Which private prison companies have won new ICE detention contracts since the One Big Beautiful Bill passed?
Executive summary
Since passage of the 2025 “One Big, Beautiful Bill” (also reported as H.R. 1 or the 2025 reconciliation bill), reporting shows the primary private prison companies that have won new or expanded ICE detention contracts are CoreCivic and GEO Group, with both firms reopening idle facilities, receiving contract modifications and securing multi‑year awards tied to the expanded detention funding [1] [2] [3].
1. CoreCivic and GEO Group — the clear front‑runners
Multiple outlets identify CoreCivic and GEO Group as the major beneficiaries of post‑bill ICE contracting: CoreCivic has signed deals to reopen facilities including a 1,033‑bed Leavenworth site and to reactivate the Dilley family center, and GEO Group has had contract modifications to reopen Delaney Hall in Newark and adjacent facilities in Georgia, among other reactivations [2] [1] [3]. Reporting ties a reported $1 billion, 15‑year New Jersey contract to a private firm that matches GEO’s known activity in the region, and both companies’ executives have publicly told investors the bill is driving renewed contracting opportunities [4] [5] [6].
2. Scale and concrete examples cited by reporting
The new contracting activity is substantial in scale: GEO Group reported reactivating four facilities totaling roughly 6,600 beds since January, and ICE’s contracts or modifications include sites with capacities in the thousands — for example CoreCivic’s California City site (2,560 beds), promised reopenings in Leavenworth (1,033 beds), and GEO‑owned Delaney Hall (~1,000 beds) and a southeastern Georgia expansion adding 1,868 beds [5] [3] [2] [1]. Stateline reported a 15‑year, $1 billion, ~1,000‑bed contract in New Jersey tied to GEO’s Delaney Hall reopening [1] [4].
3. How contracts were awarded and operational tactics
Reporting documents a mix of approaches: ICE used contract modifications and no‑bid or expedited procurements citing “compelling urgency” to rapidly add beds, and private operators have reactivated idle facilities and added beds via contract amendments rather than only through open competitive bidding [2] [3]. CoreCivic and GEO have publicly framed reactivations and added bed capacity as direct responses to the new federal funding and to ICE’s stated emergency needs [5] [6].
4. Political and financial context shaping who won contracts
Analyses from CREW, Brennan Center and others connect the contract windfall to the bill’s $45 billion allocation for detention and to campaign and lobbying ties between the big private operators and Republican officials or the Trump campaign, and both GEO and CoreCivic told investors they expected revenue gains linked to the bill [7] [5] [6]. Critics and watchdogs highlight potential conflicts of interest and the role of prior donations and lobbying in creating favorable conditions for these contractors [7] [8].
5. Who else might be in play — reporting limits and gaps
While reporting consistently names CoreCivic and GEO Group as the dominant winners, some local reporting and analyses note other contractors (management firms, transport vendors and smaller operators) stand to benefit from per‑diembed payments and subcontracting but are not named in the pieces provided; Management & Training Corporation and similar operators are referenced in broader ecosystem discussions but specific post‑bill ICE awards to firms beyond CoreCivic and GEO are not detailed in these sources [9] [10]. Available reporting does not comprehensively list every awardee or trace every subcontractor, so other companies may have won contracts that the cited sources do not document [2] [3].
6. Bottom line and competing narratives
The most robust, repeated claims across the provided reporting are that CoreCivic and GEO Group have secured new and expanded ICE detention contracts after passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill — through reopening idle facilities, contract modifications and large multi‑year deals — and that those deals account for a major portion of the private sector gain tied to the bill’s funding [2] [1] [3]. Alternative views in the reporting emphasize procedural explanations (ICE citing urgent operational need) and industry framing to investors, while watchdogs frame the outcomes as predictable payoffs to politically connected firms; the public record in these sources is strongest on CoreCivic and GEO and limited on complete, nationwide contractor lists [2] [7] [6].