U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is developing a plan to offer liability insurance to local law enforcement officers who conduct immigration arrests, a move designed to shield them from financial repercussions in cases of alleged on-duty misconduct. The agency intends to subsidize insurance policies for state and local officers who have undergone training and are deputized to enforce federal immigration laws.
This initiative, detailed in a planning document, could remove a significant barrier for local police departments hesitant to participate in ICE's partnerships. The number of these partnerships has reportedly increased since the current administration took office. Under the proposed plan, officers would secure personal liability insurance covering up to $500,000, with ICE reimbursing them annually for approximately the cost of the coverage, estimated to be around $250.
Critics argue that the program could further insulate officers from accountability. "The concern here is that ICE is going above and beyond to guarantee law enforcement does not have even the slightest risk of liability for violating Americans’ rights while helping ICE arrest people," said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, who advocates for easier lawsuits against ICE agents for wrongdoing.
ICE outlined the plan while seeking industry feedback on hiring a contractor to support its 287(g) partnerships. These partnerships, named after a section of a 1996 immigration law, allow trained local officers to interrogate, arrest, and initiate deportation proceedings against individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. ICE has requested feedback on this proposal by Thursday, with the program's launch timeline and costs yet to be determined.
ICE's collaborations with local departments have seen a substantial increase. Since last year, nearly 1,600 agencies across 32 states have entered into agreements to participate in ICE's task force model. These agencies can receive funding for expenses such as officer salaries, equipment, and vehicles. Arrests made through these programs have surged, with recent data showing an average of 3,000 arrests per month in early 2026, a significant rise from an average of 250 per month in 2024.
Local departments and officers have expressed apprehension regarding civil liability stemming from potential claims of excessive force, wrongful arrest, or illegal search and seizure, as their standard insurance policies may not cover immigration enforcement activities. Some departments have had to seek separate insurance coverage, incurring additional costs. For instance, Pennsylvania's risk pool recently clarified that it would not cover "proactive immigration enforcement activities," prompting several participating counties to find alternative insurance solutions. One sheriff noted that securing coverage for deputies involved in the program cost $20,000 in annual premiums, though federal funding was expected to cover this expense.
While federal officers typically benefit from legal immunities and government-funded defense, these protections may not always extend to local officers performing federal immigration duties. The National Sheriffs’ Association has indicated that ICE's insurance proposal sounds promising, as some sheriffs have been hesitant to join due to liability concerns amidst public scrutiny of immigration enforcement. The association's executive director noted that some partnering agencies have already faced costly legal claims related to their immigration work, regardless of the outcome.
ICE's agreements typically state that local departments are responsible for liability costs. However, the agency aims to mitigate this risk by asserting that local officers acting under federal authority are "acting under color of federal authority," which could preclude lawsuits against individual officers. The agreements also mention that local officers facing civil lawsuits can request representation from the U.S. Department of Justice, with ICE generally supporting such requests, though the final decision rests with the DOJ.