The federal government is rapidly expanding immigrant detention, prompting organized resistance across many communities as authorities pursue arrests, incarceration and deportations at a scale not seen in recent U.S. history. With roughly $85 billion in new funding overall and about $45 billion set aside to grow detention capacity over four years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been acquiring and leasing warehouses and other properties nationwide to convert into detention facilities while also enlarging contracts with county jails and private prison companies. The agency is now the most highly funded law enforcement organization in the country.
Records and a Freedom of Information Act response to the Deportation Data Project analyzed by NPR show ICE detainees have been held at more than 220 different sites across the United States. These include standalone ICE centers, private prisons, county jails, military bases, hospitals, temporary holding areas and repurposed warehouses. The number of sites continues to grow as the agency scrambles for space.
Detention is concentrated in the South. Five states — Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Arizona and Georgia — account for just over 60% of more than 750,000 ICE detention “book-ins” in the dataset. Between January 2025 and mid-October 2025, Texas recorded more than 200,000 book-ins across 115 facilities. A year earlier roughly 37,000 people were held in immigration detention; by the end of January 2026 that figure had climbed above 72,000. DHS has signaled a target of capacity for 100,000 beds. Facilities now hold nearly 70,000 people on average each day, a level some observers compare to historical mass internments.
DHS has described a “Hub and Spoke” model to scale up operations: a small number of very large centers—each designed for 7,500–10,000 people—serving as hubs, supported by about 16 regional processing centers holding 500–1,500 people. Proposed mega-sites would dramatically alter local populations; one plan in Social Circle, Georgia, for example, would roughly double the town’s size.
That rapid expansion has triggered widespread grassroots opposition. Residents, local officials and advocacy groups from Georgia to Texas, Arizona, New Hampshire and beyond have raised alarms about infrastructure strain, local costs, zoning and ethics, and about federal secrecy and lack of consultation. Protests, public meetings and organized pressure have delayed or blocked conversions in places including Merrimack, New Hampshire; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Hutchins, Texas; and others. In multiple cases private property owners or local leaders withdrew from deals or blocked sales after community backlash.
Public sentiment appears to be shifting. An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll found 65% of Americans say ICE has “gone too far” in enforcing immigration laws, an increase of 11 percentage points since the previous summer.
Concerns about conditions inside facilities have intensified. Reports of overcrowding, insufficient food and limited oversight have drawn scrutiny; ICE is investigating multiple deaths in custody. Since October, 26 people have died in ICE custody, putting the agency on track for its deadliest fiscal year since its founding. Advocates warn that record detainee populations combined with reduced oversight increase the risk of sickness and additional deaths.
Local elected officials and municipal groups have been outspoken. The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed emergency resolutions calling for transparency, limits on detention expansion, guaranteed legal access for detainees, and assurances that any converted sites meet local health, safety, zoning and permitting standards. Some mayors and council members have said they were not consulted and that proposed conversions would not meet ordinary standards for other uses, including emergency shelters.
A common complaint is federal secrecy and the short notice given to localities. City councils, county boards and members of Congress say they frequently receive little operational detail. In Social Circle, Georgia, local officials even locked a water meter to block ICE from drawing municipal water until infrastructure impacts were addressed. In Oakwood, Georgia, ICE’s $68 million purchase of a facility that local assessors valued at roughly $7.2 million drew fierce criticism from leaders who said they had not been consulted and warned of millions in added utility costs. Merrillville, Indiana, passed a forceful resolution after officials learned of conversion plans without prior notice.
Some counties have taken formal preemptive steps. After reports that DHS was scouting Missouri sites, the Jackson County Legislature approved a ban on immigration detention facilities to put the county on record opposing what officials called “the caging of people.” Other communities have chosen to host detention centers for the revenue and jobs they provide; Charlton County, Georgia, which houses a GEO Group facility, expects about $230,000 from its contract this year, money that covers a significant share of county payroll. Local officials there acknowledge moral concerns but weigh them against economic benefits.
Private prison companies are central to the expansion. GEO Group and CoreCivic, the two largest contractors, each reported more than $2 billion in revenue in 2025. Other firms with sizable DHS and ICE contracts include Akima Global Services and related companies. Watchdogs such as the Project on Government Oversight have documented steep increases in contract awards to private operators since this administration’s second term began.
Local leaders and advocates say they have seen little evidence of robust federal oversight or community impact studies available to municipalities. ICE asserts that converted facilities will meet detention standards, create jobs and add tax revenue, and that necessary due diligence and community-impact assessments have been conducted. Many local officials dispute they have received rigorous studies or adequate consultation.
Immigrant-rights groups continue pressing for stronger oversight, more transparency, guaranteed access to legal counsel for detainees, and restrictions on using nontraditional facilities for detention. They warn that a sprawling network of repurposed warehouses and expanded jail contracts, pursued with limited local engagement, risks overcrowding, inadequate services and more deaths in custody.
To map where people detained by ICE were held, NPR analyzed data ICE provided in response to a FOIA request by the Deportation Data Project. In that dataset a “book-in” is labeled a “stint”: most people have one book-in per stay, though transfers are counted as separate book-ins. Facilities in the files range from dedicated ICE centers to local jails, hospitals and converted warehouses.