Is there active building of detention centers for ICE being built in the USA
Executive summary
Reporting shows that the federal government and ICE are actively expanding detention capacity: new facilities have opened, ICE is converting or contracting to use warehouses and other sites, and draft federal solicitations outline a network of processing centers funneling people into very large regional detention hubs — but many proposed sites remain in planning or solicitation stages and local officials sometimes report no “concrete plans” yet [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The picture is therefore a mix of operational new sites, active renovations and solicitations, and ongoing local disputes about which specific warehouses will become permanent detention centers [6] [7] [8].
1. New and reopened facilities already in operation
ICE and its contractors have opened and reactivated multiple detention sites since 2025: the agency added dozens of facilities year-to-year and opened new centers such as Delaney Hall in Newark and Camp East Montana on Fort Bliss, Texas, where detainees were held and, in at least one instance, a death occurred that ICE said it was investigating [1] [2] [6]. Federal statistics and ICE facility lists confirm a large, expanding network of sites housing civil immigration detainees under Enforcement and Removal Operations [9] [10].
2. Draft plans and solicitations that describe warehouse “processing” and giant regional hubs
Investigations and draft solicitation documents reported to media outlets describe a two-tier system: roughly 16 smaller processing centers that would temporarily process 500–1,500 people each, feeding into seven regional warehouse-style detention centers capable of holding 5,000–10,000 people apiece, and broader plans that could push ICE bed capacity toward the triple-digit thousands envisioned in leaked planning documents [4] [3] [6]. Independent analyses and reporting have summarized draft plans suggesting the use of renovated industrial warehouses to house tens of thousands of migrants, while noting those documents are drafts subject to further review [7] [3].
3. Scale, funding and private-sector incentives driving the expansion
Congressional budget action and internal planning have provided large increases in ICE’s capacity goals: reporting cites budget provisions and agency plans that would add tens of thousands of detention beds and project targets as high as roughly 107,000 beds by January 2026, while advocacy and legal analysts warn that private prison companies and contractors stand to benefit from facility construction, re-openings and transport contracts [11] [12] [6]. Analysts and watchdogs have flagged the unprecedented funding infusion and its potential to catalyze rapid expansion via nontraditional facilities and contractors [11] [12].
4. Local uncertainty, pushback and conflicting statements
Despite national-level documents and media reporting, many local officials say they have not received formal federal confirmation about specific sites; for example, Michigan lawmakers said they had no evidence of concrete plans for a facility in Highland Park, and Salt Lake City officials reported a lack of “solid information” about reported interest in a warehouse there, even as other outlets named the city as under consideration in prior reporting [5] [8]. Local media show both ICE personnel touring potential sites and immediate community resistance and political organizing against conversions of warehouses into detention centers [13] [8].
5. Consequences and the bottom line
The factual record assembled by multiple media outlets and advocacy groups shows active building, conversion and contractor solicitation to expand ICE detention capacity now — including newly opened sites and draft plans for massive warehouse hubs — but it also shows that many proposed locations remain in solicitation or exploratory phases and that some localities deny firm federal commitments at specific addresses, leaving the national expansion effort both operational and partly speculative depending on site [1] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting also highlights human consequences tied to expansion, including rising deaths in custody that advocates say are linked to the rapid scale-up of detention [14] [2].