What reforms or policy changes have been proposed to reduce deaths in immigration detention?
Executive summary
Policymakers, advocates, and watchdogs have proposed a mix of legislative, oversight, and operational changes to reduce deaths in immigration detention, ranging from federal statutes to state safeguards and increased transparency; proponents argue these would address medical neglect and overcrowding while opponents point to enforcement priorities and funding constraints [1] [2] [3]. The debate is framed by a year of record deaths and rapidly expanding detention capacity—facts that drive urgency but also reveal competing agendas around detention expansion and private contractor profits [4] [5] [3].
1. Legislative standards and the "Dignity" approach: codifying care and limits on confinement
A leading federal proposal is the Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act, reintroduced in Congress, which would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish civil detention standards intended to guarantee medical, mental health, and legal access and to bind ICE to clear care protocols—advocates say this would create enforceable baselines to prevent deaths [1] [6]. Legal scholars and advocates also press for laws that limit mandatory detention policies and narrow who can be held, arguing statutory change is needed because administrative memos in 2025 expanded detention eligibility and curtailed bond access, increasing population and strain on care [7] [8].
2. Oversight and accountability: inspections, courts, and transparency
Investigative groups and scholars call for a restoration and strengthening of independent oversight—reinstating regular Office of Detention Oversight inspections that dropped sharply in 2025, reopening access to timely inspection reports, and encouraging courts to play a more active supervisory role over civil detention facilities to enforce existing legal safeguards—measures framed as immediate levers to detect and prevent neglect that can lead to death [2] [9]. Proposals also include mandated reporting of deaths and clearer public accounting of where DHS funding is spent, responding to concerns that oversight fell even as detainee numbers surged [2] [10].
3. Operational reforms: medical care, transfers, solitary, and video evidence
Operational fixes advanced by advocates and in recent appropriations talks include standardized medical screening and timely hospital transfers, limits on punitive use of solitary confinement, restrictions on unnecessary transfers that disrupt continuity of care, and investments in body-worn cameras for enforcement agents to increase accountability for interactions that can precipitate harm—Congressional negotiators allocated $20 million for body cameras and called for uniform standardization as part of a broader homeland security package [10] [6] [2].
4. Alternatives to detention and legal representation to reduce mortal risk
Policy actors including AILA and state advocates emphasize scaling Alternatives to Detention (ADT) programs and funding legal representation via state legal defense funds as methods that reduce reliance on congregate detention—both reduce overcrowding and improve detainees’ ability to seek timely care and challenge detention, which supporters say lowers mortality risk compared with large-scale incarceration [1] [11]. Federal ADT funding exists but advocates want expansion tied to stricter limits on bed counts and detention use [1] [11].
5. State-level pushback and the politics of money: protecting communities vs. detention expansion
States are advancing countermeasures—legal defense funds, limits on local enforcement cooperation with federal immigration detainers, and bans on housing migrants for federal civil immigration violations—to shield residents and reduce unnecessary detention, measures framed as both humanitarian fixes and friction against federal expansion [11]. Yet Congress and the administration have also funneled massive new detention funding in recent federal bills and plans, creating a political economy where private prisons and contractors stand to gain, and critics warn that moneyed expansion undermines reform incentives [5] [3].
Conclusion: a layered remedy with entrenched opposition
Proposed reforms to reduce deaths in immigration detention form a coherent package—statutory detention standards, restored oversight and court enforcement, improved medical and operational protocols, expanded alternatives to detention, and state protections—but implementation faces political headwinds from expanded federal funding and enforcement priorities that favor detention growth and private contractors; current reporting shows the gap between proposed fixes and the scale of detention expansion that contributed to record deaths in 2025 [1] [2] [4] [3]. Where sources are silent about specific enforcement timelines or the likely legislative fate of each reform, reporting limits prevent definitive predictions, but the record of inspections, deaths, and budget choices frames the stakes for any meaningful change [2] [4] [10].