The bill rewrites the 287(g) framework to replace an Attorney General-driven model with a Secretary of Homeland Security-led structure. It requires written agreements between the federal government and states or state subdivisions to authorize qualified local officers to perform immigration functions at the state’s expense.
The bill also expands permissible enforcement models, adds termination protections with due process, and imposes uniform training standards. It further updates funding mechanisms, introduces annual performance reporting, and mandates a five-year outlook for recruitment and outreach.
The aim is to formalize state participation, standardize training, and improve transparency around how the program operates and is funded.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of Homeland Security must enter written immigration-enforcement agreements with states or subdivisions upon request, allow multiple enforcement models, and prohibit substitution by federal programs. It creates terminations safeguards and requires uniform training aligned with Federal Law Enforcement Training Center standards.
Who It Affects
State and local law enforcement agencies that opt into 287(g) agreements, state homeland security departments, DHS program managers, and officers performing immigration functions.
Why It Matters
If enacted, the bill would standardize how states participate in 287(g), improve oversight and accountability, and increase transparency through annual reporting and recruitment plans.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The 287(g) program would move from an Attorney General-driven process to one controlled by the Department of Homeland Security. States or their political subdivisions could request to enter into written agreements that authorize qualified local officers to carry out immigration functions at the state’s cost.
The agreements must support different enforcement models chosen by the state and cannot be replaced by a broad federal program or technology. Denials must be explained 180 days in advance with a stated ground, and states have the right to appeal or sue if denied.
At the same time, the Secretary would outline uniform training requirements for participating officers, and the program would be funded through a revised DHS mechanism. The act also requires annual performance reports, recruitment plans, and a rulemaking process to implement the new training standards.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill rewrites Section 287(g) to require written agreements between DHS and states or subdivisions for immigration enforcement; it imposes a formalized process for approval and denial.
It adds flexibility for enforcement models (patrol, task force, jail, or combinations) and prohibits federal programs from substituting for state agreements.
It creates termination protections with 180 days’ notice, grounds for termination, and due-process rights for states.
It mandates uniform training requirements for officers under 287(g), aligned with Federal Law Enforcement Training Center standards.
It expands funding and oversight provisions, including renaming the breach-related fund to cover 287(g) costs and requiring annual reporting and recruitment planning.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Clarification of congressional intent and model expansion
Section 2 replaces the traditional ‘Attorney General may enter’ language with a mandate that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into written agreements with states or political subdivisions upon request. It explicitly allows a range of enforcement models (patrol, task force, jail, or combinations) and requires that no federal program substitute for these state agreements. The section also introduces terminations rules with advance notice, a right to appeal or sue, and preserves agreement validity during litigation. These changes collectively shift control and flexibility to state jurisdictions while embedding federal oversight through notice and due-process requirements.
Funding and administration changes
Section 3 adjusts the funding framework by updating the Breached Bond/Detention/287(g) fund to cover 287(g) program expenses and realigning the responsible agencies from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security. It ensures that funding streams reflect the expanded scope of 287(g) activities and the administrative costs associated with operating the program, including enforcement, oversight, and training.
Reporting, recruitment, and rulemaking
Section 4 requires the DHS to publish annual performance reports on the 287(g) program, including metrics on apprehensions, removals, and compliance. It also mandates an annual recruitment plan detailing goals, participation by states, outreach, and the status of agreement requests. Finally, it obligates a rulemaking process within 180 days to establish the training requirements added in Section 2(5), ensuring a formal regulatory framework.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and local law enforcement agencies that participate in 287(g) agreements and can tailor enforcement models to their jurisdictions.
- State governments and state homeland security departments that coordinate and finance state participation in 287(g).
- DHS and ICE program administrators who gain clearer authority, standardized training, and oversight mechanisms.
- Congress and federal policymakers seeking more transparency through annual reporting and oversight.
- Federal training institutions (e.g., FLETC) and partner academies that align curricula with new standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Participating state and local agencies incur costs to implement, oversee, and operate 287(g) agreements, including training and administrative overhead.
- State governments bear ongoing funding requirements to support state-level enforcement activities under the agreements.
- DHS bears higher administrative costs for annual performance reporting, recruitment planning, and rulemaking under the expanded framework.
- Training providers must align curricula to FLETC standards, potentially increasing training expenditures for participating agencies.
- Communities within participating jurisdictions may bear indirect costs related to increased immigration enforcement presence and oversight.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing state and local flexibility in immigration enforcement with the federal government’s need to maintain uniform standards, accountability, and cost controls across a nationwide program.
The bill creates a tighter, more formal structure around 287(g) by requiring written state agreements and a federal oversight mechanism, including annual reporting and recruitment planning. While this improves accountability, it also raises questions about the durability of state discretion, the fiscal burden on local governments, and the potential for uneven implementation across states.
The expanded funding and rulemaking processes could stretch DHS resources if many states participate, and the 180-day termination notice with due-process protections gives states a stronger safeguard against abrupt changes in program participation. Overall, the act seeks a balance between state autonomy in enforcement and federal standards for training, oversight, and transparency, but significant implementation challenges and intergovernmental coordination will determine its effectiveness.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.