Why Florida Leads the Nation in Cooperating With ICE Enforcement

Tallahassee, Florida — Florida has emerged as the state most actively cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in enforcing federal immigration laws, a development that reflects state policy choices, legal agreements with federal authorities, and political leadership pushing for more aggressive interior enforcement. This cooperation is rooted in a mix of state legislation, local law enforcement participation, federal funding incentives, and shifts in how federal immigration authorities deploy enforcement across the country.

Florida’s role in immigration enforcement stands out because of the breadth and depth of participation by state and local police, sheriffs, and other agencies in federal programs that extend ICE’s reach beyond its own agents. Central to this relationship is the Section 287(g) program, a provision of federal immigration law that allows state and local law enforcement officers to be delegated certain immigration enforcement powers, including identifying, detaining, and in some cases processing individuals suspected of being in the country without authorization. In Florida, more than 270 agencies — including the Florida Highway Patrol and all 67 county sheriff’s offices — participate in 287(g) agreements, one of the highest totals in the nation.

State leadership has actively encouraged this cooperation. Governor Ron DeSantis has publicly praised Florida’s alignment with federal immigration enforcement priorities, framing it as part of a broader strategy to uphold public safety and support federal efforts to remove individuals with criminal histories. DeSantis and other officials have described the agreements as “force multipliers,” enabling a greater number of trained officers to assist ICE in locating and apprehending noncitizens who have violated immigration laws.

A key component of Florida’s leadership role is the sheer number of law enforcement agencies that have signed on to these programs. Local police departments, county sheriff’s offices, and statewide units such as the Florida Highway Patrol have entered expanded task force agreements that empower officers to act in concert with ICE, identifying and detaining suspected immigration violators encountered during routine policing or in the course of arresting individuals for other offenses. This approach goes beyond the traditional use of ICE detainers — requests to hold individuals already in custody for federal review — and directly integrates local agencies into immigration operations.

These agreements have produced results that draw the attention of federal and state leaders. In multicounty operations, state and local law enforcement working with ICE have reported hundreds of arrests in just a few days. In other statewide partnerships, Florida Highway Patrol troopers have arrested thousands of individuals under joint enforcement frameworks, numbers that state officials say demonstrate the efficacy of collaborative efforts.

Part of the reason Florida’s cooperation stands out is the political environment. State law now mandates that sheriffs operating county jails must enter into cooperation agreements with ICE, effectively eliminating local discretion in many jurisdictions. Few cities in Florida have resisted these requirements, and several local leaders have expressed concern about potential liabilities and the burden of enforcing federal immigration laws, though those dissenting voices remain in the minority.

Federal incentives have further strengthened cooperation. ICE has awarded millions of dollars in grants to participating Florida agencies, reinforcing the financial logic for local participation. These funds help cover training, detention, transportation, and other costs associated with extended immigration enforcement activities. In some cases, state reimbursements to local law enforcement include bonuses for officers trained under the 287(g) framework, creating additional motivation beyond federal grants.

The expansion of Florida’s cooperation with ICE also reflects broader federal policy shifts. The Trump administration prioritized interior enforcement, and Florida’s strategy aligned closely with that agenda. Federal authorities have expanded task force models nationwide — enabling state and local officers to assist in immigration operations beyond traditional jail-based roles — and Florida was among the first states to adopt those expanded partnerships aggressively.

Supporters of Florida’s approach argue that this cooperation enhances public safety by facilitating the removal of noncitizens who have been arrested for criminal offenses or who pose other risks. They contend that local officers, when properly trained and supervised, can effectively augment federal enforcement capacity, ensuring that immigration laws are upheld consistently and reducing the burden on federal agents alone.

Critics, however, raise concerns about the broader consequences of this level of cooperation. Civil liberties and immigrant advocacy groups argue that expansive partnerships can erode trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities, potentially deterring victims and witnesses from reporting crimes. They also warn that extending immigration enforcement into routine policing can lead to racial profiling or civil rights violations if not carefully monitored.

Beyond community relations, questions remain about the balance of responsibilities and resources. Local agencies may face legal and financial risks when participating in federal immigration enforcement, a concern cited by some municipal officials reluctant to enter agreements. While federal funding and state incentives offset some costs, the operational and social burdens of extended enforcement responsibilities fall on local institutions as well.

The contrast between cooperation levels in Florida and other states illustrates how divergent approaches to immigration policy continue to shape law enforcement practice across the United States. Florida’s combination of political leadership, legal mandates, broad agency participation, and funding incentives has made it a national focal point for interior immigration enforcement cooperation. Whether this model expands further nationally or provokes pushback at the local level remains an open question as the debate over immigration policy and enforcement continues.