WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump significantly bolstered funding for immigration enforcement Wednesday when he signed into law a nearly $70 billion package that will keep key federal agencies operating without any new restrictions. 

Democrats pressed for guardrails after immigration officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. But when talks broke down, Republican lawmakers drafted their own bill without any additional constraints. 

“The bill provides crucial funding for domestic law enforcement investigations and combating child exploitation, continuing our work to restore law and order across our nation, and to protect America’s youth,” Trump said during an Oval Office event.  

The measure moved through Congress this month with nearly every Republican voting to approve the additional spending, which will last through September 2029. 

Democratic lawmakers argued immigration officers should adhere to the standards other federal law enforcement agencies follow, like wearing body cameras, getting a warrant from a judge before entering someone’s home and identifying themselves by removing masks. 

Republican leaders said during talks they were open to instituting limitations on how immigration officers behave, but opted not to include any curbs in their party-line bill. 

ICE, CBP funded

The law will provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement with another $38.53 billion. Customs and Border Protection will receive an additional $26.02 billion and the secretary of Homeland Security will be given $5 billion more in funding. 

The money is in addition to the $170 billion Republicans included in their “big, beautiful” law, as well as the funding approved in the annual DHS appropriations package. 

Nearly every Republican in the House voted to approve the measure, though New Jersey Rep. Thomas H. Kean, Jr., who has been absent due to an undisclosed illness, and South Carolina Reps. Nancy Mace and Ralph Norman, who were competing in their state’s gubernatorial primary, missed the vote. 

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the sole Republican to vote against approving the legislation in that chamber, writing in a statement negotiators should have worked out a bipartisan solution in the annual funding bill instead of using the complex budget reconciliation process to get around procedural votes that would otherwise have required the support of 60 senators. 

“By choosing to appropriate funding for three fiscal years instead of one, this measure weakens the normal budgeting process and sets another precedent for avoiding it when we find ourselves in disagreement,” she wrote. “In doing so, it reduces Congress’ ability to apply reasonable checks on immigration policy for the remainder of this administration and into the next.”

Murkowski added that she would have voted for the package had it “provided immigration funding for one year, included clear restrictions on what those funds can be used for, and eliminated any potential for taxpayer dollars to be allocated to the administration’s brazen ‘anti-weaponization’ fund.”

That $1.776 billion account would have paid restitution to people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before Congress the administration wasn’t planning to proceed with that proposal after Republicans on Capitol Hill voiced opposition.

Trump, however, hasn’t completely retracted his support for the fund, saying in an NBC News interview this weekend that he and other Republicans believe it “is a great idea.”

“You have to get it approved,” he said. “If they get it approved, that’s great. If they don’t get it approved, I’d be disappointed.”

WASHINGTON — A hastily constructed immigrant detention facility on a military base in Texas wasted millions in federal funding and failed to meet basic standards, according to a report released Tuesday by a nonpartisan government watchdog. 

The report by the Government Accountability Office documenting problems at Camp East Montana is one of the first independent investigations into a facility quickly constructed from the $170 billion in immigration enforcement and detention funding provided by Republicans’ “big beautiful” law enacted in July 2025 as part of the president’s mass deportation campaign. The camp is considered the largest immigrant detention center in the United States.

The Department of Defense and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in August 2025 set up the soft-sided detention site of Camp East Montana at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. It was intended to hold as many as 5,000 immigrants and is still currently operating under a private  contractor as well as ICE.

The facility was plagued with several tuberculosis cases and at least four detainee deaths, with one ruled a homicide by the local coroner. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit against the government over inhumane conditions. 

“The facility also did not meet key detention standards, risking the safety and security of detained noncitizens and staff,” GAO said.

The report came as the U.S. House this week prepares to take final steps to pass a $70 billion package to fund immigration enforcement until the end of fiscal year 2029. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the legislation into law.

Congressional Democrats requested that GAO do a report on Camp East Montana, including Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Gary Peters of Michigan and Rep. Bennie Thomspon of Mississippi. 

Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that he was concerned the U.S. military was responsible for the quick construction of the detention camp.

“Preventable deaths, inhumane conditions, and millions of dollars in waste are the direct result of the Pentagon cutting corners and handing a billion-dollar contract to an inexperienced vendor that wrote its own performance standards,” Reed said.

$1.3 billion contract

GAO investigators found that the Department of Defense’s contracting vehicle used to handle the $1.3 billion contract for Camp East Montana provided no flexibility and resulted in paying for meals and employee services during times when no immigrants were detained at the facility, resulting in millions of dollars wasted. 

For example, the Army paid the full cost for guards, medical services, transportation, meals and other services from Aug. 1, 2025 to Aug. 15, 2025, when there were no detainees at the facility, wasting up to $11.5 million, GAO said. 

“Further, because the Army set a fixed price for meals based on the capacity of the facility, it paid about an additional $423,000 for meals it did not need when the facility was operating below its designated capacity from August 16, 2025, through September 30, 2025,” according to the GAO report. 

Same failures could repeat, GAO says

GAO investigators also noted that the same mistakes could be made with the Department of Homeland Security’s ongoing move to spend $38 billion to convert warehouses for the purpose of detaining thousands of immigrants. 

“GAO points out that ICE’s planned facility expansion—a $38 billion program to convert warehouses into detention facilities using the same contracting vehicle—risks repeating every one of these failures at a dramatically larger scale,” according to the report. 

Investigators made four recommendations, including that ICE consider tiered pricing for food to account for fluctuations in populations of detained immigrants and that ICE ensure that new facilities meet detention standards before housing immigrants. 

The report notes that DHS and DOD agreed with the recommendations. DOD deferred comment to DHS, which did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

Homicide investigated

Investigators also raised use-of-force concerns, including one in January in which an autopsy found the death of a detainee to be due to asphyxia and ruled it a homicide. 

“However, the contractor did not provide use of force and death reports to ICE, as required,” according to the report. “In addition, evidence associated with the incident was missing or destroyed.”

Durbin, who is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee,  called the GAO report “damning.”

“We now know even more details of how dangerous and irresponsible the Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign truly is,” he said in a statement. “Excessive use of force, lacking medical and mental health care, and wasted taxpayer dollars are emblematic of this mass deportation scheme. The American people have rightfully expressed outrage at these policies, and it’s time to hold ICE and their private contractors responsible.”

GAO investigators noted several health issues. They pointed out that none of the detainees with HIV or diabetes had treatment plans in place. 

Also, facility employees did not follow proper procedure for tuberculosis screening. One contractor used a questionnaire rather than administering the required skin tests for tuberculosis. 

Investigators found that as a result in November, a detained immigrant with tuberculosis was housed with the general immigrant population. 

In at least four states, migrants detained in ICE facilities have launched hunger strikes in recent weeks to protest the conditions in which they are being held.

An ongoing hunger and labor strike at the 1,000-bed Delaney Hall facility in Newark, New Jersey, reportedly involves roughly 300 people and has sparked daily protests outside the jail, which is owned and operated by the GEO Group, a private security company that provides security, maintenance, food and medical care under a 15-year contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Earlier this month, it was reported that at least 20 detainees at the 750-bed Desert View Annex in Adelanto, California, had launched a hunger strike to call attention to what they allege are substandard conditions at that facility, including a lack of medical care, unsafe drinking water, and mold.

And last month, hunger strikes reportedly erupted at the 1,800-bed North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan, and at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, which has a capacity of nearly 1,900. North Lake is the largest facility in the Midwest, and Moshannon Valley is the largest in the Northeast.

The GEO Group operates all of the facilities where the hunger strikes have taken place.

Families of migrants detained at Delaney Hall say their relatives  are being tear gassed and beaten by guards. Outside the facility, ICE agents have countered protesters with pepper spray, the New Jersey Monitor reported.

In a statement on Thursday, New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherill said the New Jersey Department of Health tried to conduct a health inspection of Delaney Hall, but was denied access to all but a limited portion of the facility. Sherill said Delaney Hall should be shut down.

“Refusing to provide full access raises serious questions about what ICE is trying to hide from public view,” she said in the statement. “I am calling for ICE to immediately de-escalate the situation as I continue working to keep New Jersey residents safe.”

ICE issued a statement dismissing the accusations of substandard conditions at the facilities as a “hoax.”

“All detainees are provided with 3 meals a day, clean water, clothing, bedding, showers, soap, and toiletries. Illegal aliens also have access to phones to communicate with their family members and lawyers,” the statement says. “Certified dietitians evaluate meals. In fact, ICE has higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens.”

In a statement, the GEO Group asserted that its support services “are monitored by ICE, including by on-site agency personnel, and other organizations within the Department of Homeland Security to ensure compliance with ICE’s detention standards and contract requirements regarding the treatment and services ICE detainees receive.”

For the last few days, Gabriela Fuentes, 35, has protested outside Delaney Hall.  She said her husband, who came to the U.S. from Guatemala on a work visa, told her recently that the guards had beaten and tear gassed him and other detainees.

“We’re all human, we’re all people, just because we’re Hispanic does not mean that we need to be treated like this,” Fuentes said.

Haddy Gassama, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, described the hunger strikes as “the natural consequence of a detention system that’s really falling apart at its seams.”

“Hunger strikes are a tool that people use when they are most desperate, where they feel that they have no other options,” Gassama said. “It’s really the natural consequence of what happens when you supersize a detention system that’s already rife with abuse so fast, with so much money, with so little accountability.”

Jasmine Rivera, executive director of the immigrant rights group Pennsylvania Immigration Coalition, said it’s hard to get a handle on the scope of the hunger strikes in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

“Upon the hunger strike, the detention center stopped communication lines to that particular unit, so it’s hard for us and for family members to stay up-to-date on what was happening,” Rivera said.

In Michigan, Ruby Robinson, an attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, called for more state oversight of ICE detention facilities.

“It’s our understanding that they do not really have the means to adequately provide the oversight that’s needed, and outside of that, we don’t really see any other oversight, besides visits from members of Congress,” Robinson said.

“Because many immigrants are being detained in county jails, not just private detention facilities, there’s an opportunity to ensure that state law is followed. And if state law is insufficient, then it needs to be updated to basically reflect reality.”

This story was updated to include a statement from the GEO Group.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

As appeals courts split on the constitutionality of mandatory detention for millions of immigrants, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to decide the matter.

A Trump administration policy threatening imprisonment without bond has been struck down by three appeals courts, which could soon be joined by a fourth, but upheld by two others. The conflicting orders mean the Supreme Court must straighten out the situation as immigrants now could face different fates in different states.

The new detention policy, implemented in a July 2025 memo, threatens millions of immigrants with imprisonment without bond if they crossed a border illegally to get into the United States, no matter how long ago or whether they’ve applied for asylum. Without bond means they must be detained while awaiting court action.

The policy is a key part of the Trump administration’s stated goal to get 1 million removals a year, including deportations and voluntary returns.

So far the pace is about half that, or roughly 460,000 for the current fiscal year, if the daily rate as of mid-April continues, according to an analysis by Austin Kocher, a research assistant professor at Syracuse University.

This spring’s mixed appeals court rulings mean that in some states, detainees may be offered bond hearings and a chance to be released pending new court dates. In other states, people can now be held indefinitely.

Most recently, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee,  struck down the policy Monday, saying it “strains reason” to suggest Congress intended to put millions of people into immigration detention. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia, also struck it down last week, saying the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not give President Donald Trump “unfettered authority to detain, without the possibility of bond, every unadmitted alien present in the country.”

In April, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont, also struck down the policy, calling it “the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.”

Judges in another appeals court covering New England states, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, appeared skeptical of the policy in a hearing this month but have not yet ruled.

Meanwhile the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, encompassing Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, upheld the new policy, saying the status quo gives people living here illegally more rights than those at the border seeking legal admission.

“It seems strange to suggest that Congress would have preserved bond hearings exclusively for unlawful entrants,” the 5th Circuit ruling said. Those states have some of the largest detention centers in the country, often accepting transfers from other states. The cross-state transfers complicate legal cases attempting to free those detained there.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Arkansas and several Midwestern states, also upheld the Trump policy.

Conflicting appeals rulings like these, known as “circuit splits,” generally lead to a Supreme Court ruling to settle them, experts say.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a Stateline request for comment. Last July, a department spokesperson told The Associated Press that “President (Donald) Trump and Secretary (Kristi) Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep America safe.”

The Trump administration policy flies in the face of decades of federal practice that let many immigrants stay free on bond while they pursue their court cases, said Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, practice and policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group.

“This has done a lot of damage to people who are caught in detention with a very low amount of due process,” Dojaquez-Torres said.

The policy has also flooded federal courts with petitions for release by people denied bond under the policy, she added. Thousands were filed each week from January through late April, compared with a few dozen a week last year before the policy was enacted, according to a ProPublica report.

The threat of indefinite detention can be an incentive for immigrants who have been arrested to agree to the administration’s option of “voluntary departure.”

Hannia Ortega, who left Oklahoma for her native Mexico at age 22 last fall to avoid the threat of detention, said the policy has “helped me not to regret leaving.”

“I’ve had the opportunity to meet people here who were deported and were not given the chance to fight their cases in front of a judge. One of the people I met was an Uber driver who was deported after 36 years in the states,” Ortega wrote in an email to Stateline.

Ortega won an award for leadership and good grades in a Tulsa high school, and said she also earned a community college degree there with the help of a private scholarship for students living in the country illegally.

She decided staying in the U.S. was too risky. Her parents brought her illegally as a 6-year-old and she did not qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, a program with some deportation protections.

“It is scary and just speaks to how dangerous it has gotten for every single immigrant in the United States. I pray that better days are ahead for all but it seems unlikely any time soon,” Ortega wrote.

It’s hard to tell exactly how many immigrants are threatened with indefinite detention, but of about 14.6 million undocumented residents, the Center for Migration Studies estimates, something like 5.5 million could have entered the country illegally, making them subject to the detention policy.

There are no recent estimates for the percentage, said Robert Warren, senior visiting fellow at the Center for Migration Studies of New York. But in 2017 the center estimated 38% of unauthorized immigrants crossed the border illegally either by evading border patrol officers or surrendering to them and getting a court notice to fight deportation proceedings. Others overstayed legal visas and would not be subject to the new policy.

Mustafa Cetin, a New Jersey immigration attorney, said two of his clients from Turkey were denied bond despite a clean criminal record and active asylum cases in court. Both were arrested in October during routine check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he said.

Both won release on bond through federal court decisions, and one has already won an asylum case, he said. Both followed a familiar pattern of seeking asylum in 2023 and 2024.

“They say, ‘Don’t come in,’ but if you come in, they will process you (with a court appearance ticket),” Cetin said. “We’ve seen this play out for hundreds of thousands of people. Then, this administration, instead of trying to deal with those who come to the border, they decided to scare people away.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.