Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Private Prisons and ICE Exploit Loopholes, Harm Communities

Opinion

Private Prisons and ICE Exploit Loopholes, Harm Communities

Delaney Hall Detention Facility, Newark, New Jersey.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

While Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) terrorizes Black and brown communities with racial profiling, kidnappings, inhumane treatment, fatal abuse, and killings, private prison investors are asking how ICE can detain more people to increase their profits. Private prison corporations have long profited from immigration enforcement, but they are expecting a financial windfall under the current administration. These corporations are politically and financially situated to rapidly increase detention capacity and cash in on the president’s goal of deporting one million people per year. Stopping these corporations from lining politicians’ campaign coffers is a necessary first step in ensuring that our government is accountable to the people it serves, rather than the corporations it contracts with.

ICE and private prison corporations have long had a symbiotic relationship. Ninety percent of ICE's detainees were already being held in facilities owned or operated by private prison corporations before President Trump began his second term. CoreCivic and GEO Group, two of the largest private prison corporations that lead the multi-billion dollar industry, have been contracting with immigration enforcement for decades. By 2023, ICE contracts accounted for 43 percent of CoreCivic’s revenue and 30 percent of GEO Group’s revenue. The majority of each corporation’s lobbyists have held government positions, and GEO Group’s board of directors “has extensive links with ICE.” The relationship between private prisons and ICE is the embodiment of the “'revolving door’ between the federal government and the private sector.”


These private prison corporations have donated millions to the current administration to advance their own interests. CoreCivic and GEO Group spent $1.77 million and $1.38 million, respectively, lobbying the federal government in 2024. These corporations and the people that run them spent millions more in contributions to candidates and PACs that same year. While corporations that contract with the federal government are technically barred from making such direct political contributions, legal loopholes permit CoreCivic and GEO Group’s “PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate family members” to make such political contributions.

It should come as no surprise, then, that since Trump's second term began, CoreCivic and GEO Group have secured additional lucrative government contracts with ICE, enjoyed soaring profits, and seen their stocks rise. These companies are directly profiting from the administration’s racist immigration agenda and its dismantling of due process. Reporters last year found that CoreCivic made $116.5 million in profits in 2025, “an almost 70 percent increase from the previous year.” The company expects higher profits in 2026 to the tune of $147.5 million to $157.5 million.

This projected growth aligns with CoreCivic and GEO Group’s successful lobbying in connection with H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, to increase Congress’s appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). “Much of [the] focus” of CoreCivic and GEO Group’s 2024 lobbying was on DHS appropriations. When Congress passed H.R. 1 in 2025, adding $75 billion over four years to ICE’s base $10 billion budget, ICE became the highest-funded law enforcement agency in America.

Nearly two-thirds of the H.R. 1 budget allocated to ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is dedicated to building detention facilities capable of detaining more than 100,000 people per year, while the remaining third is intended to increase ICE’s capacity through hiring and training new officers. This is just one slice of the more than $170 billion that H.R. 1 allocated for immigration enforcement.

In a similar vein, in June of 2026, Congress passed legislation to pump nearly $70 billion more into ICE and CBP’s already inflated budget over the next three years. Almost 90 percent of that additional funding is intended to increase ICE and CBP’s detention efforts and capacity, and fund improvements to their technological capabilities.

ICE’s enormous budget is expected to benefit CoreCivic and GEO Group by allowing them to reopen their idle facilities and construct new ones in record time. The American Immigration Council estimates that with the funding from H.R.1, “ICE could potentially acquire enough detention beds to house 135,000 people at any given time, more than three times the entire capacity of the system at the time President Trump took office.” This expansion has grave implications for noncitizens and citizens alike, as more and more people are subject to ICE detention and inhumane conditions in these facilities.

The stakes of ICE's expansion are, unsurprisingly, highest for Black and brown people. While the government does not publish race and ethnicity data concerning the people it detains, ICE has made no secret of its blatant racial profiling. In one particularly egregious example, in DHS’s 2025 national media campaign, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was depicted on camera saying, “if you are here illegally, you’re next,” while mugshot-style photos of Black and brown men were shown in the background. DHS’ Operation Metro Surge, which terrorized communities in Minnesota beginning in December 2025, targeted Somali and Latino residents. This dovetails with the United States’ history of disproportionately policing and incarcerating Black and brown people. The big money supporting the expansion of ICE treats the capture and abuse of Black and brown people as a business demanding more infrastructure, systems, and technology.

Private prisons are not the only type of corporate interest that profits from ICE terrorizing Black and brown people. The government also has lucrative contracts with hundreds of companies that provide everything from “surveillance tech and airline transportation to cloud services and bank financing.” ICE’s top ten contractors have benefited the most, as ICE concentrated nearly 70 percent of its spending on those contractors in the first full year of this administration. The best-known of these contractors is perhaps Palantir, a tech surveillance company that spent $5.9 million on lobbying expenses in 2024. And while top Palantir executives’ ideological views align with the current administration’s white supremacist rhetoric, and that ideology no doubt informs their business, Palantir’s sheer financial benefits are undeniable. In April of 2025, DHS signed a $30 million contract with Palantir to develop more comprehensive migrant tracking systems, and in February of 2026, Palantir secured a $1 billion software purchase agreement with DHS.

These corporations have a vested interest in ICE’s expansion and in its violent detention practices – that interest is in direct conflict with the will of voters. Polling shows that ICE’s unpopularity has increased. A “sizeable majority” (over 60 percent) of voters believe that ICE has “gone too far” and is “making Americans less safe.” Big money in politics has drowned out public opinion thus far, however. The political influence of private prison corporations and other corporate interests has led to a “Deportation-Industrial Complex,” which the Brennan Center for Justice describes as “an enforcement machine with financial and political constituencies that will outlast this administration.” The financial and political power of this enforcement machine far exceeds that of everyday voters. For example, when H.R. 1 increased ICE’s budget sevenfold, it bypassed the normal discretionary appropriations process, which typically funds defense and immigration. ICE has access to its new, incredibly large budget, whether or not Congress passes its annual budget. As a result, ICE continued to operate while the government was partially shut down in early 2026, even though the shutdown was intended to put pressure on lawmakers to overhaul ICE’s practices after the agency killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

As long as private prisons and similar corporate interests profit from ICE’s harm to Black and brown people, and as long as they can use legal loopholes to make unchecked political contributions to support ICE’s terror, the government will prioritize their interests. In the meantime, ICE continues to racially profile, harm people with impunity, and keep detention center conditions deplorable. The administration also continues to ensure that there is a large pool of people for ICE to target, pausing processing of green card applications and keeping pathways to citizenship scarce.

A thriving democracy cannot allow these monied interests to dictate immigration policy and prioritize profits over people. A critical step in reducing the outsized political power of private prisons is for Congress to enact legislation that closes legal loopholes and strictly limits political donations from government contractors’ direct associates, such as PACs, corporate executives, and major shareholders. Banning these contributions would go a long way toward severing the financial ties that currently allow corporate interests to co-opt our democracy and influence immigration policy. Other campaign finance reforms, such as stricter disclosure requirements and conflicts-of-interest laws, are also necessary to rein in the inordinate role of money in politics. Such measures will help reduce pay-to-play incentives that currently enable private prison corporations and ICE to turn a hefty profit by terrorizing Black and brown people and harming our communities.

Joshua Harmon is a Research and Data Analytics Senior Associate at Dēmos, a non-profit public policy organization working to build a just, inclusive, multiracial democracy and economy.

Neda Khoshkhoo is Interim Director of Democracy at Dēmos, where she focuses on crafting policy solutions for democratic reform, racial justice, and immigrant justice.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less