287(g).
  • Supporters may argue the bill ensures predictable, timely access to 287(g) agreements for interested jurisdictions.
  • Requiring uniform training that aligns with FLETC standards could be seen as improving consistency in how officers perform immigration functions.
  • Annual reporting and recruitment plans aim to increase transparency about how many people are screened, removed, and how many agencies participate.
  • Allowing fund support for administration could be viewed as providing resources to run the program effectively.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill limits DHS’s flexibility to deny or end agreements by requiring approval absent a “compelling reason” and keeping agreements active during legal challenges.
  • The bill does not define key terms such as “bona fide” or “compelling reason,” which may leave important questions unclear.
  • Requiring that federal identification programs or technology not substitute for agreements may complicate national or system-wide efforts to identify inadmissible or removable people.
  • The bill could increase administrative and legal costs for DHS and possibly for states and localities, but it does not provide a public cost estimate.
  • The practical effects on community trust, civil rights, or policing priorities are not addressed in the bill text and remain unclear.