After more than two decades in federal law enforcement, I have learned a simple truth: public safety is strongest when agencies work together. It weakens when coordination breaks down.
That reality is now front and center in Maryland.
The Maryland House and Senate both passed versions of legislation to ban 287(g) agreements. House Bill 444 passed by a 99–40 vote. Senate Bill 245 passed by a 32–12 vote. Both are designated as emergency legislation, meaning the final bill would take effect immediately upon the governor’s approval.
Nine Maryland jurisdictions currently maintain 287(g) cooperative agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Some of these agreements require local detention facilities to check the immigration status of certain detainees and coordinate transfers to ICE. Under another 287(g) model, ICE deputizes trained local officers to assist in executing administrative warrants for undocumented individuals.
These agreements are not abstract policy tools. They are operational frameworks.
Leaders in Frederick, Harford, and Wicomico counties have signaled they are prepared to take legal action if these cooperative programs are eliminated. Their concern is not ideological. It is operational.
Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins recently stated that if cooperative programs are removed, Immigration and Customs Enforcement will become “more visible, more present,” conducting street apprehensions while portions of the workforce “disappear into the woodwork.” That statement has generated political reaction. From an operational standpoint, however, it reflects a reality law enforcement professionals understand well.
When structured partnerships like 287(g) exist, enforcement is targeted and controlled. Individuals who have already entered the criminal justice system can be screened in a secure environment. Transfers occur within detention facilities. Arrests are planned. Risks are mitigated. Due process is preserved.
When those partnerships are removed, enforcement authority does not disappear. Agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement retain federal statutory authority. What changes is the method.
Instead of coordination inside secure facilities, agents must conduct field operations. Instead of predictable custodial transfers, enforcement becomes reactive. Instead of a controlled jail setting, arrests may occur in neighborhoods, at worksites, or during traffic encounters.
That shift matters.
Field apprehensions inherently carry greater unpredictability for officers and bystanders. They require additional surveillance resources, arrest teams, and contingency planning. They are more visible and often more disruptive to surrounding communities.
There are also economic ripple effects. Construction, agriculture, and service industries in many Maryland counties rely heavily on predictable labor markets. When enforcement shifts from controlled detention settings to visible field operations, uncertainty increases. Workers avoid routine interactions. Employers face disruption. Community anxiety rises.
Strong federal leadership matters in moments like this. When President Trump made the decision to deploy experienced enforcement leadership such as Tom Homan to cities facing enforcement challenges, it sent a clear message: public safety requires seriousness, clarity, and experienced hands.
Tom Homan is not a political commentator. He is a career law enforcement professional. When leaders with operational credibility step into complex jurisdictions, the conversation changes. Politicians, even those on the other side of the aisle, tend to listen when discussions shift from ideology to measurable outcomes and public safety realities.
This debate is not about symbolism. It is about execution. It is about whether enforcement is carried out in a disciplined, coordinated, and accountable manner.
Throughout my career in federal law enforcement, I have seen the difference between coordinated and fragmented operations. Integrated partnerships increase efficiency, reduce duplication, and enhance safety. Fragmentation strains resources, increases operational risk, and reduces transparency.
The elimination of 287(g) agreements does not eliminate immigration enforcement. It changes where it happens, how it happens, and how visible it becomes.
When cooperation ends, consequences begin.
The question facing Maryland is straightforward: Is public safety better served through structured coordination inside secure facilities, or through decentralized and reactive field enforcement?
Courts may ultimately weigh the legality of these changes. Legislatures may debate policy direction. But those decisions must account for operational realities.
Public safety depends on clarity of authority, defined roles, and disciplined coordination. Communities deserve to understand what will change if these agreements disappear.
Because enforcement will not disappear.
It will simply look very different.
Comments