ICE Facial Recognition App and Kentucky 287(g) Police Partnerships

Kentucky’s 287(g) agreements create a local pathway for federal facial-recognition enforcement.

Jun 21, 2026

Grayson County Courthouse in Leitchfield. Kentucky counties with 287(g) agreements are the local places where residents can ask about ICE partnerships, facial-recognition policies, training, and public records. Photo by Huw Williams, Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

An ICE Privacy Unit document dated September 2025 describes a mobile app called the ICE Task Force Module, or TFM, built for “ICE non-federal law enforcement officers” operating in the field. The document lists the app’s launch date as September 24, 2025, identifies ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations as the program office, and says U.S. Customs and Border Protection developed the app.

ICE has documented a tool that allows authorized local officers working under ICE authority to collect a face image during an encounter, run it against federal records, and send the result into federal immigration enforcement channels.

I did not find a primary source confirming that a Kentucky officer has already used this app. The Kentucky issue is the pathway: Kentucky already has 287(g) agreements, including Task Force Model agreements, and that model is the channel through which local officers can perform immigration-enforcement functions for ICE.

The document ICE approved

A September 2025 ICE Privacy Unit document approved the ICE Task Force Module Mobile App, known as TFM. ICE listed Enforcement and Removal Operations as the program office, identified U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the developer, and set the app’s launch date for September 24, 2025.

Privacy officials classified the app as “privacy sensitive.” The document says TFM would be available to “authorized ICE non-federal law enforcement officers operating in the field.” That phrase is important because it refers to local or state officers working under ICE authority, not only federal immigration agents.

According to the document, those officers may use the app during an encounter to verify a person’s identity and, if warranted, investigate whether the person is subject to removal. The app does that by collecting a face image and comparing it against federal records.

ICE says the app queries more than 250 million DHS and Department of State visa records through CBP’s Traveler Verification Service. After the search, the app may tell the officer not to detain or arrest under ICE jurisdiction, or provide the officer with a reference code to request more information from ICE.

The 287(g) pathway

Federal law already provides the channel for local participation. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows ICE to enter written agreements with states, counties, cities, or other local governments. Those agreements let trained local officers perform certain immigration-enforcement duties under federal direction and supervision.

Three 287(g) models matter here. The Jail Enforcement Model applies inside jails. The Warrant Service Officer model allows designated local officers to serve certain ICE warrants in jail settings. The Task Force Model applies in the field, which makes it the most relevant model for a mobile facial-recognition app.

That field setting changes the practical concern. A trained local officer with ICE-delegated authority could use a mobile tool during a traffic stop, task-force operation, or other encounter outside a jail. A photo of a face could then become part of a federal immigration-enforcement record.

TFM also collects more than a face image. ICE’s privacy document states that the app collects biometrics, associated metadata, and geolocation data. The geolocation tag allows ICE to identify where the encounter occurred.

Retention is one of the clearest warning signs in the document. ICE says every new photograph, whether it produces a match or not, is treated as an encounter and retained in the Automated Targeting System for 15 years. The document also says that people are not given a Privacy Act notice at the time of collection, that the app does not provide a just-in-time disclosure, and that users do not have an opt-out or a review-before-sending function.

ICE also acknowledges that officers may collect information about people regardless of citizenship or immigration status. A photo taken during an encounter could belong to a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or someone who is not removable. At the moment of collection, the officer may not know the person’s status.

Kentucky already has the local enforcement channel

Kentucky is already part of the 287(g) enforcement map. Spectrum News reported in November 2025 that at least 16 Kentucky agencies had agreed to participate in 287(g), including several agencies with Task Force Model agreements. Those Task Force Model agencies included sheriff’s offices in Grayson, Daviess, Bracken, Lyon, Marshall, Union, Scott, Butler, Clinton, Fulton, and Hickman counties, as well as the Heritage Creek Police Department.

Lawmakers have also tried to expand participation. House Bill 47, sponsored by Rep. T.J. Roberts, would require Kentucky State Police posts to enter Task Force Model agreements with ICE and would count ICE training toward annual in-service training. Senate Bill 86, sponsored by Sen. Phillip Wheeler, would require local law enforcement agencies and the Kentucky State Police to enter into written agreements with ICE under the Jail Enforcement Model, Task Force Model, and Warrant Service Officer Model.

A new Kentucky law is not required for the facial-recognition app to become relevant. The app becomes relevant wherever a Kentucky agency participates in 287(g), especially where local officers operate under the Task Force Model. A sheriff’s deputy, police officer, or state trooper with ICE-delegated authority could become the person who collects the photograph, creates the geotagged encounter record, and routes the result into ICE’s enforcement workflow.

Who is affected

The people most affected are immigrants, mixed-status families, lawful permanent residents, U.S. citizens who may be misidentified, and residents who encounter local officers in counties with 287(g) Task Force Model agreements. The ICE document itself recognizes that citizenship may be unknown at the time of collection and that photographs could include U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Public defenders, immigration attorneys, local jail staff, sheriff’s deputies, city police officers, fiscal courts, and city councils are also affected. They may have to answer practical questions: who is trained, what device is used, what record is created, who reviews a possible match, how a person challenges an error, and whether a local agency can retrieve or delete a photograph retained by a federal database.

The burden will not be evenly distributed. Counties with existing 287(g) agreements have a more direct exposure. Communities with immigrant workers, Spanish-speaking households, and residents who already avoid police contact may face greater fear of ordinary encounters becoming immigration checks.

Share this with someone who watches local government

What to watch or what you can do

Ask your sheriff, jailer, police chief, mayor, or fiscal court whether the agency has a 287(g) agreement with ICE. Ask which model applies: Jail Enforcement Model, Warrant Service Officer, Task Force Model, or more than one.

Request the current 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement. Compare the agreement to the agency’s local budget, training records, overtime records, device policies, and public statements.

Ask whether any local officer has received access to the ICE Task Force Module, Mobile Fortify, Mobile Identify, or any ICE or CBP mobile biometric app. Ask whether the agency has used facial recognition during field encounters, traffic stops, jail bookings, warrant service, task-force operations, or ICE operations.

Request the agency’s facial-recognition policy under KRS 61.9305. Ask whether the policy has been filed with the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, whether it names federal tools, and whether it covers geolocation, non-match records, secondary review, demographic accuracy, audits, deletion, and complaints.

Attend fiscal court and city council meetings when jail budgets, sheriff budgets, police budgets, federal grants, ICE contracts, detention revenue, or 287(g) participation appear on the agenda. Ask whether the local governing body voted on participation and whether any federal reimbursement, bonus, equipment, or training money is attached.

Track HB 47, SB 86, or any future immigration-enforcement bill in the Kentucky General Assembly. Watch for language that requires Kentucky State Police or local agencies to join the Task Force Model, treats ICE training as state in-service training, creates funding incentives, or limits local discretion.

Document local impacts. If residents are afraid to report crimes, attend court, seek medical care, go to work, or contact police because local officers may be tied to ICE enforcement, that is relevant information for fiscal courts, city councils, sheriffs, public defenders, and local media.

The governing issue

The ICE Task Force Module is not confirmed for use in Kentucky based on the records reviewed for this article.

The warning sign is the match between the app’s intended users and Kentucky’s existing 287(g) pathway.

ICE has documented a field facial-recognition app for authorized local officers. Kentucky has local agencies participating in 287(g). Kentucky lawmakers have proposed wider participation. Kentucky law already requires law enforcement agencies using facial recognition to have use policies, retention rules, training rules, and audit records.

That gives Kentuckians a clear assignment: find out whether local officers have access, whether local policies exist, whether state filing requirements have been met, and whether elected local bodies approved the arrangement before federal biometric enforcement became part of ordinary policing.

Dispatches from Kentucky

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?