The Trump administration has rapidly expanded migrant detention, provoking resistance in diverse communities as the government seeks to scale arrests, detention and deportations to levels not seen in modern U.S. history. With roughly $85 billion in new funding and about $45 billion earmarked to expand immigration detention over four years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is leasing and buying warehouses and other buildings nationwide to convert into detention space, while also enlarging contracts with local jails and private prison operators. ICE is now the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country.
Government 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 sites across the U.S. These include dedicated ICE centers, private prisons, county jails, military bases, hospitals, temporary holding areas and converted warehouses. The number of sites continues to grow.
Detention operations are 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 logged more than 200,000 book-ins across 115 facilities. A year ago about 37,000 people were held in immigration detention; by the end of January 2026 that number had risen above 72,000. DHS has signaled a goal of creating capacity for 100,000 beds. Facilities now hold nearly 70,000 people on average daily, a scale of detention compared by observers to historical mass internments.
DHS documents describe a “Hub and Spoke Model” to expand capacity: eight large centers holding 7,500–10,000 people each, fed by 16 regional processing centers holding 500–1,500 people. Proposed mega sites, such as one in Social Circle, Georgia, would dramatically increase local populations — one plan would roughly double a town of about 5,000.
The expansion is meeting growing grassroots opposition. Communities from Georgia to Texas, Arizona, New Hampshire and beyond have mobilized over concerns about infrastructure, costs, zoning, transparency and ethics. Residents who once supported tougher immigration enforcement have in some cases turned against the scale and secrecy of the initiative. Protests, council meetings and public pressure have halted or slowed plans in places including Merrimack, New Hampshire; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Hutchins, Texas; and other sites. In several cases private owners or local officials withdrew or blocked sales and conversions after community backlash.
Polling shows increasing public unease: an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll found 65% of Americans say ICE has “gone too far” in enforcing immigration laws, an 11-point rise since the previous summer.
Reports of overcrowding, lack of food and limited oversight have heightened concerns. ICE has opened investigations into multiple detainee deaths; 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 reduced oversight and record detainee numbers raise the risk of further sickness and death.
Local leaders and mayors have criticized the federal approach. The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed emergency resolutions calling for more transparency, limits on detention expansion, assurances of legal access for detainees and that converted facilities meet local health, safety, zoning and permitting standards. Columbia, South Carolina’s Republican mayor Daniel Rickenmann said many converted sites “wouldn’t pass for any other venue,” likening them to unsuitable facilities even for homeless shelters.
A frequent complaint is DHS secrecy. City councils, county leaders and members of Congress say federal officials often fail to consult or provide operational details. In Social Circle, Georgia, officials locked a water meter to block ICE water use until the agency addresses infrastructure strain. In Oakwood, Georgia, ICE paid $68 million for a facility assessed at about $7.2 million, drawing criticism from local leaders who said they were not consulted and who warned of millions in added utility costs. Merrillville, Indiana, passed a forceful resolution after local officials learned of plans to convert a large warehouse without notice.
Some counties have taken preemptive stances: after reports DHS was scouting Missouri sites, the Jackson County Legislature approved a ban on immigration detention facilities, a symbolic move aimed at keeping the county on record against “the caging of people.” Other communities have accepted detention centers for the economic benefits they bring. Charlton County, Georgia, which hosts a GEO Group facility, expects roughly $230,000 this year from the contract — funding that can cover a sizable share of county payroll. Local officials there acknowledge the moral costs but weigh them against jobs and revenue.
The largest detention operations are run by private companies GEO Group and CoreCivic, each reporting more than $2 billion in revenue in 2025. Other contractors with substantial DHS and ICE ties include Akima Global Services and related firms. The Project on Government Oversight has reported significant increases in ICS awards to private operators since this administration began its second term.
Local officials and advocates say there has been little federal oversight or community impact analysis visible to municipalities. ICE maintains that converted warehouses will meet detention standards, bring jobs and additional tax revenue, and that due diligence and community impact studies have been completed. Many local leaders dispute that they have seen rigorous studies or adequate consultation.
Advocates and immigrant-rights groups continue to press for better oversight, transparency, 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, combined with limited local engagement, risks overcrowding, inadequate services and more deaths in custody.
To determine where people detained by ICE were held, NPR analyzed data provided by ICE in response to a FOIA request by the Deportation Data Project. In that dataset, a “book-in” is called a “stint.” Most individuals have one book-in per stay, though transfers count as separate book-ins. Facilities range from dedicated ICE centers to local jails and hospitals.
Sergio Martinez-Beltran, Jasmine Garsd, Ximena Bustillo, Alyson Hurt and Preeti Aroon contributed to this report.