Which private prison contractors and local jails receive the largest share of ICE detention funding in 2025?
Executive summary
The lion’s share of new 2025 ICE detention funding is poised to flow to large private prison firms—primarily CoreCivic and GEO Group—and to local jails that enter public‑private partnerships or sole‑source contracts with ICE, as congressional appropriations give ICE roughly $28.7 billion in 2025 and a $45 billion, multi‑year detention program that could add tens of thousands of beds [1] [2]. Reporting shows ICE is using no‑bid and emergency contracts to rapidly expand bed capacity, boosting profits and capacity estimates for CoreCivic and GEO while pressuring counties and firms such as Management & Training Corporation and other local jail partners to host new detention sites [3] [4] [2].
1. Who the big winners are: CoreCivic and GEO Group take center stage
Multiple analyses identify the two largest private prison corporations—CoreCivic and GEO Group—as the primary corporate beneficiaries of ICE’s enlarged detention budget; both firms already operate many ICE beds and are explicitly named by advocacy groups and legal analysts as poised to expand their roles and profits under the 2025 funding package [2] [1]. Independent reporting and DOJ/ICE contract changes show ICE is accelerating work with large firms through urgent letter contracts and sole‑source justifications that advantage established national operators like CoreCivic and GEO [3] [5].
2. How local jails and counties factor in: public‑private deals and revenue incentives
Local governments and county jails are also direct recipients of ICE dollars where public‑private partnerships exist; reporting from Marketplace documents counties receiving portions of ICE per‑diem payments through arrangements with contractors such as Management & Training Corporation, creating a local revenue stream tied to occupancy levels [4]. Detention Watch Network and advocacy pieces warn that sole‑source notices for named facilities (e.g., Midwest Regional Prison, North Lake Prison, California City Correctional) effectively funnel federal funds into local facilities operated by private or semi‑private partners [5].
3. The contracting methods that steer money to big firms
AP reporting documents ICE’s use of no‑bid or emergency contracts and “letter contracts” that provide initial funding before formal deals are struck—mechanisms that favor large contractors with existing infrastructure and political connections [3]. Brennan Center and Stateline analyses argue these procurement shortcuts make it likely a large share of the $45 billion solicitation and other emergency funds will be awarded quickly to major private operators rather than to more competitive or community‑based alternatives [6] [7].
4. Scale of the spending that creates concentrated flows
Analysts cite a package that makes available up to $45 billion over two years specifically tied to detention expansion, combined with a $28.7 billion ICE budget figure for 2025, with tens of billions earmarked for detention and removal operations—numbers that would fund the creation or augmentation of capacity to well over 100,000 beds and thus concentrate substantial per‑diem payments in firms that supply thousands of beds [1] [6] [7].
5. Competing perspectives and political framing
Advocates and watchdog groups frame these flows as a “deportation‑industrial complex” that cements private profits and local revenue incentives, warning about weakened oversight and human‑rights harms [1] [8] [5]. The administration and ICE justify rapid contracting as necessary to meet an asserted “compelling urgency” for beds; AP reporting highlights ICE officials’ use of urgency language to justify no‑bid deals that speed capacity increases [3]. Both narratives rest on the same procurement facts but diverge sharply on whether speed is a technical necessity or a policy choice that privileges private contractors.
6. What the available reporting does not specify
Available sources name CoreCivic, GEO Group, Management & Training Corporation and broadly reference “other private contractors” and county partners, but they do not provide a definitive, ranked list showing exact dollar amounts or the precise largest recipients in 2025 by contract value [3] [4] [2]. Exact allocations, per‑contract dollar totals, and a complete roster of local jails receiving the largest shares are not published in the sources provided here—ICE’s transparency on contract award amounts remains incomplete in this reporting [9] [5].
7. What to watch next — verification points and data sources
To establish a precise ranking of 2025 dollar recipients, watch for released ICE contract award notices, DHS procurement summaries, Congressional appropriations committee reports, and TRAC’s facility‑by‑facility capacity/contractual data, which have previously provided granular counts and would show per‑diem rates and bed commitments by contractor [9] [6]. Expect continued investigative reporting from AP, ProPublica, Marketplace and nonprofits like Brennan Center and Detention Watch Network to track which companies and counties receive the biggest shares as formal awards and longer‑term contracts are published [3] [4] [5].
Limitations: this summary relies only on the supplied reporting; exact dollar rankings by contractor or county for 2025 are not available in these sources and therefore are not asserted here [3] [4] [2].