How will the One Big Beautiful Bill change ICE detention capacity and where will new facilities be sited?
Executive summary
The One Big Beautiful Bill (H.R.1) funnels roughly $45 billion toward building and operating new immigration detention capacity over several years, effectively more than doubling ICE’s detention budget and enabling a dramatic expansion of beds—estimates range from roughly 100,000 new beds to capacity ceilings near 116,000—by 2029 [1] [2] [3]. The legislation and subsequent agency planning envisage a mix of newly constructed centers, reopened shuttered prisons, converted warehouses and “soft‑sided” camps on military bases, and increased state and local facility use—sites that are already being identified across states from Texas and Florida to New York and Kansas [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. How much detention capacity will the bill create, in plain numbers
The bill designates $45 billion for detention expansion which analysts and government cost estimates translate into roughly 100,000 additional detention beds nationwide [1] [8]; other nonprofit analyses place the practical ceiling at about 116,000 beds by 2029 when combined with ICE’s baseline appropriations and supplemental funding, meaning ICE could hold well over triple its pre‑expansion population if fully implemented [9] [3].
2. Where federal plans and reporting say beds will be added
Official and press reporting shows a multi‑pronged siting strategy: resuming operations at large shuttered centers such as the 2,400‑bed Dilley processing center in Texas and reopening Delaney Hall in Newark, plus potential reactivation of Leavenworth, Kansas, and similar facilities [4]. DHS draft planning and media mapping also list military bases and “warehouses” converted into temporary processing hubs, and smaller regional sites intended for 1,000–1,500 detainees in states including New York, New Jersey, Utah and Michigan [5] [10] [4].
3. Evidence of emerging, specific local sites
Local reporting shows concrete moves: ICE has opened Delaney Hall (Newark) and is advancing a 1,500‑bed processing facility proposal in Chester, NY near New York City, and county‑level site scouting has been reported in Kansas City and elsewhere—signs that the national funding is translating into local placements now [7] [11] [12]. Media outlets also report the agency seeking contractors to renovate at least 22 warehouses into detention use, although DHS/ICE confirmations vary by story [10] [5].
4. What kinds of facilities will be used and who will run them
The expansion explicitly contemplates a range of facility types: permanently reopened prisons and purpose‑built centers, temporary “soft‑sided” tent camps on military installations, and converted warehouses or processing warehouses—most of which will likely be run by private prison companies or state partners under contract, with nearly 90% of ICE detainees already in privately run facilities, creating large contract revenues for those firms [6] [4].
5. Oversight, standards and political stakes
The bill authorizes accelerated or narrowed review of detention standards for single‑adult facilities, and DHS has been given broad latitude that critics say could curtail normal oversight even as detainee populations grow—concerns raised by legal groups and members of Congress about medical care, access to counsel, and court backlogs, with DHS publicly insisting facilities will meet standards [1] [4] [13]. Observers also note an implicit financial and political feedback loop: private prison firms stand to benefit from contracts and were major supporters of the bill’s backers, while rapid expansion strains legal and inspection systems [4] [8].
6. Limits of reporting and what remains uncertain
While multiple sources document funding levels, draft site lists and a growing number of concrete facility moves, reporting also shows that plans are fluid: draft DHS documents may change under review, local approvals and contractor procurements are ongoing, and some site lists remain unconfirmed by DHS, leaving uncertainty about exact bed counts, timelines, and permanent siting across all proposed locations [5] [10].