Skip to main content
WorthFighting.org

Local Government

Cumberland County’s ICE Agreement: What the Current 287(g) Roster Actually Shows

Crossville, Cumberland County, Tennessee

ICE’s current roster lists Cumberland County under the Warrant Service Officer model. Here is what that confirms—and what it does not reveal about local enforcement.

By WorthFighting.org News DeskOct 1, 2026 4 min read
Historic Cumberland County Courthouse in Crossville, Tennessee
The historic Cumberland County Courthouse, photographed July 17, 2016. Location photograph; no immigration operation is depicted. — Brian Stansberry / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY 4.0

Key Takeaways

  • •ICE’s September 30 roster lists a Warrant Service Officer agreement signed June 25, 2025.
  • •That model concerns administrative warrants for people already in an agency’s custody.
  • •Participation records do not establish local transfer totals, operating costs or crime effects.

Cumberland County, Tennessee, appears in ICE’s current partnership roster under the Warrant Service Officer model, with a signing date of June 25, 2025. The entry is for the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office. It is not a listing for a different Cumberland County in another state.

WorthFighting checked the workbook linked from ICE’s participating-agencies page on October 1, 2026. The downloaded roster, dated September 30 in its filename, contains one matching Tennessee sheriff’s-office entry. Tennessee’s Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division also lists Cumberland among participating counties.

That establishes a local agreement. It does not establish how many people have been transferred to ICE, what the county has spent, or whether participation has changed local crime.

What the Warrant Service Officer model means

ICE describes three different forms of 287(g) participation. Under Warrant Service Officer, designated officers can serve and execute administrative immigration warrants for people already in their agency’s custody. ICE describes its Task Force Model separately, covering limited immigration functions during routine policing or participation in an ICE-led task force. Its Jail Enforcement Model concerns identifying and processing removable people in custody with pending or active criminal charges. ICE’s explanation of the three models.

Those distinctions matter when reading a headline about local cooperation. A Warrant Service Officer entry should not be relabeled a Task Force agreement. Nor does the roster alone prove that every deputy is trained or exercising delegated authority.

The roster links a Cumberland County memorandum of agreement. The model and signing date reported here come from the current federal workbook; this article does not claim to have verified every operating term in the signed document.

The public record answers participation better than outcomes

QuestionWhat the checked records establish
Is the Tennessee county listed?Yes, under its sheriff’s office.
Which model appears?Warrant Service Officer.
What signing date is listed?June 25, 2025.
How many people have been transferred locally?No county total established in the records reviewed.
What has it cost the county?No local cost total established in those records.

ICE’s September 2026 encounter report describes selected cases around the country. Its introduction calls those cases a sampling. The four-page report contains no Cumberland County, Tennessee, entry or county-by-county transfer table.

That omission cannot be read as zero local activity. A selected-case report and a complete statistical return answer different questions. Likewise, a list of participating agencies counts agreements; it is not a count of arrests, transfers or removals.

What would make a useful local accounting

A county-level assessment would need a defined reporting period and separate figures for immigration warrants served, transfers into federal custody, staff time and reimbursements. It would also need to distinguish pending criminal charges from convictions and immigration processing from the outcome of a criminal case.

These are reporting questions, not findings that the county has refused to provide information. No interview or records request was conducted for this article.

ICE presents 287(g) as a public-safety partnership. Evaluating that claim locally requires outcome evidence in addition to enrollment. The roster by itself supports neither a claim that the program reduced Cumberland crime nor a claim that it increased crime.

For the county’s separate public-safety investment decisions, see our report on the sheriff’s digital policing project. Our Cumberland County representatives guide explains the relevant elected offices.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Cumberland County, Tennessee, have a 287(g) agreement?

Yes. The ICE roster downloaded October 1, 2026 lists the sheriff’s office under Warrant Service Officer, signed June 25, 2025.

Does the listing prove local street raids or deportation totals?

No. It identifies an agreement and its model. It does not document a particular operation or provide a local removal total.

Where can residents check later changes?

Use ICE’s participating-agencies page and its linked workbook. Check the Tennessee entry, agency name, model and date together.

Explore the Cumberland County and Crossville hub, Tennessee local news and Tennessee state hub.

Reporting basis: public records checked October 1, 2026. This is an explanation of the published program records, not advice about an individual immigration case.

Photograph: Cumberland County Courthouse tn3.jpg by Brian Stansberry, CC BY 4.0. Original photograph used without editorial alteration; displayed to fit the page.

Explore Tennessee

Explore more news, elections, representatives, and information from Tennessee.

Visit Tennessee State Profile

Comments (0)

Join the conversation — log in to share your views.

Be the first to comment.

Related National Coverage

National stories and in-depth explainers on the issues shaping Crossville, Tennessee.