As several Maryland sheriffs publicly object to their state’s decision to end cooperation agreements with federal immigration authorities, a former senior law enforcement official says the dispute reflects a broader national struggle between politics and public safety.
Jason Johnson, former deputy commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department and current president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, said local-federal partnerships such as the 287(g) program are designed to enhance safety, not inflame political debate.
Under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, local law enforcement agencies can partner with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to identify and process removable noncitizens who are already in custody. One model, often referred to as the “jail enforcement” model, allows ICE to screen individuals who have been arrested on criminal charges, reducing the need for at-large enforcement actions.
Sheriffs in Maryland recently gathered in Annapolis to protest legislation that effectively ends such cooperation in their state. According to Johnson, the program’s mechanics are often poorly understood by lawmakers.
“Most of them have no idea what the 287(g) program is,” Johnson said, referring to state legislators who voted to end the agreements. “All they know is their party bosses told them they’re going to vote for it.”
Johnson argued that refusing coordination with ICE can force federal agents to conduct arrests in neighborhoods rather than controlled environments like jails, increasing risks for officers and the public alike. He described the move as emblematic of “politics over public safety,” a phrase echoed by Maryland sheriffs who have objected to the policy change.
The issue gained renewed national attention following President Trump’s recent State of the Union address, in which he highlighted crimes committed by repeat offenders and individuals who entered the country unlawfully. Johnson said the broader debate over immigration enforcement intersects with long-standing concerns about repeat violent offenders being released back into communities.
“We see this over and over again,” Johnson said, pointing to cases in which individuals with dozens of prior arrests allegedly went on to commit serious violent crimes. “What we know works is incapacitation. If you are a violent offender, particularly a repeat violent offender, you need to be incapacitated.”
Johnson criticized what he described as a trend in some jurisdictions toward reduced cash bail, diversion programs, and what he called “turnstile justice,” arguing that such policies fail to protect the public when applied to chronic violent offenders.
He also said that voters ultimately bear responsibility for holding prosecutors and lawmakers accountable. While some jurisdictions have replaced progressive prosecutors in recent elections, he described those instances as limited and insufficient to reverse the broader trend.
In addition to discussing immigration enforcement, Johnson raised concerns about what he views as past federal overreach in prosecuting local law enforcement officers. He pointed to the case of four former East Haven, Connecticut police officers who were convicted in 2011 on federal civil rights charges stemming from interactions with individuals during an investigation into fraudulent vehicle registrations.
Johnson contends that the prosecutions were politically motivated and that the alleged misconduct amounted, at most, to minor administrative violations rather than criminal behavior. The officers served prison sentences ranging from several months to multiple years.
“The Justice Department at the time wanted to send a message,” Johnson said, arguing that the case was used to deter local officers from engaging in enforcement actions that might involve immigration-related issues.
The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund is now urging President Trump to grant pardons to the four former officers, asserting that their convictions unjustly ended careers and damaged families. Johnson said the goal is to “correct the record” and allow the men to move forward without federal felony convictions.
As debates over immigration enforcement and criminal justice policy continue at both the state and federal levels, Johnson maintained that the central question remains whether public officials are prioritizing public safety.
“Unfortunately,” he said, “the electorate hasn’t paid sufficient attention to correct this problem at any appreciable level.”
The clash between state lawmakers, local sheriffs, and federal authorities underscores a broader divide over how immigration laws should be enforced and how communities balance reform efforts with concerns about repeat violent crime — a debate likely to intensify in the months ahead.