The Trump administration has aggressively expanded immigration detention, leasing and buying warehouses and buildings and expanding contracts with local jails and private prison companies to scale up arrests, detention and deportations. Flush with roughly $85 billion in new funding — about $45 billion earmarked for immigration detention over four years — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has become the nation’s highest-funded law enforcement agency and is rapidly retrofitting large facilities into detention centers.
Scope and scale
– Government data obtained via FOIA and analyzed by NPR and the Deportation Data Project show ICE detainees have been held at more than 220 sites nationwide, including dedicated ICE centers, private prisons, county jails, military bases, hospitals, staging areas and newly converted warehouses. The number of sites is rising.
– ICE detention “book-ins” in the project’s dataset exceed 750,000, with five states — Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Arizona and Georgia — accounting for just over 60% of more than 750,000 book-ins. Texas recorded more than 200,000 book-ins across 115 facilities between January 2025 and mid‑October 2025.
– Detention populations surged from about 37,000 a year ago to more than 72,000 by the end of January 2026; daily averages now approach 70,000 — a scale of mass detention not seen since the World War II incarceration of Japanese Americans. DHS has said it aims to create bed space for 100,000 people alleged to be in the country illegally.
– DHS documents outline a “Hub and Spoke” model: eight large centers holding 7,500–10,000 people each, fed by 16 regional processing centers of 500–1,500 people. Proposed mega-centers, like one in Social Circle, Ga., would dramatically change small towns — the Social Circle facility would roughly double a town of about 5,000.
Private contractors and profits
– The largest detention operations are run by for-profit firms GEO Group and CoreCivic, both reporting more than $2 billion in revenue in 2025. Other contractors with major DHS and ICE contracts include Akima Global Services and Akima Infrastructure Protection. Oversight groups report a steep increase in ICE awards to private firms since the administration’s return to office.
Conditions, deaths and oversight concerns
– Reports of overcrowding, inadequate food, medical issues and deaths in custody have proliferated. ICE is investigating multiple detainee deaths; since October, 26 people have died in ICE custody, placing the agency on track for its deadliest fiscal year since its founding.
– Advocates warn reduced oversight and record detention numbers increase risks of sickness, abuse and death. Local officials, public health leaders and members of Congress have reported limited access to facilities and scant federal transparency.
Local backlash and community action
– Opposition has emerged across political lines and regions. Grassroots pushback, city councils, mayors and state officials have stalled or reversed several planned sites:
– Merrimack, N.H.: Community uproar halted a planned ICE facility.
– Oklahoma City, Okla.: DHS backed away from plans to convert a vacant warehouse after local opposition.
– Hutchins, Texas: Majestic Realty declined to sell or lease a million‑square‑foot warehouse to DHS following weeks of pressure.
– Surprise, Ariz.: Purchase of a 400,000‑square‑foot warehouse for $70 million prompted protests and demands for operational disclosure.
– Roxbury, N.J., Hagerstown, Md., Social Circle and Oakwood, Ga.: purchases and plans have sparked protests, local resolutions, water‑meter locks and other pushback.
– Byhalia, Miss.: Senior Republican Senator Roger Wicker publicly opposed a proposed center intended to hold thousands.
– Polling shows shifting public opinion: 65% of Americans in a recent NPR/PBS/Marist survey said ICE has “gone too far” enforcing immigration laws — an 11‑point increase since the previous summer.
Transparency and local costs
– Consistent complaints revolve around secrecy: city and county leaders report little or no communication from DHS about site selection, operational plans or community impact studies. Local officials say they were not provided rigorous impact analyses and were left to estimate costs and infrastructure needs.
– Examples of local concerns: Social Circle placed a lock on a water meter until DHS clarifies how water and sewer needs will be met; Oakwood officials say ICE paid roughly $68 million for a site assessed at about $7.2 million and warned of an estimated $2.6 million in additional sewer expenses; Merrillville, Ind., passed a resolution opposing an apparent conversion after no federal communication.
Political and municipal responses
– The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed emergency resolutions urging federal agencies to increase transparency, require access to legal assistance for detainees, ensure buildings meet local health and safety standards and obtain appropriate zoning and permits before converting facilities to detention or deportation centers.
– Some local leaders, including Republican mayors, have expressed alarm about sanitary and safety standards if large warehouses are repurposed for detention.
Local wins and costs
– Community opposition has successfully stopped or stalled several proposed sites. Some jurisdictions have passed preemptive bans on detention facilities — for instance, the Jackson County Legislature approved a measure opposing detention sites after DHS scouted Missouri locations.
– Other communities have accepted facilities for economic reasons. Charlton County, Ga., receives about $230,000 a year from a GEO contract, money leaders say covers about 20% of county salaries; local officials cite job creation, scholarships and community funding from contractors even while acknowledging moral and ethical concerns about detaining and deporting people.
Where things stand
– ICE maintains new facilities will meet detention standards and bring jobs and revenue; the agency says sites undergo due diligence and community impact reviews. Many local officials dispute that comprehensive studies or adequate communication occurred.
– As ICE expands its footprint through purchases, leases and contractor agreements, communities continue to wrestle with transparency, local costs, oversight, humanitarian concerns and political divisions — and in many cases are mobilizing successfully to block or reshape federal plans.
