LOCALIZE IT: Trump’s administration seeks to expand immigrant detention facilities
By DAVID A. LIEB, HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH and MORGAN LEE
Associated Press
EDITORS/NEWS DIRECTORS:
Officials with President Donald Trump’s administration have been scouting cities and counties across the U.S. for places to locate new immigrant detention and processing facilities. More than 75,000 immigrants were being detained by ICE as of mid-January, up from 40,000 when Trump took office a year earlier, according to federal data released Tuesday.
The search is part of a $45 billion expansion of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities financed by a tax-cutting law signed last year by Trump. In a little over a year, the number of detention facilities used by ICE more than doubled, to 225 sites spread across a combined 48 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.
But some states and communities are pushing back against ICE detention facilities. Legislation pending in several states seeks to prevent local governments from contracting to detain people for ICE or to discourage privately run ICE detention facilities.
Meanwhile, some cities and counties are considering whether local building permits and regulations can be enforced on facilities used by ICE.
The fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota have amplified an already intense spotlight on ICE, increasing scrutiny of its plans for new detention sites.
This Localize It guide includes resources for finding ICE facilities near you, links to pending legislation, and details on potential new ICE sites in more than a dozen states.
___
READ AP’S LATEST COVERAGE
Trump’s $45 billion expansion of immigrant detention sites faces pushback from communities
___
FIND ICE DETENTION SITES NEAR YOU
The federal government maintains a list of all facilities used to hold ICE detainees.
Data on ICE detention facilities can be downloaded from this website by selecting the item near the bottom of the page or by clicking directly on following link: “ Detention FY 2026 YTD, Alternatives to Detention FY 2026 YTD and Facilities FY 2026 YTD, Footnotes (221 KB).” The downloaded spreadsheet contains a tab (the 7th tab to the right) labeled, “Facilities FY26.” Note that the list excludes a few categories of facilities, such as juvenile facilities.
As of mid-January, ICE was using 225 facilities spread across 48 U.S. states and territories. The jurisdictions with the greatest number of facilities being used for ICE detention were:
Texas: 28
Florida: 18
Louisiana: 11
Kentucky: 10
California, Georgia and New York: 8
___
READ STATE LEGISLATION
Hundreds of bills pertaining to immigration will be considered in state legislatures this year. Some of those specifically address facilities used by ICE to detain immigrants.
Here’s a link to some of those pending bills, with a brief description of what they do:
California AB 1633: imposes a 50% tax on the gross receipts of privately run detention facilities, effective Jan. 1, 2027
Delaware HB 151: prohibits private detention facilities
Hawaii HB 73 and SB 794: bars public lands from being used for immigrant detention facilities
Maryland HB 630: prohibits immigrant detention facilities at buildings not originally designed for housing or detaining people
Massachusetts HB 1588 and S 1122: prohibits law enforcement agencies from entering into immigrant detention agreements
New Hampshire HB 1609: bars public entities from allowing facilities to be used, sold or donated to others for immigrant detention
New Mexico HB 9: prohibits state and local government agreements to use facilities for immigrant detention
New York A 4181 and S 316: prohibits governmental entities from entering into immigrant detention agreements
New York A 1723 and S632: prohibits the use of public funds or resources for new immigrant detention facilities without state legislative approval
Rhode Island H 7436 and S 2278: prohibits governmental entities from entering into immigrant detention agreements
Washington SB 6109: prohibits state investments in entities that own, lease or run private detention facilities
Washington: SB 6286: allows the state to impose daily fines on private detention facilities that deny access for inspections
___
FIND YOUR STATE: NEW POTENTIAL ICE SITES
ARIZONA:
ICE paid $70 million last month for a vast warehouse facility on the northwestern outskirts of Phoenix, according to a deed filed with Maricopa County.
The city of Surprise said in a statement released Friday that it was not aware that there were efforts underway to purchase the building, was not notified of the transaction by any of the parties involved and has not been contacted by Homeland Security or any federal agency about the intended use of the building.
The statement said federal projects are not subject to local regulations, such as zoning.
FLORIDA:
In Orlando, Mayor Buddy Dyer said in a statement that the city was advised that it has no legal options to halt a possible ICE facility from opening.
The statement said the city has not been informed by the federal government of potential plans, but a TV reporter spotted a group of private contractors and federal officials touring a 439,945-square-foot industrial warehouse last month. ICE senior advisor David Venturella told a reporter with WFTV at the time that the tour was “exploratory” and that nothing had been decided yet.
City attorney Mayanne Downs said in a letter that “ICE is immune from any local regulation that interferes in any way with its federal mandate.”
INDIANA:
The town council in Merrillville passed a resolution last week in opposition of ICE converting a warehouse into a processing or detention facility.
The city said it was aware of a tour of the newly constructed, 275,000-square-foot warehouse. But it said it had received no notice or communication from ICE, the Department of Homeland Security or any federal agency about any possible plans.
An earlier statement said that the town was reviewing zoning, land use and occupancy requirements.
MARYLAND:
ICE purchased a warehouse in a county about 60 miles (96.56 kilometers) northwest of Baltimore for $102.4 million, a deed signed last month shows. The deed was unearthed by Project Salt Box, a Maryland ICE watchdog.
Officials in Washington County said in a Facebook post that the Department of Homeland Security sent a letter beforehand that it was considering purchasing the warehouse for use as a “new ICE Baltimore Processing Facility.” Cafeterias, bathrooms, health care spaces, tents and guard shacks could be part of the project, according to the letter that was addressed to historic and planning officials in the county.
The county said there wasn’t much they could do because the federal government generally does not need to respect local zoning regulations that conflict with federal mandates.
“Washington County is not able to legally restrict the federal government’s ability to proceed,” the post said.
MINNESOTA:
In the suburbs of Minneapolis, the owners of two warehouses have pulled out of possible ICE deals amid a public outcry
In Woodbury, Mayor Anne Burt said in a Facebook post last month that city staff had confirmed that a warehouse in the city isn’t being sold or leased to the federal government. She also confirmed at a council meeting that ICE had been interested in the property.
Owners of another warehouse in Shakopee also decided not to move forward, State Rep. Brad Tabke announced last month in a Facebook post.
“They heard you, they listened,” he said.
MISSISSIPPI:
Federal officials were spotted last month scouting a building in Marshall County, the county’s board vice president, Neil Bennett, told the local paper, The Commercial Appeal.
Bennett said he was not aware of the visit beforehand because it’s a privately owned building, but that he heard about it “later on.” The building is listed as available for sale and lease on the website of JLL Properties, a purveyor of commercial real estate.
Bennett told The Associated Press that he didn’t have time to discuss the situation when contacted Tuesday because he was dealing with ongoing power outages in the area. A woman who answered the phone at the county government building said the county isn’t commenting at this time.
MISSOURI:
In Kansas City, the city council passed a five-year moratorium on non-city-run detention facilities on the very day that ICE officials were spotted touring a warehouse.
Manny Abarca, a county lawmaker, was initially threatened with trespassing when he showed up Jan. 15 at the nearly 1-million-square-foot (92903.13 square meters) building on the outskirts of Kansas City.
He said he was eventually allowed inside where Shawn Byers, the deputy field office director for ICE in Chicago, told him that they were scouting for a 7,500 bed site.
Abarca announced last week he was introducing a similar detention moratorium at the county level.
“When federal power is putting communities are on edge, local government has a responsibility to act where we have authority,” he said in a statement.
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
The town council in Merrimack — population 30,000 — expressed its opposition to an ICE immigration detention and processing center in a January letter to the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, without receiving a direct response.
Council members fear federal acquisition of a commercial warehouse in Merrimack – 45 miles northwest of Boston — would undermine the city’s property tax base by more than $500,000 a year, shifting costs to other property owners.
The Department of Homeland Security told New Hampshire’s delegation to Washington that ICE is “reviewing its detention structure and acquisition strategy to address a historic operational tempo and increasing arrests” and had no new detention centers to announce. The ACLU of New Hampshire said Tuesday that public records show ICE has consulted with state historic preservation officials about development of a 43-acre site at Merrimack.
Democratic state Rep. Rosemarie Rung of Merrimack says her constituents worry about the strain of an immigration detention center on local emergency services and public infrastructure.
“I really suspect that the silent treatment is deliberate so that they can avoid any protests regarding this facility,” said the fourth-term Democrat. “It makes us all very suspect.”
NEW JERSEY:
In Roxbury, council members passed a resolution saying that they aren’t in support of an ICE facility after township manager J.J. Murphy spotted ICE officials touring a warehouse there last month. The council also pointed out that the township’s zoning regulations prohibit using the warehouse as a detention facility.
ICE’s plans for the site are unclear. Murphy said in an interview with The Associated Press Monday that the township has received no information from federal officials about their plans for the site despite repeated emails.
That hasn’t stopped the township from sharing an internal memo from the city’s engineer about water and sewar issues at the site with the owner of the warehouse. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker also has toured the site.
NEW YORK:
Elected officials are pushing back after the Department of Homeland Security posted a notice announcing a proposal to purchase a vacant warehouse in Chester, a town more than an hour north of New York City, for “ICE operations.” ICE said the proposed improvements would include a small guard building and outdoor recreation area.
The notice was needed because the former distribution center for the aftermarket automotive chain PepBoys is in a 100-year flood plain.
New York State Sen. Michelle Hinchey, a Democrat, said in a statement that she would support the Town and Village boards as they use “every legal, zoning, and environmental tool available” to block the facility.
OKLAHOMA:
In Oklahoma City, Mayor David Holt announced Thursday that he has been informed that the Department of Homeland Security is longer in talks to acquire a warehouse after the city council urged federal officials to take part in the city’s permitting process.
The Department of Homeland Security informed the city in a letter last month that it intended to purchase a 26.8 acre warehouse in the city for ICE operations.
But as crowds opposed to the facility packed the city council meeting this week, the council said the city was exploring legal options. Holt said the property owners then informed him that they are no longer engaged with Homeland Security about a potential acquisition or lease of this property.
“I commend the owners for their decision and thank them on behalf of the people of Oklahoma City,” Holt said in the post. “As Mayor, I ask that every single property owner in Oklahoma City exhibit the same concern for our community in the days ahead.”
PENNSYLVANIA:
ICE paid $87.4 million for a nearly 520,000-square-foot warehouse, according to a deed that was recorded Monday in Berks County.
Real estate developers promoted it as a “state-of-the art logistics center” located 45 minutes from Allentown, an hour and a half from Philadelphia and two hours from New York City.
The county spokesman, Jonathan Heintzman, said in an email that the county was informed Monday by the recorder of deeds of the purchase. Heintzman said the county had no prior knowledge of the sale and had no information on future plans for the property.
TEXAS:
In El Paso County, officials entered into an executive session Monday night to discuss the “legal rights and responsibilities pertaining to detention centers” within the county. The meeting came amid reports that ICE is eying a warehouse in the county.
Other cities in Texas also have been named in unconfirmed reports, but officials haven’t heard any information from federal officials.
UTAH:
In Salt Lake City, Mayor Erin Mendenhall expressed gratitude last week in her State of the City address that the owners of a warehouse that ICE was eying as a detention facility had announced plans not to sell or lease the property to the federal government.
The announcement from the Ritchie Group, a Utah real estate developer, came after Mendenhall sent a letter saying that the building would need to address a host of requirements before obtaining an occupancy permit.
“But let me be clear: this isn’t just about zoning restrictions,” Mendenhall said. “Such a facility has no place in our city. Whether at that site or anywhere else.”
VIRGINIA:
In the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia, officials in Hanover County are asking their attorney to evaluate legal options after the Department of Homeland Security sent a letter confirming its intent to purchase and operate an ICE processing facility in an area that includes retail, hotels and restaurants.
Sean Davis, the county’s board of supervisors chair, said the facility would cut into tax revenue but acknowledged at a packed meeting last week that there was only so much it could do to oppose it.
“The federal government is generally exempt from our zoning regulations,” he said.
Dozens of speakers turned out — some in support of the facility and others opposed.
“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,” Kimberly Matthews of Mechanicsville told supervisors.
___
CONSIDER THESE REPORTING THREADS AND TIPS
— Is there an immigration detention center proposed or already functioning in your area? Review the ICE detention center list cited above to find existing facilities. Review the AP’s list of potential sites and talk to local elected leaders to see if they have heard anything about proposed detention facilities. What details are available about these facilities? How many people can they house? Who owns the facilities?
— If your community is near an existing or proposed immigrant detention facility, talk to residents who live nearby to see what they think about the facilities. Do they have concerns? Do they view the facilities as a benefit or detriment to the local economy? Talk also to the owners of nearby businesses and local nonprofits that provide community services to see if the detention facilities have any effect on them.
— Is your state considering legislation related to immigrant detention facilities? Review the AP’s list above but also check on your legislature’s website to see if additional bills have been filed. Talk to lawmakers about why they are supporting or opposing these bills. If the legislation is scheduled for a committee hearing, attend or watch online to get the opinions or residents and lobbyists.
___
READ ADDTIONAL AP COVERAGE
Protesters close schools and stores during a nationwide strike against Trump’s immigration policies
Trump’s ICE force is sweeping America. Billions in his tax and spending cuts bill are paying for it
Judge refuses to block new DHS policy limiting Congress members’ access to ICE facilities
ICE is using no-bid contracts, boosting big firms, to get more detention beds
___
Localize It is a resource produced regularly by The Associated Press for its customers’ use. Questions can be directed to the Local News Success team at localizeit@ap.org. View guides published in the last 30 days here.
