By Richard T. Herman, Esq. | Immigration Attorney and Founder, Herman Legal Group
Updated: August 13, 2026
Beginning September 15, 2026, the United States is scheduled to make one of the biggest changes to F-1 student status in decades.
Under a final Department of Homeland Security rule, most F-1 students entering or reentering the United States will no longer be admitted for “Duration of Status,” or D/S. Instead, they will receive a specific Admit Until Date on Form I-94, generally tied to the length of their academic program but limited to a maximum four-year academic admission period at one time, followed by an applicable departure period.
That does not mean every F-1 student must leave the United States after four years.
Students who legitimately need more time to complete a degree, pursue authorized practical training or continue an approved educational program may be able to obtain an additional period of F-1 status by filing an extension of stay with USCIS, generally on Form I-539. In some circumstances, a student may instead depart the United States and seek a new period of admission.
The rule does much more than eliminate D/S. It also:
The practical change can be summarized in one sentence:
F-1 students will no longer be able to assume that a valid Form I-20, by itself, determines how long they are authorized to remain in the United States. The expiration date on Form I-94 will become critical.
DHS states in the final rule that the changes are scheduled to take effect September 15, 2026, although the agency has also acknowledged that the effective date remains subject to congressional review and could be changed by further notice.
For decades, most F-1 students have been admitted to the United States for Duration of Status, commonly shown as “D/S” on Form I-94.
The changes to F-1 status are significant, particularly because the F-1 duration of status ends 2026.
Rather than assigning each student a fixed immigration expiration date, D/S generally allowed an F-1 student to remain in the United States while pursuing a full course of study, participating in authorized practical training such as OPT, and otherwise maintaining valid F-1 status.
DHS explains in the final rule ending Duration of Status that it wants greater ability to periodically review whether F students, J exchange visitors and I foreign-media representatives remain eligible for their classifications.
For students, however, the most important question is not the government’s policy rationale. It is much more practical:
What date controls how long I can lawfully remain in the United States?
Under the new system, the answer will increasingly be the Admit Until Date on Form I-94.
The answer depends heavily on whether you are already inside the United States in valid F-1 D/S status or whether you enter or reenter the country after the new rule takes effect.
Instead of receiving “D/S,” most F-1 students will receive a specific expiration date on their electronic Form I-94 issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The period will generally correspond to the student’s academic program, but the academic portion of a single F-1 admission ordinarily cannot exceed four years.
That makes the phrase “four-year F-1 rule” somewhat misleading.
A student admitted for a two-year master’s program might receive an admission period tied to that two-year program.
A student entering for a five-year Ph.D. program ordinarily cannot receive the entire five years in a single admission because the new system generally caps a single academic admission period at four years.
The Ph.D. student does not necessarily have to leave the United States permanently at the four-year point. The student may instead need to obtain an extension of stay or another authorized period of admission.
No.
This is one of the most important misconceptions about the new rule.
The rule generally limits the length of one period of admission or extension. It does not impose a four-year lifetime limit on F-1 status.
A student enrolled in a legitimate five-, six- or seven-year Ph.D. program may still be able to complete the degree in F-1 status. The difference is that the student may have to affirmatively obtain additional immigration authorization rather than relying indefinitely on D/S.
That distinction will be especially important for:
This may be the most important transition question.
Your D/S does not simply disappear on September 15, 2026.
Students who are properly maintaining F-1 status when the rule takes effect receive transition protection.
In general, an eligible student already admitted for D/S may continue under that admission through the applicable program end date on Form I-20 or qualifying employment-authorization period, subject to the transition provisions and their outside limit.
The final DHS rule establishes an outside transition date of approximately four years after September 15, 2026, with the prior 60-day departure period applying to qualifying students who remain under their pre-rule D/S admission.
Suppose Maria:
Maria does not have to file Form I-539 merely because September 15 arrives.
Assuming she continues maintaining F-1 status and remains within the transition provisions, she can generally continue under her existing D/S admission for the applicable authorized period.
Suppose Arjun:
His existing D/S protection does not necessarily continue indefinitely simply because the I-20 extends into 2031. The new transition rules contain an outside limit.
A student in this situation should identify the immigration deadline years in advance rather than discovering the issue near the end of a dissertation.
International travel becomes more consequential under the new rule.
A student may remain protected under the D/S transition rules while physically present in the United States. But if that student departs and seeks readmission after the new rule takes effect, CBP will generally admit the student under the new fixed-period system rather than returning the student to D/S.
That means a vacation, family visit, wedding, conference or other international trip can change the student’s immigration clock.
Consider a current F-1 student whose I-94 says D/S and whose academic program will continue for several more years.
Before traveling internationally after September 15, the student should understand:
This does not mean F-1 students should automatically avoid international travel.
It does mean that travel should no longer be treated as immigration-neutral.
After every international entry, students should retrieve their most recent I-94 from CBP and confirm the classification and Admit Until Date.
This distinction becomes increasingly important under the new system.
An F-1 visa generally allows a student to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request admission.
A Form I-20 documents the student’s academic program and SEVIS information.
A Form I-94 records the actual admission granted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Under D/S, the I-94 commonly said “D/S” rather than providing a fixed expiration date.
Under the new system, the I-94 will generally contain a specific Admit Until Date.
That date can become more important than the expiration date printed on the visa stamp and may not necessarily match the program end date on the I-20.
A student who needs additional time may generally have two possible routes:
Students seeking an extension from inside the United States will generally use USCIS Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status.
The student must also coordinate closely with the Designated School Official because the immigration filing may depend on an updated Form I-20 and an updated SEVIS record.
This is a significant cultural change for the F-1 system.
Students have long been accustomed to resolving many program-extension issues primarily through their DSO and SEVIS.
Under a fixed-period system, extending the I-20 may no longer be enough.
A student could have permission from the university to continue studying but still need separate immigration approval from USCIS.
For more detail about the form itself, HLG’s guide to Form I-539 explains the extension and change-of-status process.
Generally, a student who timely files a qualifying extension of stay can continue pursuing a full course of study while USCIS adjudicates the application.
That protection is important because USCIS adjudication may extend beyond the expiration date shown on the prior I-94.
Employment, however, is more complicated.
Different rules apply depending upon whether the student is engaged in:
A pending I-539 does not automatically create authorization to begin new employment.
Students should analyze the status-extension issue and employment-authorization issue separately.
The final rule does not eliminate Optional Practical Training.
Students can still qualify for OPT under the existing framework.
What changes is the relationship between OPT and the student’s authorized period of stay.
Suppose an F-1 student’s I-94 expires before the end of the requested OPT period.
Under the new system, the student may need:
The filings may be connected, but they serve different legal purposes.
The I-765 concerns authorization to work.
The I-539 concerns authorization to remain in F-1 status.
Students planning to transition from graduation into OPT therefore need to coordinate their I-20, I-94, I-765 and potentially I-539 timelines.
For additional background, HLG’s guide to possible changes affecting OPT explains the broader policy environment surrounding international-student employment.
The final rule contains temporary transition relief for certain students.
Qualifying F-1 students who remain covered by the transition provisions and timely file for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT on or before March 18, 2027 may not need a separate I-539 extension for the requested practical-training period.
That relief is important, but it should not be assumed to apply to every student.
The answer may depend on:
A student who leaves the United States and returns under the new fixed-period system may be situated differently from a student who remained continuously in the United States under the D/S transition rules.
The rule does not eliminate the 24-month STEM OPT extension.
Qualifying students can continue using the STEM OPT program.
The existing automatic extension of employment authorization for eligible students with timely filed STEM OPT applications also remains significant.
However, students must distinguish between two separate questions:
Am I authorized to work?
and
Am I authorized to remain in the United States?
Under D/S, those questions often appeared closely connected.
Under the new fixed-period system, a STEM OPT applicant may need to pay closer attention to both the EAD timeline and the I-94 timeline.
No.
The final rule does not eliminate the basic F-1 cap-gap protection available to qualifying students transitioning from F-1 status to H-1B status.
Eligible students may continue to receive automatic extensions of status and, where applicable, employment authorization during the cap-gap period.
Students planning the common F-1 → OPT → H-1B route can also review HLG’s F-1 to H-1B guide.
One of the biggest changes in the final rule has received much less attention than the four-year admission limit.
For students admitted under the new fixed-period system, DHS generally reduces the normal post-completion departure period from 60 days to 30 days.
That can materially affect students deciding whether to:
There is an important transition distinction.
A student who remains covered by a pre-September 15 D/S admission may generally retain the 60-day departure period associated with that admission.
A student who later enters or reenters under the new fixed-period system will generally be subject to the new 30-day framework.
As a result, two students graduating from the same university on the same date could have different immigration deadlines because their admission histories are different.
The final rule does much more than replace D/S with an expiration date.
It also changes when students may transfer schools or change educational objectives.
Students below the graduate level generally cannot transfer schools or change their educational objective during the first academic year at the school that issued the initial Form I-20, unless an authorized exception applies because of qualifying extenuating circumstances.
This could affect a student who arrives at one university and quickly discovers that:
A change that makes academic sense may now require a separate immigration analysis.
The restrictions are particularly important for master’s and doctoral students.
Graduate-level students generally face much stricter limitations on changing educational objectives or transferring institutions during their programs unless an authorized exception applies.
This could become a major issue when:
Historically, transferring a SEVIS record could resolve many of these situations.
Under the new framework, graduate students should obtain immigration guidance before committing to a transfer or program change.
The rule also imposes a significant restriction on pursuing multiple degrees at the same educational level.
A student who completes a program in the United States in F-1 status after the rule takes effect generally cannot use F-1 status to begin another program at the same or a lower educational level.
Examples include:
This could be particularly important for international students who historically used a second master’s degree to acquire a new specialization, change careers, obtain additional practical training or maintain lawful student status while pursuing longer-term employment options.
The rule applies prospectively, which means programs completed before the effective date are treated differently from programs completed afterward.
Students considering a second degree should analyze the rule before enrolling or transferring a SEVIS record.
The same-level degree restriction could have significant consequences for some students pursuing consecutive master’s programs, including students considering programs associated with so-called Day 1 CPT.
The final rule does not simply say that CPT is prohibited.
Instead, the more fundamental issue may arise earlier: whether the student is eligible to pursue another program at the same educational level in F-1 status at all.
For example, a student who completes a master’s degree after September 15, 2026 and then wants to begin another master’s program may face a same-level educational restriction before CPT eligibility is even considered.
Students considering a second master’s program should therefore evaluate both:
Students engaged in stand-alone English-language training face another new restriction.
The final rule establishes an aggregate 24-month limit for certain English-language-training programs.
Changing schools does not necessarily restart the clock.
Nor should students assume that leaving the United States briefly and returning will automatically allow another full 24-month period.
Students pursuing long-term ESL or other language programs should therefore calculate their cumulative participation carefully.
F-2 dependents are also affected.
A spouse or child in F-2 status generally cannot receive a period of authorized stay beyond the authorized stay of the principal F-1 student.
That means families must begin paying much closer attention to every family member’s I-94.
Do not assume the F-2 spouse or child’s record automatically matches the principal student’s record.
After international travel, families should check each person’s I-94 individually.
Under D/S, many international students rarely looked at their electronic I-94 after entering the United States.
That habit needs to change.
Under the new system, the I-94 expiration date may affect:
Every international student should know how to retrieve a current I-94 from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
After every entry into the United States, check it.
If the I-94 contains an error, address the problem promptly rather than waiting until an immigration filing reveals it months or years later.
This may be the most serious long-term consequence of replacing D/S.
Under the old D/S system, determining when unlawful presence began for some F-1 students could be complicated because there was no specific expiration date on the I-94.
The fixed-period system creates a much clearer deadline.
Remaining beyond an authorized admission period can result in unlawful presence beginning to accrue.
That matters because unlawful presence can create serious immigration consequences, particularly when a person later departs the United States.
An overstay can also affect:
Students should therefore treat the I-94 expiration date with the same seriousness that H-1B, L-1, O-1 and other fixed-status nonimmigrants have long treated their I-94 expiration dates.
This is another reason students should not treat Form I-539 as a routine administrative filing.
A timely filed extension may allow a student to remain while USCIS decides the application.
But if USCIS denies the extension after the student’s prior authorized period has already expired, the consequences can become immediate.
The final rule generally does not create a fresh 30-day grace period simply because USCIS denied the extension.
Depending on the circumstances, unlawful presence may begin accruing after the denial.
A student can therefore have a legitimate academic reason to continue a degree and still face a serious immigration problem if the extension filing is late, incomplete or denied.
Possibly, but travel during a pending extension requires careful analysis.
A departure does not necessarily destroy every pending F-1 extension application automatically.
However, whether USCIS continues adjudicating the case can depend on the timing of the trip, the student’s existing admission period, the I-20 presented on return and the period of admission requested at the port of entry.
A student who leaves the United States while an I-539 is pending should therefore understand the consequences before traveling.
Students should not assume that a later date printed on an immigration document always permits them to remain until that date.
If a student completes a program earlier than expected, the DSO may be required to update the SEVIS record and shorten the program end date.
That can affect when the student’s departure period begins.
This issue can arise when a student:
The student’s immigration timeline may therefore change when the underlying academic program changes.
You are in the United States on September 15, 2026 in valid F-1 status and your I-94 says D/S.
Likely result: You generally remain covered by the transition provisions rather than automatically receiving a four-year expiration date.
You leave the United States after the rule takes effect and return to continue your program.
Likely result: CBP will generally admit you under the new fixed-period system. Check the new I-94 immediately after returning.
Your I-20 reflects a program expected to last five years.
Likely result: A single academic admission will generally not cover the entire five-year program. You should plan in advance for an extension or later new period of admission.
Your thesis, dissertation or other academic requirements will not be completed before your authorized stay expires.
Likely result: Work with your DSO and determine whether a timely I-539 extension is required.
Your current fixed admission period will not cover the entire requested OPT period.
Likely result: You may need both an I-765 and an I-539 unless a transition provision applies.
You complete a master’s program after the rule takes effect and want to begin another master’s program.
Likely result: The same-level educational restriction may prevent continued F-1 status for the second master’s program.
Your adviser moves, research funding ends or you receive a better offer from another university.
Likely result: The graduate-transfer restriction may prevent the transfer unless you qualify for an authorized exception.
Students do not need to panic, but they should become much more deliberate about their immigration records.
Determine whether your record shows D/S or a fixed expiration date.
Confirm the:
These documents do not necessarily expire on the same date.
Travel after the effective date may move a student from D/S transition protection into the new fixed-period system.
Students filing during the transition period should determine whether an I-539 is required.
An academic decision can now have immigration consequences that did not previously exist in the same form.
Do not begin analyzing an extension only a few weeks before the I-94 expires.
Yes, for admissions under the new system. Beginning September 15, 2026, most F-1 students entering or reentering the United States are scheduled to receive a fixed admission period rather than D/S. Eligible students already in the United States under D/S receive transition protection.
No. Students already in valid F-1 D/S status may qualify for the transition rules. They are not automatically assigned a new four-year expiration date simply because the effective date arrives.
No. Four years is generally the maximum academic portion of one period of admission or extension, not a lifetime maximum for studying in the United States.
For students admitted under the new system, generally yes. That Admit Until Date becomes critical.
You may need an extension of stay even though the school considers your academic program ongoing.
Yes. Students who need additional F-1 time may be able to use Form I-539 to request an extension of stay.
A student who timely files a qualifying extension may generally continue pursuing a full course of study while USCIS decides the case.
It depends on the employment category. Study authorization, immigration status and employment authorization are related but legally separate issues.
No.
No.
Possibly. Students whose existing authorized stay does not cover the requested OPT period may need both an I-765 and an I-539, although transition relief applies in certain cases.
No.
Not for every student. The new fixed-period system generally provides a 30-day post-completion departure period, while certain students who remain under their earlier D/S transition admission may retain the prior 60-day period.
Yes, if otherwise eligible, but reentry can move a current D/S student into the new fixed-period admission system.
Students below the graduate level generally face new first-academic-year transfer restrictions unless an exception applies.
Graduate students face substantially stricter transfer restrictions under the new rule.
It depends on your educational level, timing and circumstances. The new rule imposes restrictions that did not previously exist in the same form.
Students who complete a master’s program after the new rule takes effect may face restrictions on beginning another program at the same educational level.
The final rule generally treats the new educational-level restrictions prospectively rather than applying them to programs completed before the effective date.
A fixed I-94 expiration date creates a clearer point after which unlawful presence and other immigration consequences can arise.
The consequences can be immediate, and students should not assume they automatically receive a new grace period after denial.
For decades, F-1 status was unusual because a student’s ability to remain in the United States depended heavily on maintaining a qualifying educational program rather than watching a fixed I-94 expiration date.
That is changing.
International students will increasingly have to ask the same questions that H-1B, L-1, O-1 and other temporary nonimmigrants already ask:
What does my I-94 say?
When does it expire?
Do I need an extension before that date?
For many students, nothing catastrophic will happen on September 15.
Current D/S students receive important transition protection. OPT and STEM OPT continue. Students can still pursue degrees that legitimately take longer than four years.
But the margin for misunderstanding an immigration deadline is becoming much smaller.
A student may have a perfectly legitimate academic reason to remain enrolled and still face an immigration problem if the correct extension is not filed.
A university’s decision to extend an I-20 will not necessarily answer every question about how long the student is legally authorized to remain in the United States.
That makes coordination among the student, DSO and immigration counsel more important than ever.
Herman Legal Group has represented international students, professionals, universities, families and employers in U.S. immigration matters for more than three decades.
Students affected by the September 2026 changes may need help determining:
You can learn more about HLG’s student visa and international student immigration practice, read our guide to the questions F-1 students most often ask immigration lawyers, or schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or another Herman Legal Group immigration attorney.
Important: This article reflects the DHS final rule and implementation information available as of August 13, 2026. The rule is presently scheduled to take effect September 15, 2026. DHS has indicated that it will provide additional notice if the effective date changes. Immigration rules and implementation guidance can change, and individual cases require individual analysis.
Several public universities in Florida have entered into formal partnerships with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), signaling a dramatic shift in how campus law enforcement interacts with immigration policy. These agreements, known as Florida university ICE partnerships, fall under the controversial 287(g) program, allowing state and local officers to act as federal immigration agents — a policy strongly backed by Governor Ron DeSantis.
These Florida universities would be among the first in the nation to have campus police departments participate in the 287(g) program, as reported by the Associated Press, highlighting the involvement of institutions like the University of Florida and Florida Atlantic University.
This development has raised concerns among students and advocacy groups about the potential impact on campus safety and inclusivity. Critics argue that involving campus police in immigration enforcement could deter students from accessing campus resources and participating in campus life due to fear of immigration-related consequences.
“College campuses should be safe spaces for academic growth, not checkpoints,” said Miriam Feldblum, CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.
The 287(g) program, part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows ICE to delegate certain immigration enforcement powers to local and state law enforcement officers — including those on college campuses.
These partnerships allow designated officers to:
There are two main models under 287(g):
Florida’s implementation is under the task force model, which allows police officers to detain and question individuals anywhere, including university campuses.
As of mid-April 2025, at least five major public universities in Florida have confirmed partnerships with ICE:
| University | 287(g) Status | Visa Revocations Reported |
|---|---|---|
| University of Florida (UF) | Signed | 8 students |
| University of South Florida (USF) | Signed | Unknown |
| University of Central Florida (UCF) | Signed | Unknown |
| Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton | Signed | Unknown |
| Florida International University (FIU) | Signed | 18 students |
FIU’s participation in the 287(g) program has raised concerns among students and faculty, particularly given the university’s diverse student body. Approximately 68% of FIU’s students are Hispanic, and nearly 600 are beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
The decision to involve campus police in immigration enforcement has led to fears of increased scrutiny and potential targeting of international and undocumented students.
According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a total of 200 law enforcement agencies in Florida currently have active 287(g) agreements, and over 40 more agreements are pending.
Joshua Glanzer, FAU spokesperson, stated:
“All state schools are expected to comply with the governor’s directive.”
For data on visa/Sevis revocations see this.
On February 19, 2025, Gov. Ron DeSantis issued the Governor’s Feb directive, an executive order instructing all state law enforcement agencies — including university police — to enforce federal immigration law under 287(g). The order emphasized:
The consequences for international students and immigrants on campus are significant:
The ICE-campus partnership comes amid a significant rise in student visa revocations across the U.S. According to CNN data:
Data from Insider Higher indicates that 18 international students at Florida International University had their visas or SEVIS revoked this semester; 18 international students at University of Florida suffered similar events. Students and faculty say the enforcement effort is having a chilling effect on campus life and academic freedom.
SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) is the database used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to track and manage international students (F, M visas) and exchange visitors (J visas) in the U.S. A SEVIS termination typically results in the student becoming “out of status,” which can lead to visa revocation, loss of legal presence, and potential removal proceedings.
The Florida developments are part of a wider pattern under the Trump administration targeting foreign nationals involved in political activism.
Similar incidents are raising alarms about political surveillance and suppression of speech under immigration pretexts. This case is being seen by many as a political crackdown on student dissent.
The decision has sparked reactions from students and community members. For instance, Jennica Charles, a political science student at FAU and daughter of Haitian immigrants, expressed concern about the potential for racial profiling and the erosion of trust between students and campus police.
Similarly, student protests have emerged in response to recent deportations of international students following minor infractions, highlighting the heightened anxiety within immigrant communities on campus.
At the University of Florida, backlash has been swift. On Wednesday, students rallied in Gainesville to protest the deportation of a Colombian international student.
According to WCJB News, students say the partnership with ICE is creating a climate of fear and uncertainty:
“Our classmates are afraid to speak, afraid to show up to class. Immigration enforcement should not be part of student life.”
Concerns raised by students and staff include:
Campus leaders have largely framed the ICE partnerships as a matter of compliance with state law and campus safety, emphasizing the involvement of the federal government in these agreements:
Cassandra Edwards, speaking for the Board, stated:
“University police departments are encouraged to work with law enforcement entities to enforce both state and federal laws.”
As international students across the U.S. face a wave of visa revocations and SEVIS terminations, Universities are facing a crossroads: how to care for the well-being of foreign students who are in an emotional and sometimes legal crisis.
Rather than partnering with a lawless federal administration that is violating the civil rights of immigrants, and becoming complicit with those civil and human rights violations, U.S. universities should be standing strong to protect their foreign students. If approved, these universities would be among the first to be granted such authority under a federal program, indicating a significant policy change and the implications for campus safety and student welfare.
Designated School Officials (DSOs) and International Student Officers (ISOs) are the individuals who head the International Student Offices on Campus. They are more critical than ever. These professionals serve as the bridge between students and federal immigration authorities—and in today’s climate, that bridge must be built on compassion, trust, and proactive advocacy.
Here’s what a truly supportive and professional DSO or ISO should be doing to help students who are afraid that their F-1 visa has been revoked, or that their SEVIS record has been or may be terminated.
Students facing immigration uncertainty are often paralyzed by fear. Some are afraid to even walk into the international student office. A professional DSO should:
It is not enough to react. A good DSO should:
DSOs are not immigration attorneys, but they can—and should—be knowledgeable, accurate, and transparent. They should:
If a SEVIS termination has occurred or is imminent, a DSO must be ready to:
For reference, DSOs should review and share the DHS SEVIS reinstatement overview:
tudy in the States – Reinstatement
When a student’s status is in jeopardy, it often affects their housing, financial aid, academic enrollment, and mental health. A DSO should:
A proactive DSO equips students, not just manages crises. This includes:
In a time when immigration policies are shifting rapidly and unpredictably, Colleges and Universities must serve not just as bureaucratic gatekeepers, but as compassionate allies and professional guides. A student’s visa status can determine their education, their future, and even their safety. The best colleges will meet that responsibility with urgency, care, and unwavering commitment to the students they serve.
History will not judge Florida state universities well.
If you are an international student, particularly on an F-1, J-1, or OPT visa, here are steps you should take immediately:
Download a Free “Know Your Rights” Guide (PDF) (link simulated)
What Is the 287(g) Program?
The 287(g) program stems from Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), passed as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996. It allows state and local law enforcement officers to work with federal immigration authorities (ICE) to identify, detain, and begin removal proceedings against noncitizens.
How Does the Program Operate?
Through formal Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), participating local law enforcement officers are “deputized” to carry out federal immigration duties. As of December 2024, ICE maintained active 287(g) agreements with 135 agencies across 21 states.
Powers Given to Deputized Officers Include:
· Checking individuals’ immigration status
· Accessing DHS databases
· Issuing detainers
· Creating and managing removal case files
· Issuing Notices to Appear (NTAs)
· Recommending detention or voluntary departure
· Transferring detainees to ICE custody
Under the 287(g) program, these deputized officers, now acting as immigration officers, have the authority to perform immigration enforcement activities on campus. These participating officers can question individuals suspected of being in the country illegally and execute warrants for immigration violations, significantly shifting the role of campus police towards immigration enforcement.
MOAs can be terminated by either party and may or may not include expiration dates.
1. Jail Enforcement Model (JEM):
o Officers question arrestees in jail about immigration status
o Issue immigration detainers
o 60 JEM agreements exist as of Dec. 2024
2. Warrant Service Officer Model (WSO):
o Officers execute ICE warrants in jails
o No authority to conduct interviews
o 75 WSO agreements are active as of Dec. 2024
Discontinued Models:
· Task Force Model
· Hybrid Model These were discontinued in 2012 due to efficiency and resource concerns.
Evolution of the Program
· 2009: ICE standardized all MOAs
· 2013: MOAs updated after DHS OIG recommendations
· 2020: Revised MOAs removed expiration dates and loosened training requirements
· Budget peaked at $68 million (FY2010-2013), but declined to $24 million by FY2022
Training Requirements
· Deputized officers must be U.S. citizens and pass ICE background checks
· Complete 4-week course at FLETC ICE Academy in Charleston, SC
· Topics include immigration law, ICE systems, cultural sensitivity, and profiling prevention
· Must score at least 70% to qualify
· Refresher training is optional, max once every 2 years
· WSO training: 8 hours only, conducted by ICE field offices
Financial Burdens on Localities ICE covers:
· Training travel and materials
· IT infrastructure at local agencies
Local governments must cover:
· Officer salaries and benefits
· Administrative costs
· Detention costs (partially reimbursed by SCAAP, which remains underfunded)
Jurisdiction Selection
Agencies interested in joining submit requests to ICE. While ICE claims to evaluate capacity and benefit, a 2021 GAO report criticized ICE for prioritizing quantity over strategic benefit.
o DOJ found systemic Latino targeting in Maricopa County, AZ and Alamance County, NC, where officers could interrogate any person believed to be undocumented
o Texas A&M research shows profiling even in neighboring areas
o Florida SB1808 now mandates 287(g) participation for all jail-operating law enforcement
o Half of detainers were for misdemeanors or traffic offenses (MPI)
o North Carolina: 33-57% of those detained had traffic violations
o Mecklenburg County: $5.3M in first year
o Alamance County: $4.8M in first year
o Prince William County, VA: $6.4M first year, $26M over five
o Maricopa County: $1.3M deficit in three months due to overtime
o Resulted in property tax hikes and public service cuts
o IACP and MCCA report immigrants fear contact with police, undermining public safety
o Law enforcement officials say it deters crime reporting and cooperation
o 2021 GAO report: No performance metrics, weak monitoring
o 2010 OIG report: ICE failed to ensure MOA compliance or supervise properly
o Poor planning and staff shortages hindered ICE’s ability to manage partnerships
· Secure Communities: Fingerprints sent to ICE databases after arrests
· Criminal Apprehension Program (CAP): ICE agents screen inmates directly
· 287(g) overlaps with these programs, complicating enforcement transparency
The 287(g) program has reshaped how local police interact with immigrant communities, but at significant social, financial, and civil rights costs. While it continues to be expanded in states like Florida, oversight and community resistance persist.
What is a 287(g) agreement?A 287(g) agreement is a partnership authorized under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It allows DHS/ICE to delegate limited immigration enforcement authority to state and local law enforcement agencies—including, in this case, campus police at Florida public universities.
Which Florida universities have entered into 287(g) agreements?As of April 2025, the University of Florida (UF), University of South Florida (USF), University of Central Florida (UCF), and Florida Atlantic University (FAU) have confirmed or are reported to have entered into 287(g) agreements. Florida International University (FIU) is also reported to be participating. These schools confirmed their participation and have signed similar agreements to enhance collaboration on immigration enforcement efforts.
What powers do university police receive under a 287(g) agreement?Trained officers may be authorized to:
Does the agreement mean ICE will have an active presence on campus?Not necessarily. Under 287(g), ICE trains campus police officers, who then act under ICE supervision. ICE agents themselves may not be physically stationed on campus, but they will coordinate with campus police.
Can university police detain students solely based on suspected immigration status?If authorized under 287(g), officers may question and detain individuals suspected of being in the U.S. unlawfully. However, they must still adhere to constitutional protections, including probable cause and due process.
Do these agreements apply to undocumented students, DACA recipients, or international students on visas?Yes. Anyone who falls under immigration scrutiny—undocumented immigrants, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, or F-1/J-1 visa holders—could be affected by immigration enforcement if a violation or suspicion arises.
Are university campuses still considered “sensitive locations” where immigration enforcement is discouraged?No. The Biden administration had previously considered schools “sensitive locations,” but under renewed Trump-era policies, that protection has been rolled back. 287(g) agreements further erode the notion that campuses are exempt from enforcement.
Can a university refuse to enter into a 287(g) agreement?In theory, yes. Florida law mandates certain types of cooperation, especially for sheriff and detention offices, but does not explicitly require university police to join 287(g). However, Governor DeSantis has issued directives strongly pressuring all state law enforcement entities—including university police—to participate.
Are students being notified when their campus police enter into 287(g) agreements?There is no federal or state requirement to inform students, and many universities have not proactively notified students or held public forums. News has often emerged through media investigations or public records.
Can faculty or administrators intervene or advocate against these agreements?Yes. Faculty senates, student governments, and academic leadership can issue public statements, organize advocacy campaigns, and request transparency from university administration.
How might this affect international student enrollment and recruitment?Foreign students may avoid applying to or enrolling at schools with immigration enforcement agreements. It may also affect a school’s international reputation and partnerships with foreign institutions.
Will this affect students’ access to campus services or make them more reluctant to seek help?Yes. Experts warn that students may avoid academic support, counseling, or reporting crimes due to fear of exposure to immigration enforcement. This undermines campus safety and student well-being.
What happens if someone is mistakenly targeted by campus police under 287(g)?Individuals wrongfully detained or questioned may pursue legal remedies, but it can be difficult to reverse enforcement actions quickly. Legal counsel should be contacted immediately, especially immigration attorneys experienced in 287(g) and removal defense.
Can student protests or political speech lead to immigration scrutiny under 287(g)?Potentially. Under enhanced vetting policies, political activism or online posts are sometimes used to justify visa denials or revocations. 287(g) does not specifically target protestors, but increased surveillance and enforcement increase risks for politically active students, especially noncitizens.
Does this mean students can be arrested for simply being out of status?Yes. Being unlawfully present in the U.S. is a civil violation but can lead to arrest under immigration law. 287(g)-trained officers may arrest noncitizens even without criminal charges if there is an immigration violation.
How can students find out if their SEVIS or visa status has been flagged?Students should monitor their SEVIS records, communicate regularly with their Designated School Official (DSO), and check with U.S. embassies or consulates if abroad. Sudden issues at ports of entry or visa appointments may indicate problems.
What should international or undocumented students do if they feel unsafe?They should:
Where can students and faculty learn more or get help?
Can these agreements be reversed or challenged legally?Yes, though it’s difficult. Legal challenges can be brought under state or federal law, particularly if civil rights violations occur. Political pressure from students, alumni, donors, and faculty may also influence universities’ participation in 287(g).
Florida’s integration of university police into federal immigration enforcement through 287(g) signals a sharp turn toward criminalizing immigrant presence on campuses. As these agreements unfold, students—particularly international and undocumented ones—face heightened vulnerability to deportation, racial profiling, and suppression of political expression.
This policy also raises constitutional concerns around due process, discrimination, and freedom of speech — especially in the context of academic institutions.
The stakes for immigrant students and scholars have never been higher. If you’ve been targeted for immigration enforcement — or fear you might be — speak with a trusted immigration lawyer immediately.
For students, scholars, and campus employees affected by these new policies — particularly if you’re on an F-1, J-1, OPT, or dependent visa — it is essential to:
Richard Herman is one of the nation’s leading immigration attorneys and founder of the Herman Legal Group. He regularly defends students in SEVIS termination, ICE detention, and visa revocation cases.
Book a confidential consultation by arranging it online now:
Call: (800) 808-4013
· American Immigration Council: The 287(g) Program Overview
· ICE: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act
· Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration
