Fairview may soon become Tennessee’s first city to enter a 287(g) Task Force ICE agreement. While pitched as public safety, critics warn it could expand federal oversight over local police—raising big questions about control and cost.
By Kelly Jackson | TruthWire News
Tomorrow night, the Fairview City Commission will vote on Resolution 35-25, a measure directing the city manager and police chief to initiate talks with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about entering into a 287(g) Task Force Model agreement.
The stated goal is public safety. But between the fine print, federal strings, and the multi-million-dollar fiscal incentives waiting behind the scenes, critics are asking: Is this really about immigration enforcement—or is it a federally funded backdoor for state and local politicians to cash in?
What Is 287(g)?
Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows ICE to form partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies, giving them authority to enforce certain aspects of federal immigration law. Under 287(g), local officers may be trained, authorized, and supervised by ICE to identify, detain, and process individuals suspected of being in the U.S. unlawfully.
There are three models of 287(g):
1. Jail Enforcement Model (JEM):
Local officers screen and process individuals already in jail custody. This model does not involve field enforcement and does not embed ICE in local patrols.
2. Task Force Model (TFM):
The most expansive option—local officers can engage in immigration enforcement during routine patrols, with direct ICE oversight.
3. Warrant Service Officer Model:
Officers are designated to serve administrative warrants for immigration violations, typically within controlled environments.
Fairview’s resolution specifically seeks the Task Force Model—making it the first city police department in Tennessee to attempt such an agreement.
Humble Urges Caution: “Strict Guardrails Are Essential”
Gary Humble, founder of the Tennessee Stands grassroots organization, voiced strong concerns about Fairview’s proposed 287(g) Task Force agreement—not because he opposes immigration enforcement, but because of what the agreement could mean for local autonomy and accountability.
“I firmly support stronger immigration enforcement at our borders and appreciate the role local law enforcement can play under 287(g). However, any agreement must include strict guardrails to prevent federal overreach, protect local policing priorities, and ensure transparency around ongoing costs.
That’s why I encourage Sheriff’s offices to pursue the Jail Enforcement Model (JEM)—which focuses solely on individuals already in custody—rather than Task Force-style partnerships that extend ICE’s reach into everyday policing.
Local police departments like Fairview should exercise great caution in contemplating this agreement with the federal government. They would be the first in Tennessee to enter into such an agreement.”
Humble’s comments reflect a growing sentiment among limited-government advocates who fear the Task Force Model could open the door to unwanted federal influence in routine police work—without a clear guarantee of long-term cost coverage or local discretion.
While Sheriff Jeff Hughes has remained focused on addressing deputy staffing challenges and advocating for more competitive wages, there’s currently no indication that his office is actively pursuing any 287(g) agreement. His emphasis has consistently been on the operational needs of the department—not federal partnerships.
Sheriff Jeff Hughes, who campaigned on a firm stance against illegal immigration, remains committed to that promise—ensuring any decision made reflects both the will of Williamson County citizens and his duty to protect local law enforcement from excessive federal interference.
By contrast, the current momentum behind the Task Force Model appears to be politically driven. The newly created immigration enforcement grant program—established by HB 6001, carried by Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson and House Majority Leader William Lamberth—has opened the door to millions in state and federal funding for agencies that opt in.
Now that the money is available, it’s being publicly promoted by Don Bufalini, the Fairview city commissioner who sponsored the resolution, and State Representative Lee Reeves, a Republican from District 65. Reeves, who has vocally supported tougher immigration enforcement, has also been reported to own multi-unit rental properties in Houston, Texas—where illegal immigrants routinely find housing through loosely regulated landlords. The juxtaposition has raised eyebrows among some observers, especially as local leaders advocate for federal entanglement under the banner of “public safety.”
HB 6001: A Financial Trojan Horse?
The political momentum behind 287(g) agreements is rooted in HB 6001/SB 6002, carried by Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson and House Majority Leader William Lamberth, and enacted as Public Chapter No. 1. The law establishes a Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division (CIED) within the Department of Safety, led by a Governor-appointed Chief Immigration Enforcement Officer, and creates a new Immigration Enforcement Grant Program to incentivize local governments to partner with ICE.
Effective July 1, 2025, the law offers a range of benefits to agencies that enter into immigration enforcement agreements, including:
- Federally funded training and access to ICE systems
- Eligibility for federal DOJ reimbursements
- Grants disbursed through a new Immigration Enforcement Fund with $5 million allocated in year one
- Additional state enforcement support for participant agencies
The grant program is intended to reward local governments that enter into formal partnerships with the U.S. Attorney General—language aligned with 287(g) model agreements. However, the law does not specify whether participation through the Jail Enforcement Model (JEM)—a version of 287(g) that limits immigration enforcement to the jail setting—would qualify for these funds on equal footing with the Task Force Model.
And the fiscal implications are significant:
- $5.5 million in new state spending is projected for FY25–26
- $545,700 in recurring annual expenditures to maintain the new enforcement division
- Ongoing costs for personnel, office space, and grant compliance, including quarterly reporting and claw back provisions if funds are misused
- There is currently no indication that future federal funding will support the program—and if such funding does emerge, it may come with even greater federal control, making it a liability rather than a benefit.
Simply put: this program isn’t just a funding carrot—it’s a regulatory stick. And once a local government opts in, it's agreeing to state and federal oversight, comprehensive reporting, and the possibility of forced repayment or legal consequences for stepping out of line.
For communities considering participation, the policy consequences carry considerable weight. At present, it is unclear whether agencies that adopt the Jail Enforcement Model (JEM) will be eligible for the same state grant funding as those that implement the Task Force Model. Without clarification from the state, local governments lack critical information needed to assess the fiscal and operational impact of each option.
Local Liberty, or Federal Leverage?
287(g) Task Force agreements authorize local law enforcement officers to perform certain federal immigration duties under the direct supervision of ICE. This structure allows federal oversight of routine field operations, effectively integrating federal authority into local policing and narrowing the distinction between local responsibilities and federal mandates.
That’s not just a theoretical concern. It’s a structural shift. And once the Task Force Model is in place, it’s incredibly hard to unwind.
The Jail Enforcement Model (JEM) provides the ability to screen, detain, and coordinate deportation for illegal immigrants after arrest, without compromising the independence of local patrols. But without clarification with respect to financial backing from the new grant program, counties may feel pressured to go all-in—whether it’s right for their community or not.
What’s Next?
Fairview’s Resolution 35-25 does not finalize any agreement. It simply authorizes the city manager and police chief to explore the Task Force Model and report back by August.
The broader concern extends beyond Fairview. As the same state lawmakers who established the funding program now encourage local governments to participate, the issue becomes one of policy influence. It raises questions about whether the initiative is primarily aimed at improving public safety or at promoting a model of governance that expands federal involvement in local law enforcement through state-subsidized incentives.
And once local law enforcement is operating under federal oversight, it won’t matter who occupies the White House—because decision-making will no longer rest with your local community, but with federal agencies in Washington.
If you support what I do, please consider donating a gift in order to sustain free, independent, and TRULY CONSERVATIVE media that is focused on Middle Tennessee and BEYOND!
Comments ()