At the beginning of 2025, no law-enforcement agencies in Kentucky had a partnership with the federal government through the 287(g) program.
According to an ICE report from September 15, 2026, 58 of the agency’s 287(g) agreements were with 56 different law-enforcement agencies in Kentucky.
Those 58 agreements put specific aspects of immigration enforcement in law-enforcement and detention facilities across the state. Through those agreements, Kentucky has also helped create and strengthen the federal government’s immigration-detention network.
The result is an immigration-enforcement network that is increasingly local in its operation but divided in its accountability.
Dispatches assessed whether swift changes to immigration enforcement gave state and local government units more power to impact and control immigration, and whether safeguards were in place to limit that power.
The changes increased immigration enforcement power, while responsibility and oversight of that power decreased and became fragmented. Local agencies failed to provide the oversight needed for the expanded enforcement.
While responsibility and oversight of immigration enforcement are fragmented at the local level, the federal government places numerous limitations on that power. Canceling or altering a contract is one way to limit immigration enforcement. Local detention facilities must also comply with certain standards and are subject to inspections and reviews by the courts and other federal agencies. Kentucky's Freedom of Information Act allows review of records in the facilities.
This doesn't name specific persons or organizations to hold accountable.
Depending on what happens to a person, authority may be divided among ICE, a sheriff or police department, a county jail, a fiscal court, federal detention officials and the courts. The agreement that gives an officer immigration authority may be different from the agreement that allows ICE to use a jail bed. The government that operates a jail may not be the government that decides whether someone remains in immigration custody.
As the state of Kentucky has incorporated more aspects of federal immigration enforcement, so has fragmentation in the state’s immigration enforcement systems.
The concern is not simply that immigration enforcement has increased. It is that coercive government authority has moved rapidly into dozens of local institutions while responsibility for authorizing, overseeing, and challenging that authority is divided among different governments and agencies.
From zero agreements to dozens
Section 287(g) of the federal immigration law permits ICE to grant state and local police the power to enforce some immigration laws. This is done through written agreements.
ICE uses three models.
The Jail Enforcement Model gives trained local personnel the authority to process persons in local custody for immigration purposes. The Warrant Service Officer Model trains local personnel to serve administrative immigration warrants on persons in detention. These personnel serve the warrants at detention facilities under contract with the agency to provide immigration services.
The Task Force Model shifts immigration enforcement out of the jail. It allows selected local police officers to engage in limited immigration-related activities during their general law enforcement and/or task-force activities at ICE’s request.
That is the dominant model in Kentucky.
Of the 58 Kentucky agreements identified on ICE’s Sept. 15 roster, 53 were Task Force Model agreements. Three were Jail Enforcement Model agreements, and two were Warrant Service Officer agreements.
Kentucky decided not to require this expansion statewide. Lawmakers considered legislation that would have required 287(g) participation, but Senate Bill 86 did not advance beyond committee referral.
Local governments spearheaded most of the development and the powers are not merely nominal.
Available data attribute at least 257 ICE arrests in Kentucky to 287(g) between November 2025 and Aug. 5, 2026. The monthly number rose from one in November to 70 in July. Kentucky recorded 443 total ICE arrests in July, meaning about 15.8% were attributed to 287(g).
Those numbers establish that delegated local authority is being used somewhere in Kentucky. They do not establish that every agency with an agreement has trained and authorized officers exercising that authority.
Oldham County is an early example.
The Oldham County sheriff signed a Task Force Model agreement effective in May 2026, and 11 deputies have since received the required training. But Dispatches has not yet established whether those deputies have received the individual authorization required to exercise delegated immigration powers or whether any have actually used them.
Bracken County was another example. In November 2025, the County’s officials reported that the County hadn’t utilized the 287(g) program at all.
A signed agreement shows that the necessary legal processes have been put in place. It does not mean that an officer has used that process.
Immigration detention runs through a different system
Kentucky's expanding role in federal immigration enforcement is evident in several other arenas, besides 287(g).
Counties can participate in both 287(g) agreements and ICE detainer programs, which legally differ from 287(g) agreements, even if they are implemented in the same counties.
Reporting by the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting found that a dozen Kentucky jails had housed ICE detainees since January 2025. Kentucky’s ICE detention population grew from roughly 120 people in January 2025 to more than 1,000 by February 2026. Reporting placed the population at about 1,200 in July.
Many of those people did not enter federal custody in Kentucky.
ICE data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and analyzed by KyCIR showed that ICE held 9,335 people in Kentucky between October 2022 and early March 2026. More than 60% were held after January 2025.
Over 37 states sent almost half of the total population here.
As a result, Kentucky county jails have become part of a multistate federal detention system and are not simply facilities for detaining people arrested by Kentucky peace officers.
It is understandably complicated to someone who isn’t directly involved to know where the many layers of involved government entities are throughout the process.
Previous Dispatches research in Oldham County found delegated 287(g) authority alongside a separate arrangement allowing federal use of jail beds. The U.S. Marshals Service contracting structure permitted ICE to use those beds, ICE exercised detention oversight, and Oldham County operated the jail.
Ending one piece of that structure would not necessarily end the others.
This division of labor makes accountability even more convoluted. Determining whether a county “works with ICE” doesn’t exactly show how power is justified and/or how it should be altered.
Safeguards exist — and some have worked
Rapid growth does not mean Kentucky’s locally imposed immigration system is rule-free and unperformed. There are regulations.
Congress authorized 287(g) delegation by statute. State and local personnel may exercise delegated immigration-enforcement authority only after receiving the required training and authorization. When performing functions delegated under a 287(g) agreement, participating personnel operate under ICE's direction and supervision; their state or local agency retains supervision over their other duties and employment.
Current agreements contain additional safeguards.
For example, the Task Force Model agreement for Heritage Creek provides that participating CIS employees are subject to Federal civil rights requirements, includes complaint procedures and language access, and permits ICE to suspend the agreement for employee misconduct. Either party may terminate the agreement.
ICE’s current Task Force Model training includes immigration law, civil-rights law, cross-cultural issues, liability, and complaint procedures.
Detention oversight also exists.
An ICE inspection of the Oldham County Detention Center documented weekly visits by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations personnel. A previous inspection had identified a medical deficiency; a 2025 assisted self-inspection reported no new deficiency.
It doesn’t show that every safeguard always works. It does show that inspection and oversight occur, so it is incorrect to say the system is generally unsupervised.
In Kentucky, the courts serve as a check and definitely make a difference.
In May 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the federal government’s interpretation requiring mandatory detention for a class of noncitizens arrested in the interior of the country. Kentucky federal courts subsequently ordered release or constitutionally adequate bond hearings in multiple cases.
Local institutions in Kentucky have increased the scope of federal immigration power. However, the available data does not show that legal constraints on that power were eliminated.
One clear weakness is deciding which safeguard or decision-maker is at issue.
Following the chain of responsibility
Consider the information someone would look for after discovering a local law enforcement agency partners with immigration enforcement agencies.
Who approved the agreement? Which officers have actually been trained and authorized? Has the authority been used? Who can terminate the agreement?
Additional questions arise if someone is detained.
Who authorizes ICE to use the jail? Who runs the facility? Who sets its budget and policies? Who sets immigration detention policies? What records are available to the public? What opportunities do detainees have to challenge their detention and/or report being abused?
No single Kentucky institution answers all of them. Available evidence shows that the public visibility of those answers varies from county to county.
In Oldham County, for example, previous Dispatches research found little public record of the sheriff’s 287(g) agreement before it was signed. No relevant item was identified on Fiscal Court agendas for April 21 or May 5, and a May 5 Public Safety & Jail Committee meeting was canceled. At least one magistrate said in August that he had not seen the agreement before.
That doesn't mean the sheriff broke Kentucky law or skipped over a legally mandated vote. Dispatches could not find any evidence that Fiscal Court approval was legally mandated.
This has been handled more publicly in other jurisdictions. In Bracken County, the Sheriff reported this to the Fiscal Court and later answered questions about the potential funding at that same Court.
The data across the state shows that some local officials are politically scrutinized, not that no local officials are authorized.
Public records reveal another gap
Transparency also varies once immigration detention occurs within county jails.
Recent Kentucky reporting found that some jail rosters clearly identify people in ICE custody while others do not or use practices that make their custody status difficult to determine.
Oldham County produced a more concrete test of what local officials must disclose.
In Kentucky Attorney General decision 26-ORD-150, the attorney general found that the Oldham County Detention Center had inadequately justified withholding several categories of records simply by invoking ICE counsel. Those included contracts, financial records, inspection materials, incident-summary information, and a general legal-mail policy.
Detainee-specific population and grievance records raised different legal issues and were treated differently.
Certain information related to federal immigration detention can be withheld from the public. However, just because the federal government is involved, doesn’t mean information related to contracts, finances, or local policies is exempt from Kentucky’s public records laws.
Previous Oldham research indicated that jail records failed to document the U.S. Marshals Service agreement referred to in the ICE inspection reports.
That leaves a system in which a resident may have to reconstruct the governing structure one record, agency, and legal process at a time.
The expansion carries money as well as authority
Counties housing detainees for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) receive financial benefits.
According to KyCIR, Kentucky jails have received payments of up to $100 per detainee per day for housing people held by ICE. Jails can also bill ICE for staff time and mileage when transporting detainees. Money was reportedly given to offset the cost of jail operations.
While participating Kentucky counties generate a portion of their revenue from immigration detention, available evidence does not support the claim that they profit from immigration detention.
Federal policy also provides financial incentives for participation in the 287(g) program. ICE may reimburse participating agencies for the salary and benefits of eligible trained officers, including overtime costs of up to 25 percent of an officer’s annual salary. Under the Task Force Model, participating law-enforcement agencies may also qualify for quarterly monetary performance awards based on the successful location of people identified by ICE and the agency’s overall assistance to ICE’s mission.
Those payments add another layer of local accountability because immigration enforcement can intersect with county staffing, spending, and jail budgets even when the underlying immigration authority comes from Washington.
Where accountability still exists
The system’s division also divides the public. The first step is to identify which part of the division is affected and who has power over it.
For a 287(g) agreement, ICE and the participating law-enforcement agency matter most. Residents can determine whether their sheriff’s office or police department has an agreement, which of the three 287(g) models it uses, whether participating personnel have been trained and authorized, and what the agreement says about suspension or termination. Current agreements allow the participating agency to terminate its agreement and ICE to suspend participation for serious violations.
Other local officials may still have oversight roles involving staffing, spending, or policy, but their legal authority varies. A fiscal court or city council should not automatically be assumed to have the power to cancel an agreement signed by an independently elected sheriff.
County jails create different points of accountability. Kentucky law gives county governing bodies responsibilities involving jail rules for security, safety and prisoner treatment, while fiscal courts also exercise important authority over jail budgets. Residents can examine meeting agendas, jail budgets, detention revenue, expenditures, contracts and jail policies to determine how federal detention affects county operations and spending. Public meetings and budget proceedings can provide additional information even when county officials do not control the federal government’s decision to detain or release a particular person.
Under Kentucky’s open-records law, the public can request records maintained by local administrations, including contracts and financial documents and policies. Certain records may be exempt from disclosure. The records that are available may include contracts, invoices, records of inspections, policies and other records showing how the local administration implements federal immigration enforcement and detainers.
A denial does not necessarily end the process. A resident can appeal to the Kentucky Attorney General or challenge directly in circuit court. The Oldham decision demonstrates that this process can result in a formal finding that a local jail failed to adequately justify withholding records. It also shows that different categories of records can raise different legal issues; federal involvement does not automatically make every local record public or confidential.
For people in federal immigration detention, different mechanisms apply. ICE operates the Detention Reporting and Information Line for concerns involving detention conditions, abuse, legal access, and disabilities. The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General accepts misconduct complaints, while its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties accepts civil-rights complaints.
Courts remain another avenue of review. Kentucky cases in 2026 show that judicial review can result in release or new bond proceedings when detention exceeds statutory or constitutional limits.
No single part of the system is completely controlled by any one request. A records request will not touch a federal detainer. A fiscal court has no jurisdiction over a sheriff’s 287(g) agreement. Making a complaint will not result in a court order.
The evidence shows a rapidly expanded system in which coercive authority, oversight, and accountability have been distributed across institutions, making responsibility difficult to see and navigate.
Knowing which institution holds a particular piece of authority is therefore essential to knowing where to seek accountability.
Sources
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 287(g) Program
Federal description of the 287(g) program, its three operating models, training, supervision and delegated authority.
ICE 287(g) Program
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Oldham County Sheriff’s Office Task Force Model Memorandum of Agreement
The May 2026 agreement establishing the Oldham County Sheriff’s Office 287(g) Task Force Model partnership.
Oldham County Sheriff’s Office 287(g) agreement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Heritage Creek Police Department Task Force Model Memorandum of Agreement
A Kentucky Task Force Model agreement showing the delegated authorities, training requirements, certification and ICE supervision provisions.
Heritage Creek Police Department 287(g) agreement
Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, “Kentucky ICE Arrests Approach 5,000 Amid Spike From Local Law Enforcement,” September 3, 2026
Analysis of Deportation Data Project records, including Kentucky ICE arrests attributed to 287(g), the July 2026 arrest total and the growth in Kentucky agreements.
Kentucky ICE Arrests Approach 5,000
Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting / Louisville Public Media, “Trump’s deportation machine sends thousands of immigrants to Kentucky jails,” May 26, 2026
FOIA-based reporting showing 9,335 people held by ICE in Kentucky between October 2022 and early March 2026, including detainees transferred to Kentucky from 37 states.
Trump’s deportation machine sends thousands of immigrants to Kentucky jails
Kentucky Lantern, “Reports say ICE detention is growing in KY but records, details remain unclear, advocates say,” September 10, 2026
Reporting on Kentucky’s roughly 1,200 ICE detainees as of July, the expansion of participating jails and law-enforcement agencies, and continuing transparency concerns.
Reports say ICE detention is growing in Kentucky
Kentucky Attorney General, 26-ORD-150, Bethany Baxter / Oldham County Detention Center, April 3, 2026
Open-records decision addressing access to agreements, payments, inspection records, grievances, and other records associated with ICE detention at the Oldham County Detention Center.
Kentucky Attorney General 26-ORD-150
Bracken County Fiscal Court, February 25, 2026 meeting minutes
Local government record documenting public questioning about the sheriff’s 287(g) agreement and possible federal funding.
Bracken County Fiscal Court minutes, February 25, 2026
Spectrum News 1, “Across Kentucky, police agencies agree to assist ICE enforcement efforts,” November 17, 2025
Reporting on Kentucky’s early 287(g) expansion, including Bracken County Sheriff Robert Boody’s statement that the county had not yet used its delegated enforcement authority.
Across Kentucky, police agencies agree to assist ICE enforcement efforts
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, National Detention Standards, Revised 2025
Federal standards governing detention operations, including medical care, grievances, legal access, visitation, detainee communication and other safeguards.
ICE National Detention Standards, 2025
U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Immigration Enforcement: ICE Can Further Enhance Its Planning and Oversight of State and Local Agreements,” GAO-21-186
Federal review of ICE’s management and oversight of 287(g) agreements, including inspections, complaints and compliance monitoring.
GAO-21-186
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, May 11, 2026
Appellate decision addressing detention and access to individualized bond hearings for certain noncitizens detained under federal immigration authority.
Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft
Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting / Louisville Public Media, “Kentucky immigration attorneys hopeful in wake of federal court ruling,” May 18, 2026
Kentucky-specific reporting on the Sixth Circuit ruling and its application to people detained in Kentucky.
Kentucky immigration attorneys hopeful in wake of federal court ruling
Dispatches from Kentucky, “Oldham County sheriff joined ICE’s 287(g) program after twice saying it wasn’t participating,” August 14, 2026
Previous Dispatches reporting establishing the timeline of the Oldham County Sheriff’s Office agreement and the distinction between an agency-level agreement and evidence that individual deputies have actually received or exercised delegated authority.
Oldham County sheriff joined ICE’s 287(g) program
Dispatches from Kentucky, “Kentucky Open Records Law and ICE Detainee Records: What 26-ORD-138 and 26-ORD-150 Mean,” April 7, 2026
Previous Dispatches reporting explaining the Kentucky Attorney General’s rulings on which ICE-related jail records remain subject to Kentucky’s Open Records Act and which detainee-specific records may be withheld.
Kentucky Open Records Law and ICE Detainee Records