ICE proposes fund to cover liability insurance for local officers assisting in arrests

The draft contract is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to expand the use of local police in federal immigration enforcement. ICE has been courting agreements with sheriffs' offices and city police departments across the country, pitching participation as a way for local agencies to recover costs tied to detaining people suspected of being in the country illegally. Justin Smith, an ICE official involved in the contracting effort, has been a leading voice in those negotiations, according to documents and interviews reviewed by the AP.

Under the proposal, ICE would cover the premiums for liability insurance policies held by participating local agencies, or directly absorb the cost of settlements and judgments awarded against officers. The plan is designed to remove a key financial disincentive that has historically discouraged local departments from joining immigration enforcement, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

How the proposed fund would work

The proposal has already drawn sharp criticism from immigration policy experts and civil liberties advocates. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, said the arrangement raises serious accountability concerns. "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," Bier said, noting that he has called on Congress to make it easier to sue ICE agents for wrongdoing.

Critics warn of accountability gap

ICE declined to comment on the plan at the time of reporting. The Department of Justice and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. The lack of public detail has fueled questions about how the fund would be administered, what conduct would be covered, and whether local taxpayers would bear any portion of the risk.

The plan arrives against a backdrop of legal battles over the federal government's authority to enlist local officers in immigration enforcement. Several states and municipalities have moved to limit or forbid such cooperation, citing concerns about civil rights liability and community trust. The Biden administration had previously restricted the practice, but the Trump administration has reversed those limits and aggressively expanded partnerships with local agencies.

Georgia has emerged as one focal point of the new contracting push, with local sheriffs exploring agreements that would formalize their role in immigration arrests. Officials in other states, including Texas and Florida, have also signaled interest. Proponents argue that local involvement is essential to detaining people who have been ordered deported, while opponents say it erodes the separation between local policing and federal immigration authority.

Legal and political context

Legal scholars say the insurance scheme could complicate ongoing litigation over immigration enforcement tactics. If officers know they are shielded from civil liability, critics argue, they may be less likely to follow constitutional safeguards during arrests. Supporters counter that the fund simply mirrors arrangements already common in other areas of interagency cooperation, such as counter-narcotics task forces, and that it protects officers acting in good faith.

Michael Slupe, a fellow ICE contracting officer named in the documents, is listed as a point of contact for jurisdictions evaluating the proposal. ICE has not disclosed how many agencies have signed letters of intent or what total liability the fund could cover. The proposal is likely to face scrutiny in Congress, where some lawmakers have already raised concerns about the use of federal funds to shield local officers from accountability.

What happens next

For now, the contract remains a draft, and ICE has yet to announce a formal rollout. Civil liberties groups have indicated they may challenge the arrangement in court if it is finalized, arguing that it could violate the constitutional rights of people targeted by immigration arrests. The outcome is likely to shape the balance between federal immigration priorities and local control over policing for years to come.