Immigration Enforcement Assistance Agreements:
HB 245 would amend Florida’s immigration-enforcement-assistance statute to require every law enforcement agency operating a detention facility to enter into a written agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by January 1, 2026. The agreement would be for participation in the federal 287(g) immigration program, which allows certain state or local officers to perform limited immigration-enforcement functions under federal supervision. The bill states that agencies would not be required to choose any particular 287(g) program model.
The bill also revises the reporting requirement for agencies operating county detention facilities that are not yet in compliance. Those agencies would have to report quarterly to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on the status of the required agreement and explain any reason for noncompliance. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, and would strengthen the state’s existing framework for tracking and encouraging local participation in federal immigration enforcement cooperation.
HB 245 would expand and make more mandatory Florida’s immigration-enforcement cooperation requirements for law enforcement agencies that operate detention facilities. It would amend section 908.11, Florida Statutes, by imposing a statewide obligation to enter into ICE agreements under the federal 287(g) program and by requiring ongoing quarterly reporting to the Department of Law Enforcement for agencies that have not yet complied. The practical effect would be to increase state oversight of local detention facilities and to push more county and local agencies into formal federal immigration-enforcement partnerships.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, and the bill was withdrawn before introduction, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess from the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for stronger immigration enforcement coordination between local detention facilities and ICE. Because it was withdrawn early, the available history does not show whether the proposal had support, opposition, or negotiated changes.
The main point of contention likely would have been the mandate that every law enforcement agency operating a detention facility must sign a 287(g) agreement, rather than leaving participation voluntary or discretionary. Supporters would likely view the bill as a tool for immigration enforcement and state-federal cooperation, while opponents could argue it imposes federal immigration responsibilities on local agencies, creates operational and resource burdens, and may affect local priorities or community trust. The reporting requirement for noncompliant county detention facilities could also be seen as an accountability measure by supporters and as an added administrative burden by critics.