Trump's $45 billion expansion of immigrant detention sites faces
pushback from communities
[February 03, 2026]
By DAVID A. LIEB, HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH and MORGAN LEE
With tensions high over federal immigration enforcement, some state and
local officials are pushing back against attempts by President Donald
Trump’s administration to house thousands of detained immigrants in
their communities in converted warehouses, privately run facilities and
county jails.
Federal officials have been scouting cities and counties across the U.S.
for places to hold immigrants as they roll out a massive $45 billion
expansion of detention facilities financed by Trump's recent tax-cutting
law.
The fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during immigration
enforcement actions in Minnesota have amplified an already intense
spotlight on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, increasing
scrutiny of its plans for new detention sites.
A proposed ICE facility just north of Richmond, Virginia, drew hundreds
of people last week to a tense public hearing of the Hanover County
Board of Supervisors.
“You want what’s happening in Minnesota to go down in our own backyard?
Build that detention center here, and that’s exactly what will happen,”
resident Kimberly Matthews told county officials.
As a prospective ICE detention site became public, elected officials in
Kansas City, Missouri, scrambled to pass an ordinance aimed at blocking
it. And mayors in Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City — after raising
concerns about building permits — announced last week that property
owners won't be selling or leasing their facilities for immigration
detention.
Meanwhile, legislatures in several Democratic-led states pressed forward
with bills aimed at blocking or discouraging ICE facilities. A New
Mexico measure targets local government agreements to detain immigrants
for ICE. A novel California proposal seeks to nudge companies running
ICE facilities out of the state by imposing a 50% tax on their proceeds.
The number of ICE detention sites has doubled
More than 70,000 immigrants were being detained by ICE as of late
December, up from 40,000 when Trump took office, according to federal
data.
In a little over a year, the number of detention facilities used by ICE
nearly doubled to 212 sites spread across 47 states and territories.
Most of that growth came through existing contracts with the U.S.
Marshals Service or deals to use empty beds at county jails.
Trump's administration now is taking steps to open more large-scale
facilities. In January, ICE paid $102 million for a warehouse in
Washington County, Maryland, $84 million for one in Berks County,
Pennsylvania, and more than $70 million for one in Surprise, Arizona. It
also solicited public comment on a proposed warehouse purchase in a
flood plain in Chester, New York.
Federal immigration officials have toured large warehouses elsewhere,
without releasing many details about the efforts.
“They will be very well structured detention facilities meeting our
regular detention standards,” ICE said in a statement, adding: “It
should not come as news that ICE will be making arrests in states across
the U.S. and is actively working to expand detention space.”
Detention site foes face legal limitations
State and local governments can decline to lease detention space to ICE,
but they generally cannot prohibit businesses and private landowners
from using their property for federal immigrant detention centers, said
Danielle Jefferis, an associate law professor at the University of
Nebraska who focuses on immigration and civil litigation.
In 2023, a federal court invalidated a California law barring private
immigrant detention facilities for infringing on federal powers. A
federal appeals court panel cited similar grounds in July while striking
down a New Jersey law that forbade agreements to operate immigrant
detention facilities.
After ICE officials recently toured a warehouse in Orlando, Florida, as
a prospective site, local officials looked into ways to regulate or
prevent it. But City Attorney Mayanne Downs advised them in a letter
that “ICE is immune from any local regulation that interferes in any way
with its federal mandate.”
[to top of second column]
|
Officials in Hanover County also asked their attorney to evaluate
legal options after the Department of Homeland Security sent a
letter confirming its intent to purchase a private property for use
as an ICE processing facility. The building sits near retail
businesses, hotels, restaurants and several neighborhoods.
Although some residents voiced concerns that an ICE facility could
strain the county's resources, there's little the county can do to
oppose it, said Board of Supervisors Chair Sean Davis.
“The federal government is generally exempt from our zoning
regulations,” Davis said.
Kansas City tries to block new ICE detention site
Despite court rulings elsewhere, the City Council in Kansas City
voted in January to impose a five-year moratorium on non-city-run
detention facilities. The vote came on the same day ICE officials
toured a nearly 1-million-square-foot (92,903-square-meter)
warehouse as a prospective site.
Manny Abarca, a county lawmaker, said he initially was threatened
with trespassing when he showed up but was eventually allowed inside
the facility, where a deputy ICE field office director told him they
were scouting for a 7,500-bed site.
Abarca is trying to fortify Kansas City’s resistance by proposing a
countywide moratorium on permits, zoning changes and development
plans for detention facilities not run by the county or a city.
“When federal power is putting communities on edge, local government
has a responsibility to act where we have authority,” he said.
Kansas City is looking to follow a similar path as Leavenworth,
Kansas, which has argued that private prison firm CoreCivic must
have an operating permit to reopen a shuttered prison as an ICE
detention facility.
As other ICE proposals have surfaced, officials in Social Circle,
Georgia, El Paso, Texas, and Roxbury Township, New Jersey, all have
raised concerns about a lack of water and sewer capacity to
transform warehouses into detention sites.
Nationally, it remains to be seen whether local governments can
effectively deter ICE facilities through building permits and
regulations.
“We’re currently in a moment where it is being tested," Jefferis
said. "So there is no clear answer as to how the courts are going to
come down.”
New Mexico targets existing ICE facilities
The Democratic-led New Mexico House on Friday passed legislation
banning state and local government contracts for ICE detention
facilities, sending it to the Senate. Similar bills are pending in
Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island.
The Otero County Processing Center, 25 miles (40 kilometers) from
downtown El Paso, Texas, is one of three privately run ICE
facilities that could be affected by the New Mexico legislation. The
facility includes four immigration courtrooms and space for more
than 1,000 detainees. The county financed its construction in 2007
with the intent to use it as a revenue source, and plans to pay off
the remaining $16.5 million debt by 2028.
Otero County Attorney Roy Nichols said the county is prepared to sue
the Legislature under a state law that prevents impairment of
outstanding revenue bonds.
Republicans warned of job losses and economic fallout if the
legislation forces immigrant detention centers to close.
But Democratic state Rep. Sarah Silva, who voted for the ban, and
said her constituents in a heavily Hispanic area view the ICE
facility as a burden.
“Our state can’t be complicit in the violations that ICE has been
doing in places like Minneapolis," Silva said. "To me that was
beyond the tipping point.”
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
