Overview
Since returning to office, the Trump administration has significantly expanded immigration detention capacity, using new funding, purchases, leases and expanded contracts with local jails and private prison companies. Roughly $85 billion in fresh appropriations includes about $45 billion earmarked for immigration detention over four years. That influx has helped make Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the nation’s highest‑funded law enforcement agency and has accelerated conversions of warehouses and other large buildings into detention sites.
Scope and scale
Government records analyzed by researchers 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—and the number of locations is growing. ICE “book‑ins” in the dataset top 750,000, with five states—Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Arizona and Georgia—accounting for just over 60% of those cases. Texas alone recorded more than 200,000 book‑ins across 115 facilities from January 2025 through mid‑October 2025.
Detention populations have risen sharply, from roughly 37,000 a year ago to more than 72,000 by the end of January 2026; daily averages now approach 70,000. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security have said they aim to create bed space for 100,000 people alleged to be in the country illegally. Internal DHS planning documents describe a “Hub and Spoke” model: eight large centers holding 7,500–10,000 people each supported by 16 regional processing centers of 500–1,500 people. Proposed mega‑centers—such as one planned near Social Circle, Georgia—would dramatically change small towns, with the Social Circle facility roughly doubling the size of a community of about 5,000.
Private contractors and profit motives
The largest detention operations are run by for‑profit companies, notably GEO Group and CoreCivic, each reporting more than $2 billion in revenue in 2025. Other firms with major DHS and ICE contracts include Akima Global Services and Akima Infrastructure Protection. Oversight groups and contract trackers say awards to private contractors have climbed steeply since the administration’s return.
Conditions, deaths and oversight concerns
Reports of overcrowding, inadequate food, limited medical care and deaths in custody have increased alongside the rapid expansion of capacity. ICE has opened investigations into multiple detainee deaths; since October, 26 people died in ICE custody, putting the agency on track for its deadliest fiscal year since its founding. Advocates and some public officials warn that reduced oversight and record detainee populations heighten the risks of sickness, abuse and death. Local health leaders, elected officials and members of Congress report limited access to facilities and scant federal transparency.
Local backlash and community response
Pushback has emerged across political lines. Grassroots organizing, city councils, mayors and state officials have stalled or reversed several planned sites:
– Merrimack, New Hampshire: community opposition halted a proposed facility.
– Oklahoma City: DHS withdrew plans to convert a vacant warehouse after local resistance.
– Hutchins, Texas: a developer declined to sell or lease a million‑square‑foot warehouse to DHS following pressure.
– Surprise, Arizona: the $70 million purchase of a 400,000‑square‑foot warehouse sparked protests and demands for disclosure about operations.
– Roxbury, New Jersey; Hagerstown, Maryland; Social Circle and Oakwood, Georgia: purchases and proposals prompted protests, local resolutions and other resistance.
– Byhalia, Mississippi: senior Republican Senator Roger Wicker publicly opposed a proposed center intended to hold thousands.
Public opinion appears to be shifting. In a recent national survey, 65% of respondents said ICE has “gone too far” enforcing immigration laws—an 11‑point rise from the previous summer.
Transparency and local costs
A consistent complaint from mayors, county executives and planners is secrecy. Local officials say DHS provided little or no communication about site selection, operational plans or community impact studies, leaving municipalities to estimate infrastructure, water, sewer and public‑safety costs.
Examples include Social Circle placing a lock on a water meter until DHS clarifies water and sewer commitments; Oakwood officials saying ICE paid roughly $68 million for a site assessed at about $7.2 million and warning of an estimated $2.6 million in additional sewer expenses; and Merrillville, Indiana, passing a resolution opposing a conversion after no federal communication.
Political and municipal responses
The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed emergency resolutions urging federal agencies to improve transparency, ensure detainees have access to legal assistance, require that repurposed buildings meet local health and safety standards, and obtain appropriate zoning and permits before converting facilities into detention or deportation centers. Some Republican and Democratic local leaders alike have expressed concerns about sanitary and safety standards if large warehouses are repurposed for long‑term detention.
Local wins and costs
Community resistance has successfully blocked or delayed several sites, and some jurisdictions have adopted preemptive bans or passed resolutions opposing detention facilities. At the same time, some counties have accepted contracts for the revenue and jobs they bring. For example, Charlton County, Georgia, receives about $230,000 a year under a GEO contract—money local leaders say covers roughly 20% of county salaries—while officials acknowledge tensions between economic benefits and moral concerns about detention and deportation.
Where things stand
ICE maintains new facilities will meet federal detention standards and provide jobs and revenue, saying sites undergo due diligence and community impact reviews. Many local officials dispute that they received comprehensive studies or adequate communication. As ICE continues to expand its footprint through purchases, leases and contractor agreements, communities nationwide are grappling with transparency, local costs, oversight and humanitarian concerns—and in numerous places are mobilizing successfully to block, slow or reshape federal plans.