Which corporations appear in USAspending.gov as current ICE contractors and how to search those records?
Executive summary
USAspending.gov is the authoritative public database for federal contracts and shows hundreds of companies with active awards from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); prominent names that appear in recent reporting and public extractions of USAspending data include Palantir, Dell (government arm), General Dynamics, The GEO Group, Labcorp, Thomson Reuters, Xerox, Quantico Tactical and a range of regional service firms such as Spectrum Security and Stericycle [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Anyone seeking to verify or compile a current list must use USAspending’s agency filters and run multiple name/alias searches because contracts can be routed through subsidiaries, task orders, or GSA vehicles [6] [7] [8].
1. Which corporations show up most often in public extractions of USAspending’s ICE records
Investigations and industry tracking that pull directly from USAspending identify a mix of national corporate contractors — including Palantir (large analytics/software payments), Dell’s government contracting arm (Power BI licensing), General Dynamics (investigative services), The GEO Group (detention operator), Laboratory Corporation of America (Labcorp) for lab services, Thomson Reuters (subscriptions to law-enforcement databases) and Xerox (equipment/support) — alongside logistics and communications vendors such as carriers and defense suppliers named in mid‑2020s reporting [2] [3] [9] [10]. State- and region-focused compilations built from USAspending also flag hundreds of smaller service providers: security companies such as Spectrum Security (California), Stericycle (Ohio operations), and specialized suppliers like Quantico Tactical appear in state and nonprofit analyses drawing from the same database [4] [5] [3].
2. How to find these contractor records on USAspending.gov — practical search steps
Start at USAspending.gov’s main search and apply the Funding Agency filter to “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)” to surface awards tied to that agency; that filter has been used in many state-level and investigative searches cited by legal groups and reporters [6] [5]. Use the Recipient Name field to query exact corporate names and also run variations — parent company + subsidiary, common misspellings, and DBAs — because awards can be recorded under differing entity names or via prime/subcontract structures [7] [8]. Exportable search results and contract-level pages show obligated amounts, period of performance, award types (firm fixed-price, IDIQ/task order), and prime/subcontract relationships; interactive tools and downloadable tables have been used by journalists and advocacy groups to map contractors nationally [1] [11]. For reproducibility, save the query parameters or export the CSV so others can validate the same set of awards [11].
3. What the database does — and what it doesn’t — tell a researcher
USAspending reliably lists award actions, obligated amounts, recipient legal entity names and award descriptions; it is the government’s transparency tool relied on by newsrooms, nonprofits and law firms compiling contractor lists [1] [10]. However, data are dynamic: task orders, multi‑year IDIQ vehicles, and subcontracting chains mean a firm’s role or dollar exposure can change rapidly, and some public lists intentionally supplement database pulls with agency FOIA records or corporate disclosures to clarify relationships [8] [12]. Reporters and researchers warn that a single USAspending entry does not always capture the full operational picture — e.g., whether a vendor’s work is directly tied to enforcement actions or is a general goods/services award — so best practice is to cross‑check SAM.gov, ICE FOIA contract pages, and original award documents when attribution matters [7] [12].
4. How different sources shape the narrative and why cross-checking matters
Coverage ranges from Fortune’s list of Fortune 500 firms with active ICE contracts (a corporate-focused framing) to investigative outlets and advocacy groups mapping hundreds of vendors and regional suppliers from USAspending extracts; each compilation reflects editorial choices about which award types or dollar thresholds to surface, and some projects note accuracy caveats or invite community corrections [9] [11] [2]. That diversity of approach matters because hidden agendas can color emphasis — corporate reputational risk, advocacy pressure campaigns, or investigative storytelling — so independent verification on USAspending (and, when needed, SAM.gov or ICE FOIA contract pages) is essential before asserting that a company “serves ICE” in a particular operational sense [7] [12].