Your fact-checks will appear here
The contractual agreements between private prison companies and government agencies, including clauses that may shift costs back to taxpayers.
Most immigration detention centers are not a single kind of owner: a substantial share are owned or operated by — led by and — while others are government‑owned facilities run by federal, state or loc...
in the provided reporting shows a sustained, industry-wide pullout of private prison firms from contracts; instead, the dominant private operators— and —have continued to hold and even seek new ICE wo...
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 de...
’s detention and release policies shifted sharply in 2025 toward , reduced discretionary release, and faster deportations, backed by historic funding and corporate contracts to expand capacity . The a...
profited from family detention contracts in by securing large federal contracts and guaranteed payments tied to occupied beds, extracting ancillary revenue from subcontracting and cheap labor, and lev...
The recent federal budget dramatically expanded ICE’s detention and enforcement funding, producing roughly $15 billion per year available for immigration detention through 2029 and a headline $45 bill...
have both financially backed ’s 2024 campaigns and affiliated fundraising vehicles and supplied goods, services, or technology used by ; watchdogs and reporting document direct donations from private ...
Reporting to date shows a small number of large, ‑era detention contracts publicly tied to expansion plans: a detention‑center contract reported as awarded to and a separate multibillion‑dollar tent/s...
is a site of active operations—agents have arrested and processed people in the state, and federal planning envisions expanded detention capacity in Minnesota and the . Reporting from multiple outlets...
Since the (OBBBA) became law, reporting shows a mix of announced or executed contracts, contract modifications and facility reactivations for and — including high-profile reopenings at , and Karnes, n...
do not offer a clear, reliable taxpayer saving compared with public prisons; empirical evidence is mixed and highly sensitive to accounting choices, contract terms, and the inmate populations compared...
The two largest U.S. for‑profit prison operators— and —have publicly reported “significant profits” in recent quarterly earnings, but the sources provided here do not include consistent, company‑level...
have been a central driver of the expansion and entrenchment of U.S. immigration detention by converting beds to use, lobbying for larger detention budgets, and securing guaranteed contracts that deco...
The Trump administration dramatically expanded ICE detention practices by securing massive new funding, increasing arrests (including of people without criminal records), enlarging and repurposing det...