Federal immigration authorities included a detainee labor program in contracts for two warehouse detention facilities in December 2025 — a month before the government had completed purchasing either property.

The task orders — executed procurement records covering sites in Williamsport, Md., and Surprise, Ariz. — were issued on December 22, 2025, under the U.S. Navy’s WEXMAC TITUS contracting vehicle. Both were made effective March 6, 2026. Among the operational line items in each: an “Alien Volunteer Work Program,” reimbursable at a per-detainee, per-day rate, governed by contract terms that Immigration and Customs Enforcement redacted from the public records request that produced these documents.

The Maryland warehouse, a roughly 825,000-square-foot facility near Williamsport, Md., was purchased by the federal government in January 2026 for approximately $102.4 million. In Arizona, the purchase of a 418,000-square-foot warehouse followed a similar timeline, selling days later for $70 million.

Task Order to KVG LLC for Williamsport, MD Detention Warehouse

372KB ∙ PDF file

Download

70cdcr26fr0000035

Download

Task Order to GardaWorld for Surprise, AZ Detention Warehouse

1.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

70cdcr26fr0000043

Download

The Work Program

The Volunteer Work Program is a standard feature of established detention facilities, where detained immigrants may perform jobs — kitchen work, laundry, sanitation, facility maintenance — in exchange for wages that amount to as little as a dollar a day. Under ICE’s own detention standards, last codified in 2011, participation is voluntary except for basic housekeeping duties, and detainees must be paid at least one dollar per day — a rate far below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour that applies to most workers in the United States.

It is not a feature typically associated with intake and transfer processing. That’s the function ICE has repeatedly described as the primary purpose of these sites.

Merrimack, NH, Detention Reengineering Initiative

348KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

ICE’s internal planning documents for the Detention Reengineering Initiative, a previously reported program to overhaul and expand the agency’s detention network, describe regional processing centers as staging locations where detainees stay an average of three to seven days before being transferred or removed. That overview, dated February 13, 2026, was shared publicly by New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte after ICE sought to convert a warehouse in Merrimack, N.H., into a similar facility. The purchase was ultimately abandoned. Nowhere does it describe processing sites as places where detained immigrants would hold jobs.

Yet both task orders include the work program, billed per detainee per day, capped at an undisclosed amount, with governing terms in Section 27.9 of each contract’s Performance Work Statement. Those sections were withheld and the rate itself was redacted.

Identical language appears in both documents, which were awarded to different companies in different states: KVG LLC in Maryland and GardaWorld Federal Services LLC in Arizona. The identical language points to a standardized ICE contracting template under WEXMAC and not language specific to either facility or operator.

The DRI describes processing sites as staging locations. It does not describe them as places where detained immigrants would hold jobs.

What the Task Orders Add

Before these task orders became public, what was known about ICE’s warehouse plans rested on two sources: internal agency documents reported by The Washington Post on December 24, 2025, which indicated ICE planned for up to 1,500 detainees at each facility, and the agency’s own representations across four separate federal lawsuits, where it has consistently put the planned capacity at 542.

These procurement records add a third layer. Unlike a leaked planning document or a court filing, a task order is an executed contract specifying what a vendor is being paid to deliver, in what sequence, and over what period. The blueprint that emerges maps onto neither the 542-bed processing center ICE described in court nor the short-term staging mission the agency has offered publicly.

Under the base period of each order, the first 60 days are reserved for contractor transition and facility retrofitting. A six-week ramp-up follows, during which beds come online in incremental stages. The remaining roughly eight and a half months are structured around full-capacity detention operations — guards, transportation, per-detainee billing, and the work program running in parallel. Should the government exercise its options, each contract envisions two additional 12-month periods of uninterrupted operations. Fully exercised, both would extend well past the two-year mark.

The mileage structure of the Arizona contract contain details not included in the Maryland document. Transportation line items in the GardaWorld records distinguish between “Processing Sites,” estimated at 5,000 miles per year — consistent with short local transfer runs — and “Megacenters,” estimated at 100,000 miles per year, a figure that implies a regional hub moving large numbers of people across significant distances. The DRI overview confirms the underlying model previously described generically by ICE. Processing centers shuttle detainees into large-scale facilities capable of housing 7,000 to 10,000 people for 60 days at a time, or more.

Both task orders describe their sites as “processing and detention facilities.” Guard services at each are capped at 20,000 hours per year, roughly 55 hours a day, enough to sustain continuous around-the-clock coverage. Invoice requirements for detention services mandate detainee names, identification information, bed-day rates, and check-in and check-out dates. Among line items listed under other direct charges: “volunteer detainee wages.”

Both documents also bar the contractor and any subcontractors from making public disclosures about the agreement without ICE’s prior review and approval.

The Williamsport facility remains blocked. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction halting conversion work there pending a full environmental review — a process an ICE attorney said in a recent hearing could take years. This week, ICE reached a settlement with challengers in New Jersey, agreeing to pause operations at a similar warehouse site under the same condition.

GardaWorld, meanwhile, is hiring. The company posted a listing on LinkedIn on Tuesday for an unarmed security guard at the Surprise facility, describing the role as securing the perimeter of an “immigration processing and custodial facility.” The posting noted the company was “building a pipeline” for the position, with an anticipated start date of later this year.

A federal lawsuit challenging the Surprise conversion remains pending in the District of Arizona, filed against a facility whose operator is already recruiting staff and under a contract that was ready before the government even owned the building.

Subscribe now

Co-working spaces are shared commercial offices — operated by companies like WeWork or IWG — that rent desks and private offices to individuals and organizations on flexible, short-term terms rather than traditional multi-year leases. Tenants typically share common areas, Wi-Fi, and amenities with other businesses and may occupy the same floor as unrelated private-sector companies.

As Project Salt Box previously reported, ICE published a request for information in March seeking flexible office space for more than 300 personnel in nearly 100 cities across 42 states and Puerto Rico. That market research has since become a live solicitation — number 70CMSW26Q00000009 — issued through ICE’s Office of Asset and Facilities Management.

2.1.1-70CMSW26Q00000009

541KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

ICE is seeking space for 330 full-time employees across 90 locations, from Houston, where 22 workers would be placed, to more than a dozen cities where a single desk would suffice. Vendors who win the contract would have 15 business days from award to stand up all locations simultaneously. The period of performance runs from June 1, 2026 through May 31, 2027, with leases covering a desk or private office, Wi-Fi, and printing access, and the ability to scale headcount up or down at any location after award.

But a question-and-answer document appended to the solicitation cuts against the most obvious explanation for the expansion. Asked whether the spaces are intended for uniformed officers, administrative staff, or a combination, the government’s answer was unambiguous: “This requirement is not intended for law enforcement officers.”

2.4.1-Amendment 1 Office Space Q&A

138KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Use the map below to see each requested location and the number of employees ICE has slated for it, according to documents attached to the submission.

Geographically, the solicitation is broad. Locations include predictable urban enforcement hubs — New York, Miami, Houston — alongside smaller cities with no immediately apparent connection to immigration operations, among them Savage, Mont., Concho, Ariz., and Bryan, Texas.

Two listed locations, Crawford, R.I., and Maynes, Wis., do not correspond to any recognized municipalities.

Vendors have some flexibility on location. An alternative facility may be substituted for any listed city, provided it falls within 45 driving miles. Specific facility names and addresses are required at the time of quote submission, but those details are not made public through the solicitation itself.

Bids are being solicited under North American Industry Classification System — or NAICS — code 531120, which covers operators of nonresidential buildings, with an applicable size standard of $34 million in average annual receipts. Companies that did not respond to the original March request for information remain eligible to bid. Any changes to the location list or headcount after award would be handled through negotiated contract modifications. The solicitation does not include a contract ceiling or cost estimate. A pricing template attached to the documents breaks out costs by city and headcount, but no figures have been disclosed.

ICE has not said publicly who the 330 personnel are. This is, by the government’s own account, without precedent. Asked about past performance on similar workspace contracts, the contracting office stated that no previous comparable contracts have been awarded.

Subscribe now

2NY0894 R100 Newburgh, NY

895KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The procurement process began in April 2024, more than a year before the current administration took office, with estimated occupancy by spring 2027.

The General Services Administration solicitation, number 2NY0894, seeks between 35,049 and 36,801 square feet in an area bounded by Route 52 to the north, Route 207 to the south, Interstate 87 to the east and Route 747 to the west. It calls for 24-hour access, emergency power, 67 secured parking spaces and a sally port for government vehicles including “detainee buses and vans.” Level III security standards — typically associated with elevated law enforcement presence — apply.

GSA does not identify tenant agencies by name in sensitive law enforcement leases. The link to ICE emerged from the portal’s own file history. When an amendment was posted on October 24, 2025, a document briefly appeared under the name “2NY0894 ICE Newburgh - RLP Amendment No 1 10232025 (1) (1) (1).pdf” before being replaced with a generically titled file. The underlying solicitation remained public.

Federal office leases typically include a standard allowance — in this case $61.32 per square foot — to cover the cost of fitting out interior space with basics like walls, flooring and lighting. That now-deleted file, archived by Project Salt Box, contained an amendment disclosing that the actual buildout is expected to run an additional $282.58 per square foot above that allowance — bringing the total anticipated interior construction cost to roughly $343 per square foot, or roughly $12 million across the minimum solicited space.

2NY0894 ICE Newburgh - RLP Amendment No 1 10232025 (1) (1) (1).pdf

129KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Newburgh solicitation comes as federal plans for detention infrastructure in the Hudson Valley have drawn fierce opposition. Earlier this year, ICE backed away from a proposal to convert a former Pep Boys distribution warehouse at 29 Elizabeth Drive in Chester, N.Y. into a detention facility capable of housing up to 1,500 detainees, after more than 30,000 people signed a petition against the plan and elected officials on both sides of the aisle came out in opposition. ICE told State Assemblymember Brian Maher it would not proceed with the Chester location “at this time.”

ICE has maintained an Office of the Principal Legal Advisor at 15 Governor Drive since 2015, occupying roughly 9,074 square feet of rental office space according to GSA records. The proposed facility would be nearly four times that size, purpose-built for enforcement operations rather than legal administration.

Subscribe now

Federal immigration officials and the State of New Jersey reached a temporary agreement Tuesday that pauses major conversion work at a proposed ICE detention warehouse in Roxbury while the government completes additional environmental review, avoiding a scheduled federal court hearing over the project.

State of New Jersey and Township of Roxbury v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, et al., Case No. 26-02884

192KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The agreement, filed jointly in federal court, stays consideration of New Jersey’s request for a preliminary injunction until Immigration and Customs Enforcement completes a final Environmental Assessment, or EA, examining the proposed conversion of a vacant industrial warehouse into an immigration detention facility.

Under the stipulation, ICE agreed not to proceed with detention conversion work while the review is underway, aside from limited security and maintenance activity. Permitted work includes temporary fencing, security cameras and lighting, alarm systems, plumbing and fire safety testing, custodial services, lawn maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the building secure and weatherproof. The agreement also prohibits ground disturbance and restricts work within a conservation easement area without state approval.

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

177KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The case concerns a warehouse at 1879 Route 46 in Morris County that the federal government purchased earlier this year as part of a broader effort to rapidly expand immigration detention capacity through large warehouse acquisitions around the country. New Jersey and the Township of Roxbury sued ICE and the Department of Homeland Security in March, arguing that the federal government moved forward with plans for the detention center without first conducting legally required environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and without required consultation with state and local entities.

The dispute is one of the most politically unusual fights over ICE’s warehouse detention strategy. Roxbury’s Republican local leadership publicly opposed the project despite broadly supporting the Trump administration’s immigration policies, arguing that the detention facility was incompatible with the township’s infrastructure, environmental protections and long-term development plans.

Town officials and state lawyers had increasingly pressed the court in recent weeks over what they described as shifting and contradictory government accounts of how quickly ICE intended to begin renovation work at the property. In filings last week, New Jersey argued that DHS officials had alternately described the project as limited maintenance activity and as active interior preparation work involving demolition and infrastructure changes.

The agreement filed Tuesday effectively adopts many of the limits plaintiffs had sought before the scheduled injunction hearing.

David Broderick, a volunteer with Project NINJA, a New Jersey-based advocacy group opposing the detention project, said the agreement amounted to a recognition by DHS that additional environmental review would be required before substantive conversion work could proceed.

“They have belatedly agreed to follow the requirements of NEPA and not perform any substantive work to convert the warehouse unless and until they perform the required Environmental Assessment,” Mr. Broderick said in a statement.

He added that local groups intended to closely monitor activity at the site for compliance with the agreement.

The filing also formalizes a position the federal government had already previewed in earlier court papers. In an April declaration submitted in opposition to New Jersey’s injunction request, ICE official Andrew J. DeGregorio stated that the agency intended to conduct “further NEPA analysis” before proceeding with construction activities related to detention operations, including preparation of an Environmental Assessment.

The stipulation does not resolve the underlying lawsuit. Instead, it temporarily pauses the dispute while the environmental review proceeds.

Once ICE issues a final Environmental Assessment and a formal agency decision relying on it, the parties must submit a joint status report proposing the next phase of litigation. The agreement also preserves New Jersey’s ability to renew its request for a preliminary injunction after the environmental review is completed.

The agreement arrives weeks after a federal judge in Maryland granted a preliminary injunction halting conversion work at a planned ICE detention warehouse in Williamsport, finding that the federal government likely failed to comply with NEPA before moving forward with the project. That ruling has become a central reference point in similar warehouse challenges now pending in New Jersey, Michigan and Arizona.

The case in Roxbury is likely to resume once ICE completes the environmental review process, which could determine whether the agency can proceed with converting the warehouse into a detention facility without undertaking a broader environmental impact study.

The Department of Homeland Security plans to deploy 1,570 iris scanning devices to Immigration and Customs Enforcement locations across the country within 30 days of finalizing a no-bid contract with the Massachusetts technology company Bi2 Technologies, according to a Statement of Objectives posted to SAM.gov on May 8.

ICE Bi2 Statement of Objectives

278KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Inmate Recognition and Identification System (IRIS) and Mobile Offender Recognition & Identification System (MORIS) – Bi2 Technologies, LLC May 2026

Download

The proposed sole-source contract would give ICE agents the ability to scan a person’s iris using a smartphone and compare the result against a database containing more than five million criminal booking records. According to the procurement document, the system is designed to return matches in real time during field operations.

The May procurement appears to expand an existing ICE-Bi2 capability rather than create it from scratch. Federal spending records show DHS awarded Bi2 a $4.6 million contract in September 2025 for iris biometric recognition technology and access to a biometric information system. That earlier award required Bi2 to provide 200 biometric devices. The new Statement of Objectives calls for 1,570 devices, suggesting ICE is seeking to scale up the system’s physical deployment while maintaining nationwide access to Bi2’s IRIS and MORIS tools.

What Iris Scanning Is, and How It Works

Biometric identification uses a physical characteristic of the body to confirm a person’s identity. Fingerprints are the most familiar example. Facial recognition, which compares photographs against databases of known images, has become increasingly common in law enforcement over the past decade. Iris recognition works on the same principle, but analyzes the colored ring surrounding the pupil of the eye.

Bi2 Technologies describes the iris as “the most anatomically unique biometric visible on the human body” and says its IRIS system creates an algorithmic template from more than 265 unique characteristics in a person’s eye. The company says the system can return results in about eight seconds or less and can capture an image while the person is seated or standing 10 to 15 inches from the scanner, even if the person is wearing glasses or contact lenses.

Bi2 says IRIS was developed in 2006 with sheriffs for use in jails and correctional facilities, including intake, booking, release and identity authentication. The company also says the system is “not a surveillance technology” and is used only with an individual’s knowledge.

MORIS, the mobile system ICE is seeking to access, extends that capability outside a fixed booking environment. On its website, Bi2 describes MORIS as a handheld, wireless offender recognition system that allows law enforcement officers to authenticate a person’s identity and immediately retrieve information previously entered into the IRIS national database. The company says MORIS works on iOS, Android and Microsoft platforms and can be used on phones, tablets, laptops and other devices “on the street, in a vehicle or at the office.”

Bi2’s website says MORIS can provide arrest and incarceration history, including mugshots, state and federal identification numbers, offenses, aliases, charges and arrest details. It says the system can authenticate the identity of a person enrolled in IRIS and return arrest and incarceration history in less than a second from “virtually anywhere.”

How the Database Was Built

The IRIS database is not operated by the federal government. Instead, it is maintained by Bi2 Technologies through agreements with local law enforcement agencies that contribute booking records to the network.

According to reporting by Biometric Update, Bi2 offered free access to MORIS in 2023 to sheriffs in 31 counties near the southern border, expanding the company’s biometric repository through local jail booking records.

The procurement document states that the system now contains more than five million booking records associated with roughly 1.5 million unique individuals and data contributed by more than 247 agencies nationwide. ICE is not building an in-house biometric repository. Instead, it is purchasing access to an existing network assembled through local law enforcement agreements.

The procurement document calls for unlimited queries against the database, continuous access for ICE personnel and recurring real-time alerts based on predefined criteria. It also authorizes bulk downloads of records.

Why ICE Did Not Seek Competing Bids

Federal procurement rules generally require agencies to solicit competing bids before awarding contracts. Agencies may bypass that process when they determine that only one vendor can meet operational requirements.

ICE invoked that exception here. The procurement document states that Bi2 “has developed and maintains the only national, web-based iris biometric network and database” and that “no other organization, public or private, has developed or implemented a comparable capability.”

Because the database is proprietary, competing vendors would not have access to the same records even if ICE opened the contract to bids.

The procurement document cites President Trump’s border emergency proclamation and executive orders related to immigration enforcement.

The proposed procurement follows an earlier Bi2 award issued last year. Federal spending records show DHS awarded Bi2 Technologies a $4.6 million contract on Sept. 24, 2025, for “iris biometric recognition technology” and access to a biometric information system that would allow ICE agents to quickly authenticate subjects during field operations. The award, which runs through Sept. 23, 2026, appears to be the predecessor to the new Statement of Objectives, which expands the same IRIS and MORIS capability into a nationwide deployment of devices, licenses and database access.

What the Contract Requires, and What It Does Not

The Statement of Objectives includes several data protection requirements. Bi2 would be prohibited from using ICE query data for commercial purposes or sharing it with other clients. Images submitted for matching would be required to be deleted immediately after processing. The contractor would also be required to maintain audit logs and preserve monitoring data for at least 180 days.

The procurement document does not require the system to receive FedRAMP — short for the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program — authorization before deployment. Instead, Bi2 is required only to submit a draft plan describing how it intends to pursue eventual certification under the federal cloud-security framework.

FedRAMP is the government’s standard process for evaluating the security of cloud-based systems used by federal agencies. The certification process is designed to test whether systems handling sensitive government information meet baseline requirements for encryption, access controls, logging, vulnerability management and continuous monitoring. Under the proposed contract, ICE would gain immediate nationwide access to a biometric system handling criminal booking records and personally identifiable information before that review process is complete.

The procurement document also does not describe any independent auditing requirement, congressional notification provision or external review mechanism governing use of the system.

Scale and Speed of Deployment

Under the terms of the proposed contract, Bi2 would be required to deliver 1,570 iris scanning devices to ICE locations nationwide within 30 days of the award, along with unlimited enterprise software licenses for a 12-month period.

Major federal technology deployments involving sensitive personal data often take months or years to move from award to operational use. The proposed rollout would place nationwide deployment on a significantly compressed timeline.

ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division, which oversees arrests, detention and deportation operations nationwide, is identified in the procurement document as a primary operational user of the system.

ICE’s Expansion of Biometric Systems

The Bi2 contract is part of a sweeping expansion of biometric and data-analysis tools across federal law enforcement. Project Salt Box previously reported that DHS and the FBI have pursued or deployed systems involving mobile biometric collection, facial recognition, license plate tracking, social media analysis and large-scale case-management platforms. In that context, the Bi2 procurement would add mobile iris recognition to an enforcement infrastructure increasingly built around rapid identification, database matching and field-level data collection.

The proposed contract would last 12 months and provide ICE with nationwide access to the IRIS and MORIS systems.

A Department of Homeland Security email released by Washington County under a standing Maryland Public Information Act request shows that the proposed ICE detention facility in Williamsport, Maryland remains far from moving forward, with unresolved tribal consultation and a contractor that has yet to produce basic design documents complicating a project already halted by a federal court.

The May 5 email, sent by Gabrielle Fernandez, a DHS environmental specialist, to consulting parties involved in the federal review process and obtained through the county’s public records portal, offers the clearest window yet into the state of the project.

May 5, 2026 - DHS Email to Consulted Parties

201KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

ICE’s contractor, KVG LLC, has not yet delivered final design plans to the agency — plans that would include basic ground disturbance information, according to the email. That missing information is currently blocking ICE from completing its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires the federal government to consult with tribes and other parties about potential impacts to cultural and historic resources before proceeding with a project.

At least one tribe has formally requested additional information about ground disturbance at the site, the email states. ICE said it cannot respond until KVG delivers the outstanding design details, at which point the agency said it will re-engage with the tribe. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation — an independent federal body named in the email — has standing to weigh in on whether that consultation is being handled adequately.

When the federal government purchased the 825,000-square-foot warehouse on Hopewell Road in January for roughly $102 million, it conducted what is known as a Categorical Exclusion — the lightest available form of environmental review under federal law, typically reserved for projects so routine they require no meaningful analysis. ICE completed that review in a single day, then purchased the property the next.

Maryland sued. In April, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Hurson issued a preliminary injunction halting conversion work, finding the project did not qualify for that shortcut. The May 5 email represents a direct reversal of the agency's legal position — ICE had argued in court that a Categorical Exclusion was sufficient, requiring no further environmental review.

ICE now says the project requires an Environmental Assessment — a more substantive review than the one-day Categorical Exclusion the agency conducted before purchasing the site. Under federal environmental laws, an EA sits in the middle tier of environmental review. Its purpose is not to resolve questions about impact, but to determine whether those impacts are significant enough to require the most intensive form of review: a full Environmental Impact Statement, an often years-long process of environmental consideration.

But an EA is not a guarantee of deeper scrutiny. If ICE conducts the review and concludes that impacts are not significant, it can issue what is known as a Finding of No Significant Impact — and potentially move forward without ever producing a full EIS. Under federal law, agencies conduct and evaluate their own environmental reviews. Courts are the primary external check on whether those conclusions hold, reviewing them under a standard that asks whether the agency’s decision was arbitrary or unsupported by the record. Maryland has already demonstrated it is willing to use them.

Whether ICE’s EA will be sufficient is likely to be contested. The record already contains significant evidence of impact. The Maryland Department of the Environment has found that Washington County’s sewer system cannot support a facility expected to house up to 1,500 detainees — a pumping station serving the property is operating at more than 99 percent of its allocated capacity, according to state regulators. The state has barred any increase in sewage flow tied to the property until the county revises its water and sewer plan.

The timeline for any expanded review also remains uncertain. During proceedings earlier this year, an attorney representing ICE acknowledged that completing a full environmental review could take years.

Tribal consultation remains incomplete, according to the email. And the contractor responsible for the project’s final design has not produced the documents needed to move that consultation forward.

Ms. Fernandez said in the email that public engagement on the Environmental Assessment will be initiated in the future. No timeline was given. The warehouse remains under the terms of Judge Hurson’s injunction, which permits only limited maintenance while the legal and regulatory process continues.

Subscribe now

White House “Border Czar” Tom Homan was speaking Tuesday to a room of Homeland Security officials and immigration enforcement contractors in Phoenix when he offered a blunt assessment of the administration’s plans.

“You ain’t seen shit yet,” Mr. Homan said at the Border Security Expo. “This year will be a good year. Mass deportations are coming.”

The remarks, delivered at an industry conference rather than a press event and reported by CNN, underscored the administration’s intention to sharply escalate immigration enforcement in the months ahead. They also raised a practical question officials have not publicly answered: Where does the administration plan to hold the people it arrests?

The immigration detention system currently holds roughly 60,000 people against an estimated capacity of just over 70,000. The administration has pledged to expand that capacity to more than 100,000 beds using $38.3 billion appropriated through the One Big Beautiful Budget Act.

A review of federal budget records, law enforcement partnership data and corporate disclosures indicates that officials are pursuing at least three separate strategies to reach that target — including one effort whose status was brought into clearer focus on Tuesday during an investor call by a major private prison operator.

A Lower Public Profile

When Markwayne Mullin replaced Kristi Noem as secretary of homeland security earlier this year, the administration’s immigration operations became less publicly visible.

Ms. Noem’s tenure had been marked by large-scale enforcement actions in Chicago, Minneapolis and Los Angeles that drew protests and, in at least two cases, resulted in the deaths of American citizens during encounters with immigration officers. Under Mr. Mullin, such operations have largely receded from public view, or have at least evaded mainstream media attention.

Mr. Mullin said Tuesday that the change was intentional.

“We’re purposely trying to be a little more quiet,” he said on Newsmax.

Asked whether the administration remained committed to deporting all undocumented immigrants or had narrowed its focus to those with criminal records, Mr. Mullin said it had not changed course.

“No,” he said. “We’re staying focused on all illegals, without question.”

That message differs from guidance the administration has provided some political allies. CNN has reported that James Blair, the White House deputy chief of staff, urged Republican lawmakers to emphasize the removal of criminals rather than mass deportations in public messaging.

Mr. Homan struck a similar note in Phoenix, saying criminal and public safety threats “have to be the priority” before adding that everyone else remained “on the table.” He said that 35 to 40 percent of those arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during President Trump’s second term have had no criminal record.

But ICE’s own detention population does not fully match that public-safety framing. According to TRAC, 42,722 of the 60,311 people held in ICE detention as of April 4 — about 71 percent — had no criminal conviction. Many of those with convictions had committed minor offenses, including traffic violations.

The data points to a capacity problem that already extends beyond people convicted of crimes. As the administration promises a broader enforcement surge, it is preparing to hold a detention population that is already largely made up of civil immigration detainees with no criminal convictions.

Federal records, corporate disclosures and law enforcement partnership data indicate that the administration is pursuing at least three parallel efforts to expand detention capacity: converting industrial warehouses into detention centers, purchasing existing private detention facilities from prison contractors, and rapidly expanding agreements that allow local jails to house immigration detainees.

The Warehouses

The administration’s most visible effort is the Detention Reengineering Initiative, under which ICE has purchased industrial warehouses for conversion into detention centers.

ICE has acquired 11 such properties in the first quarter of this year. But the initiative has run into legal resistance. A planned facility in Maryland has been halted by federal court order. A second, in Arizona, was voluntarily paused before the state’s attorney general filed suit. Two others face active litigation, with no retrofit contracts yet awarded. The remaining seven have neither pending lawsuits nor awarded construction contracts. If all 11 progress to completion, they will add 38,000 beds to ICE’s total detention capacity — and pushing it over its 100,000-bed goal.

A person familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations, said the initiative had not been abandoned. Rather, officials are reassessing how to proceed while purchases and retrofit contracts remain on hold.

Buying Turnkey Prison Facilities

A second effort has not received as much fanfare or attention as the warehouse plan.

ICE has been in discussions with GEO Group, one of the nation’s largest private prison operators, about purchasing approximately 10 of the company’s detention facilities outright, according to remarks made Wednesday by the company’s chief executive, George Zoley, during GEO’s quarterly earnings call.

ICE had previously alluded to buying turnkey detention sites in Detention Reengineering Initiative materials provided earlier this year to Gov. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.

“I can respectfully acknowledge that we have been in discussions with ICE regarding the potential sale of multiple facilities,” Mr. Zoley said.

A second individual, speaking to Project Salt Box on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, identified eight privately-operated detention facilities that federal officials have examined as potential acquisition targets. These include:

• Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Wash.

• California City Detention Center in California City, Calif.

• Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego

• Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield, Calif.

• Montgomery Processing Center in Conroe, Texas

• Central Louisiana Processing Center in Jena, La.

• the Aurora ICE Processing Center in Aurora, Colo.

• the Winn Processing Center in Winnfield, La.

The potential GEO purchases also differ from the warehouse conversions in a crucial way: the facilities are already detention centers. Local opposition to the warehouse sites has focused heavily on environmental review, land-use changes, infrastructure limits and whether ICE can convert ordinary industrial buildings into detention facilities. Buying existing detention centers would avoid many of those concerns, and make them substantially harder to fight.

Mr. Zoley told investors that federal ownership could also provide legal advantages over privately operated detention sites, arguing that the federal government would have broader constitutional protections against state oversight efforts.

Several of the facilities identified as potential acquisition targets are in states — including California, Washington and Colorado — where officials have sought to impose stricter oversight on immigration detention operations.

California, Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and New Mexico have passed or considered measures aimed at limiting immigration detention contracts, private detention facilities or warehouse-style detention conversions. In Illinois, the House recently passed a bill that would bar new immigration detention centers from operating within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, parks, day care centers or houses of worship. Maryland lawmakers have advanced bills to regulate private custodial facilities and detention conditions. And in New Jersey, state officials have passed measures restricting local jail contracts with ICE.

Mr. Zoley said federal officials appeared to be weighing the relative cost and complexity of purchasing existing detention facilities against converting warehouses, particularly as the warehouse initiative had become, in his words, “politically problematic.”

GEO Group houses more than one-third of all ICE detainees nationwide. The company reported first-quarter revenue of $705.2 million, up 17 percent from a year earlier.

Leaning on Local Jails

The third strategy is less centralized and would not require ICE to build or buy detention facilities — rather, the agency could use its growing network of local police department partnerships.

Under the federal 287(g) program, ICE can delegate some immigration enforcement powers to state and local law enforcement agencies. Depending on the model, local officers can question people in jails about immigration status, issue immigration detainers, execute administrative warrants or assist with enforcement outside jail settings. ICE describes the program as a collaboration tool; critics describe it as a way to extend the deportation system through local police and jail networks.

The program matters for detention capacity because it lets ICE use existing local infrastructure. A person arrested by local police can be identified for immigration enforcement while already inside a jail, held on a detainer and transferred into ICE custody without requiring ICE to first send federal officers into the community or open new detention space.

That expansion has accelerated under President Donald Trump’s second term. A dashboard maintained by Andrew Thrasher and sourced from primary ICE data, shows 1,786 active 287(g) agreements with 1,506 agencies across 39 states as of May 5. In the previous 30 days, 160 new agreements were signed, a 19.4 percent increase over the prior period. In the previous 90 days, 429 were added, a 78 percent increase. Texas leads all states with 380 agreements across 309 agencies; Florida has 346 agreements across 282.

The Trump administration has also added a financial incentive. In September, the Department of Homeland Security announced that ICE would reimburse participating agencies for the annual salary and benefits of eligible trained 287(g) officers, including overtime. That gives local agencies a fiscal reason to join the program while giving ICE a broader enforcement network without immediately adding federal detention beds.

This approach does not solve ICE’s long-term capacity problem. But it can expand the pipeline of arrests and transfers while officials weigh slower options, including warehouse conversions and facility purchases.

The detention planning has unfolded alongside a sharp increase in enforcement-related spending.

White House apportionment records reviewed by Project Salt Box show that ICE’s allocation for its 287(g) law enforcement officer pay under the One Big Beautiful Budget Act increased from $185 million in October 2025 to just over $1 billion by mid-April 2026.

The rise suggests that ICE is scaling enforcement capacity at the same time it is searching for places to hold people arrested in that effort.

A Shift Toward Interior Enforcement

ICE’s own detainee records show that the administration’s enforcement posture has shifted toward arrests inside the United States.

In July 2025, 73 percent of people in ICE custody had been arrested by ICE officers in interior enforcement operations, while 27 percent had been transferred from Customs and Border Protection following border encounters. By January 2026, those figures had shifted to 84 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

The detained population peaked at 70,766 in late January, near the system’s estimated capacity, before declining to 60,311 as of April 4. The administration has not publicly explained the decline.

Sanctuary-State Tensions

Mr. Homan reserved some of his sharpest remarks Tuesday for jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

“We’re going to flood the zone,” he said. “You’re going to see more ICE agents than you ever seen before.”

He added that people encountered during enforcement operations who were not the intended targets — known within ICE as “collaterals” — would increasingly be taken into custody.

“You will see collateral arrests increase in these areas,” he said.

Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York responded by recalling what she said was a commitment made directly to her by Mr. Trump.

“Donald Trump himself said he would not send a surge of ICE agents to the state of New York unless I ask,” she said. “I’m not asking.”

The administration has not publicly detailed the detention-facility acquisition discussions, the pace of 287(g) expansion or the increase in enforcement-related spending. Each has emerged through earnings calls, budget documents, government records or remarks delivered outside the administration’s regular public messaging.

On Tuesday’s earnings call, Mr. Zoley offered a summary of where the planning stood.

“All of the plans, I think, are being reviewed, assessed,” he said. “And I’m sure they’ll come up with some reasonable conclusions.”

Update: May 6, 2026 at 1:40 p.m. ET

Judge Semper denied the deposition request Wednesday, ruling without elaboration that expedited discovery was not warranted under federal civil procedure rules. The May 12 preliminary injunction hearing remains scheduled.

New Jersey and the Township of Roxbury filed a volley of legal papers Tuesday night pressing a federal judge to halt the conversion of a Morris County warehouse into an immigration detention facility, arguing the Department of Homeland Security broke federal environmental law before spending $129 million to acquire the property.

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

340KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

DECLARATION OF NAIMA DRECKER-WAXMAN

5.08MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Re: State of New Jersey et al. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al., Civil Action No. 26-02884 (JKS) (JBC)

270KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The filings — a reply brief, an attorney declaration, and a request for emergency depositions — landed just before 10 p.m. ET, one week before a scheduled May 12 hearing before U.S. District Judge Jamel K. Semper in Newark.

The case is one of four in which state attorneys general have challenged a federal program to expand immigration detention capacity by purchasing existing industrial buildings. A judge in Maryland granted a preliminary injunction last month in nearly identical litigation. Similar challenges are pending in Michigan and Arizona.

DHS has argued that retrofitting an existing building does not require the same environmental scrutiny as new construction. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, agencies can bypass fuller review by invoking categorical exclusions — shortcut determinations that a project is unlikely to cause significant harm. For the Roxbury facility, an environmental consulting firm called Solv LLC conducted that analysis under a roughly $1.7 million contract with ICE’s facilities management office, concluding the project qualified for multiple exclusions. The firm’s review was signed Feb. 6 and approved Feb. 24 — one day after the property closed.

New Jersey and Roxbury counter that the law requires agencies to consider the full consequences of what they are doing before they do it — not piece by piece, after the fact. Because the warehouse was purchased solely to establish a detention facility, they argue, the acquisition and the planned operations are one project, and DHS broke the law when it bought the property without first asking what that project would mean for the surrounding community. The environmental review DHS promised for the first time in its opposition brief does not fix that, plaintiffs argue: by the agency's own description, the review will evaluate how to run the facility, not whether to put one in Roxbury at all.

Township engineers submitted unrebutted declarations that the local water system would be overwhelmed “even if the facility had no staff and only 323 detainees” — well below DHS’s planned capacity of 542 — and that downstream sewer pipes could not accommodate any additional flow under state environmental standards regardless of on-site improvements.

Much of Tuesday’s briefing focused on what plaintiffs called a pattern of contradictory representations by the agency. At a March 10 meeting with Roxbury officials, DHS said it would award a construction contract by the end of that month and be fully operational within 90 days. After plaintiffs threatened emergency court action, DHS counsel wrote on March 30 — in an email now filed as an exhibit — that no construction would begin before May 28 at the earliest and that site activity would be limited to basic maintenance and security.

DHS’s opposition brief said otherwise. Agency declarations described plans to proceed before any construction contract is signed with “demolishing drywall and adding communications wiring and workstations” to make the warehouse “useful for ICE purposes” — one declaration qualifying the work as “mainly drywall demolition,” language plaintiffs argue signals undisclosed additional activity.

“Given these inconsistencies,” plaintiffs wrote, “this Court should not deny Plaintiffs’ motion based on DHS’s representations unless and until Plaintiffs have an opportunity to take testimony from DHS witnesses.”

That is the basis for the deposition request. In a letter to the court, Solicitor General Shankar Duraiswamy asked Judge Semper to compel two-hour depositions of DeGregorio and Byers before the May 12 hearing, saying DHS’s account had “zig-zagged over the past two months” and that the agency had not responded to “multiple inquiries” seeking clarity. “Only a compelled deposition,” he wrote, “will enable Plaintiffs and the Court to assess the factual basis for DHS’s argument.” DHS has indicated it opposes the request.

Plaintiffs said they would drop the injunction motion entirely if DHS committed in writing to deferring all construction, including interior demolition, until the environmental review is complete.

Judge Semper has not ruled on either request.

Keep track of the latest developments in the warehouse lawsuits in one convenient place at our Warehouse Litigation Tracker.

The case is State of New Jersey et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., Civil Action No. 26-02884.

Bottom Line Up Front

ICE Spending Drops Dramatically: This month, ICE spent $130 million - an 88% decrease from last month and the agency’s lowest monthly spend so far this year. The drop in spending is likely due to Markwayne Mullin’s transition-in as Secretary, ongoing litigation, and internal contract reviews.

Border Wall Construction Continues: Outside of March, which saw a massive jump in spending, CBP’s border wall contracts have been relatively constant this year. The agency is spending, on average, $2 billion a month on border wall construction along the southern border.

Private Prison Companies Continue to Profit: Despite the drop in overall spending, April was business as usual for companies like The GEO Group, CoreCivic, and Akima. Each received tens of millions of dollars in continued detention and transportation contracts.

April’s Biggest Contracts

For the fourth month in a row, border contracts continue to dominate CBP and ICE spending. Barnard Construction and Fisher Sand & Gravel were each awarded another contract for border wall construction, this time in El Paso and San Diego, respectively. These two contracts alone totaled over $2 billion.

Additional new contracts included a $15 million award to Acuity-CHS LLC for pre-employment medical testing of potential CBP hires and a $12 million award to Edge Ops, LLC to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) with “Project Safe Haven” - described as an “analytic capability to identify, track, and map movement of criminal and terrorist organizations.”

In April, the bulk of ICE’s spending flowed through modifications to existing contracts - only 17% went to new awards. The GEO Group received over $20 million, including $16 million in funding for the detention facility they operate in Aurora, CO. CoreCivic received additional funds to continue operations at the Central Arizona Correctional Complex.

Warehouse Conversion Contracts On Pause

The contracts awarded to KVG, LLC and Gardaworld Federal were both paused within a month of starting. The KVG contract to convert the Hagerstown/Williamsport, Md. warehouse into a detention facility was hit with a stop‑work order due to the ongoing lawsuit between the Maryland Attorney General and DHS. Interestingly, the Surprise, Az. stop-work order was issued one day before the Arizona Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit against the agency.

On April 15, Judge Brendan Hurson granted a preliminary injunction blocking work on the Maryland warehouse. In his opinion, Judge Hurson stated that the case “provides a crystal-clear example of a federal agency failing to comply with the basic requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act” and that “the State has met its burden of showing a clear likelihood of imminent irreparable harm should Defendants be allowed to proceed with their proposed course of action at the Williamsport Warehouse.”

There are currently four ongoing lawsuits against DHS in relation to the warehouses in Maryland, Arizona, New Jersey, and Michigan. Project Salt Box is following these cases in our Litigation Tracker.

Analysis and Trends

Reliance on existing contracts over new awards: In April, ICE largely relied on modifying existing contracts rather than initiating new ones, with only 17% of the agency’s spending going to new awards. This drop in new awards is likely tied to a combination of factors, including the partial government shutdown, Markwayne Mullin’s transition as the new Secretary, and a possible agency‑wide push to avoid new awards that could invite additional scrutiny. It also underscores that, even without new contracts, ICE has already built a robust detention and transportation infrastructure that can keep operating through existing agreements.

Analytics and surveillance capability are expanding, even during “slow” month: Even as ICE’s overall spending fell to its lowest level so far this year, DHS continued to invest in the analytic backbone of immigration enforcement. In addition to the Edge Ops contract supporting Project Safe Haven, ICE ERO paid Palantir over $86 million for their case management and analytics platform. The agency also purchased additional Cellebrite tools for mobile forensics, along with “forensic kits” from firms like Impres Technology and FCN. These awards show how DHS is deepening its capacity to collect, analyze, and act on data about people in the immigration system.

Border wall construction continues: Border wall construction remained a dominant feature of DHS spending, with CBP obligating roughly 2 billion dollars this month to wall projects along the southern border. Large awards to firms like Barnard Construction and Fisher Sand & Gravel continue to drive this spending, with just a few contracts accounting for billions in obligations. This year has seen a steady flow of money into a small group of border infrastructure contractors, underscoring just how central wall construction remains to DHS’s agenda, despite volatility elsewhere in the department’s budget. Based on a Project Salt Box analysis of over 60 contracts, CBP has spent over $20B on the border wall since August 2025.

A Momentary Lull in the Spending Surge

Despite a low spending month for ICE, this slowdown is unlikely to last. The agency is moving forward with its plans to lease office space for over 300 personnel nationwide, and, as we previously reported, is conducting market research to establish its own fast-track construction contract vehicle. On top of that, ICE continues its hiring surge, with over 60 new job openings listed on LinkedIn in the last week alone. Thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the agency still has access to billions in funding, and spending is likely to pick up again over the next few months.

About this Report

All procurement data used in this report is from usaspending.gov and SAM.gov. This is the fourth monthly report from Project Salt Box. If there are specific procurements, companies, regions, or topics you would like us to cover in future monthly reports, please reach out to us and let us know.

The federal government issued a stop work order on the $313 million contract to convert an industrial warehouse in Surprise into an immigration detention facility at least two days before Arizona’s attorney general filed suit to block the project, according to federal contracting records reviewed by Project Salt Box.

The records, posted to USASpending.gov, show two successive modifications to the contract held by GardaWorld Federal Services. The first, designated P00001 and signed April 22, initiated the halt. A second modification, P00002 — signed April 23 — bore the explicit description: “THIS MODIFICATION UPDATES THE STOP WORK ORDER IN EFFECT AT THE SURPRISE PROCESSING AND DETENTION FACILITY.” Both reflected a $0 obligation, consistent with administrative actions that carry no new funding.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced on April 24 that she had filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona seeking to permanently block the facility. A stop work order was already in place.

DHS, ICE, and GardaWorld did not respond to requests for comment sent by Project Salt Box prior to publication.

A Parallel Contract, Also Halted

Three weeks before the Surprise modifications appeared, an identical sequence played out on a companion warehouse contract in Williamsport, Maryland.

KVG LLC was awarded $113 million on March 6 — the same day as the GardaWorld contract — to renovate an ICE-owned warehouse in Williamsport into a processing and detention facility. On April 2, a contract modification appeared in federal records. Its language was direct: “THIS MODIFICATION IMPLEMENTS A STOP WORK ORDER.”

The Maryland stop work arrived as courts were weighing the state’s legal challenge to that facility. On April 15, U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson granted a preliminary injunction — the first court order halting one of the administration’s warehouse detention conversions. He found that DHS had defined the scope of its project so narrowly as to exclude the very purpose the project was meant to serve, and that the agency’s environmental review had recorded a conclusion rather than reached one. During oral argument, a government lawyer acknowledged that a proper environmental review could take years.

In Arizona, a stop work order was issued April 22, updated April 23, and a state lawsuit was filed April 24. Whether ICE issued the Surprise stop work in anticipation of court action, under instruction from the Department of Justice, following an internal policy review, or for reasons unrelated to the litigation is not established by the contract records. The government has offered no public explanation for either modification.

No Environmental Review on Record

The Arizona complaint, styled Arizona v. Mullin, names DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons as defendants. It is the fourth lawsuit brought by a state against the federal warehouse detention program on environmental and procedural grounds.

It is also the most procedurally exposed for the government, because unlike the cases in Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey, Arizona says there is no environmental review document to challenge at all.

In Michigan, records obtained by Project Salt Box showed that ICE’s Record of Environmental Consideration was completed in approximately 30 minutes, on the same day the state filed suit. In Maryland, the agency completed its review in a single day and purchased the property the next. In New Jersey, the review was signed off Feb. 6 and approved Feb. 24, one day after the property was purchased. Arizona has located no document at all.

That absence cuts against the government’s standard defense. In all three prior cases, DHS argued that modifying an existing building does not trigger the same environmental scrutiny as new construction, and that concerns about water, wastewater, and traffic belong to a later planning stage. Judge Hurson rejected that argument in Maryland.

When DHS has previously built or modified detention facilities, it complied with the National Environmental Policy Act. In 2021, the agency completed a full environmental assessment before advancing plans for a processing center in El Paso, Texas, sending draft documents to 23 stakeholders and soliciting public comment. No comparable process occurred in Surprise.

The procedural record in Surprise is thin in additional respects. In February, ICE issued a Floodplain Notice for the Surprise warehouse listing a public comment deadline of Jan. 19 — four days before the warehouse was purchased. On Feb. 20, before a separately listed deadline had passed, DHS removed the Floodplain Notice and replaced it with a notice for a facility in Romulus, Michigan. Judge Hurson cited an identical sequence in the Maryland case as evidence that the review process had been compromised.

ICE purchased the Surprise property for $70,035,000 on Jan. 23, 2026 — one day after DHS sent a consultation letter to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office regarding the proposed acquisition, and before the preservation office had received the letter. DHS did not consult with or notify the City of Surprise before the purchase. At the first city council meeting after the acquisition was announced, residents spoke in opposition for nearly five hours, pushing a 7 p.m. meeting past midnight.

The Site

The warehouse sits at 13290 W. Sweetwater Avenue in Surprise, an industrial distribution facility of 418,400 square feet that was built to be leased to up to four commercial tenants. It was not designed to house people.

Directly across the street, Rinchem Co. LLC operates a 123,000-square-foot hazardous materials storage facility containing chemicals used in semiconductor production. Rinchem filed a Risk Management Plan on Jan. 1, 2026, three weeks before ICE purchased the warehouse next door. According to Arizona’s complaint, the plan does not account for the presence of a large captive population nearby, and Arizona is unaware of any risk assessment ICE conducted regarding the proximity of the two sites.

The warehouse is also approximately one mile from Dysart High School, which enrolls roughly 1,400 students, and Dysart Middle School, which enrolls around 600. ICE has made no public mention of either.

Arizona’s complaint alleges that the facility violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, which requires the federal government to arrange for “appropriate” places for immigration detention — a standard the state argues the Surprise site, given its location adjacent to a chemical hazard facility, can never meet.

The complaint brings four counts under the Administrative Procedure Act: a challenge to the NEPA bypass; a claim that the site fails the INA’s appropriateness standard because of its proximity to hazardous chemicals and inadequate water and sewer infrastructure; a claim that ICE failed to consider existing detention facilities as alternatives before acquiring new property, having considered only other industrial warehouses; and a claim that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, in that ICE provided no reasoned explanation for abandoning its prior practice of environmental review. The state is asking the court to vacate the acquisition decision and permanently enjoin ICE from converting or operating the site.

The Arizona filing was the 41st lawsuit Mayes has filed or joined against the Trump administration in its second term. She announced it standing outside the warehouse. “If there is a tank rupture or a chemical spill or a fire,” she said, “emergency responders will be responding to a potential mass casualty event involving hundreds if not thousands of people.”

The government has not yet responded to the complaint. The stop work modifications remain in the federal contracting database without explanation, alongside the modification at the Williamsport facility where a federal court has already ruled the government violated the law.

Project Salt Box tracks all warehouse updates and ongoing litigation at tracker.projectsaltbox.com.

Nj Esa

18.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Most notably, another company has emerged as a potential key player in DHS’ Detention Reengineering Initiative - Rudiarius, LLC.

The company is listed as the user of the report. While it’s unclear exactly what Rudiarius’ role was in the Roxbury warehouse, users of Phase I ESAs typically include brokers, developers, and firms conducting due diligence. Given that JLL is listed as the broker, it’s likely that Rudiarius was operating on behalf of DHS to conduct due diligence of the site - perhaps as a subcontractor to another firm, since the company itself does not have any direct contracts with the agency.

A Brand New Player at DHS

With a business registration filed in Wyoming in July 2025, Rudiarius appears to be a recent entrant into DHS contracting. The original address on the filing is a residence in Dorchester, MA, owned by James (Jim) Grossmann, who, around the same time, also formed several related companies, including Rudiarius Holdings and Rudiarius Solutions.

Rudiarius Holdings is registered in SAM.gov, a prerequisite for doing business with the federal government. NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes are used by federal agencies to categorize businesses based on the type of economic activity they perform. The primary NAICS code listed for the company is 236220: Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. An interesting side note: the new construction contracts ICE is planning on establishing use this same NAICS code.

The address for Rudiarius Holdings is listed as 12 Ericsson St., Dorchester, MA - the address of Boston-based construction firm RISE Construction, also co-owned by Mr. Grossmann. The company has faced financial strain in recent years, including liens and litigation involving unpaid amounts to subcontractors on multiple projects.

Ties to the Social Circle, GA Warehouse

The Roxbury warehouse Phase I ESA is not the first time Rudiarius has been associated with DHS’ Detention Reengineering Initiative. In documents released by Social Circle, GA, Mr. Grossmann’s name and signature appear on the Infrastructure Analysis provided to the City by DHS.

It appears that Grossmann and his team, possibly operating through Rudiarius, conducted the engineering assessment and analysis of the site and concluded that the project would have “no adverse effect on the community and surrounding properties.” Local officials in Social Circle disputed this finding, saying the document was “insufficient in fully answering our questions and does not adequately support the conclusion that the surrounding area would not be impacted.” They further noted that their concerns about water and sewer infrastructure remained unaddressed to their satisfaction and that they left the meeting with “more questions than answers.”

Another Piece to the Puzzle

Given that Mr. Grossmann/Rudiarius can be linked to at least two of the warehouses purchased by ICE, it’s not unreasonable to assume the company has been involved in others. This places them among several other key players. These companies include SK2 LLC, who was tapped to advise DHS on identifying, structuring, and brokering warehouse acquisitions for ICE’s detention initiative, and Solv LLC, who has supported the agency with their environmental and historical reviews of the warehouse properties.

Both SK2 and Solv hold prime contracts with DHS, while Rudiarius does not, suggesting that Grossmann may be operating either as an independent consultant or as a subcontractor under another firm. This makes Rudiarius harder to spot in standard procurement records, even as traces of its involvement show up in technical documents. What is striking here is that DHS specifically attempted to obscure Rudiarius’s role in this filing - despite leaving other companies fully visible in comparable materials - raising questions about why this particular company was treated differently and what, exactly, the agency is trying to keep out of view.

Project Salt Box was unable to locate contact information for Rudiarius LLC, and the company could not be reached for comment.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed suit in federal court Thursday to block the conversion of a warehouse in Surprise, Arizona into an immigration detention facility, the fourth such challenge brought by a state against the federal government’s warehouse detention program on environmental and procedural grounds.

Arizona v. Mullin

400KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, names Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons as defendants. It asks the court to declare the warehouse acquisition unlawful and to permanently enjoin ICE from converting or operating the site.

The filing arrives nine days after a federal judge in Maryland halted a similar conversion in Williamsport, finding that DHS had attempted to shoehorn a large-scale detention project into environmental exclusions designed for minor renovations. Courts in Michigan and New Jersey are weighing comparable claims.

The Surprise purchase

On Jan. 22, 2026, DHS sent a consultation letter to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office regarding a proposed acquisition in Surprise. One day later, before the preservation office had received the letter, ICE purchased the property for $70,035,000. DHS did not consult with or notify the City of Surprise before the purchase. At the first city council meeting after the acquisition was announced, residents spoke in opposition for nearly five hours, pushing a 7 p.m. meeting past midnight, according to the complaint.

The facility, a 418,400-square-foot industrial distribution facility at 13290 W. Sweetwater Avenue, was built to be leased to up to four commercial tenants — and, as the term “warehouse” suggests, was not designed to house people.

Directly across the street, at 13255 W. Sweetwater Avenue, Rinchem Co. LLC operates a 123,000-square-foot hazardous materials storage facility containing chemicals used in semiconductor production. Rinchem filed a Risk Management Plan for the facility on Jan. 1, 2026, three weeks before ICE purchased the warehouse next door. According to the complaint, the RMP does not account for the presence of a large captive population nearby, and Arizona is unaware of any risk assessment ICE has conducted regarding the two sites’ proximity.

The warehouse is also located approximately one mile from Dysart High School, which enrolls around 1,400 students, and Dysart Middle School, which enrolls around 600. ICE has made no public mention of either. At a press conference outside the facility Thursday, Mayes said students at Dysart High, where roughly 60 percent of students are Hispanic according to state enrollment data, were frightened to walk to school because of the increased ICE presence in the area.

The fourth case

Unlike the cases in Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey — where the government produced environmental review documents, however hastily — Arizona states it is unaware of any such document existing at all for the Surprise warehouse. No environmental impact statement, no environmental assessment, no categorical exclusion.

That distinguishes the Arizona case in a meaningful way. In Michigan, records obtained by Project Salt Box show that ICE’s Record of Environmental Consideration was completed in approximately 30 minutes, on the same day the state filed suit. In Maryland, the agency completed its review in a single day and purchased the property the next. In New Jersey, the review was signed off on Feb. 6 and approved Feb. 24, one day after the property was purchased.

Arizona can point to no document at all.

The complaint notes that when DHS has previously built or modified detention facilities, it complied with NEPA. In 2021, DHS completed an environmental assessment before advancing plans for a processing center in El Paso, Texas, sending draft documents to 23 stakeholders and soliciting public comment. No comparable process occurred here.

In February, ICE issued a Floodplain Notice for the Surprise warehouse that listed a public comment deadline of Jan. 19 — four days before the warehouse was purchased. A separate section of DHS’s website listed the deadline as Feb. 20.

On Feb. 20, before that deadline had passed, DHS removed the Floodplain Notice for the Surprise warehouse and replaced it with a notice for a facility in Romulus, Michigan. It was a nearly identical sequence of events to the one Judge Hurson cited in granting Maryland’s preliminary injunction nine days ago.

A contract with GardaWorld

On March 6, ICE contracted with GardaWorld Federal Services to retrofit and operate the Surprise warehouse at a cost of approximately $313 million, with a potential ceiling of $704 million. An economic analysis produced by DHS projected the construction phase would require nearly 1,400 workers.

GardaWorld, which provides security staffing at immigration detention facilities including one in Florida that Amnesty International has separately documented for human rights violations, has not previously undertaken facility conversion work of this scale, according to the complaint.

What’s ahead

The government has not yet responded to the Arizona complaint, but its filings in the other three cases offer a preview of its likely defense. In each, DHS has argued that modifying an existing building does not trigger the same environmental scrutiny as constructing a new one, and that questions about water use, wastewater capacity, and traffic belong to a later stage of the project. In New Jersey, Maryland, and Michigan, the government argued those projected harms were speculative — contingent on future decisions not yet made.

Judge Adam Hurson of the U.S. District Court in Maryland found that argument unpersuasive. He ruled that DHS had defined its project so narrowly as to exclude the very purpose the project was meant to serve, and that the agency’s review had recorded a conclusion rather than reached one. He granted a preliminary injunction on April 15. During the hearing, a lawyer for the federal government acknowledged that completing a proper environmental review could take years.

Arizona’s complaint brings four counts, all under the Administrative Procedure Act. The first challenges the NEPA bypass. The second and third argue the site is inappropriate under the Immigration and Nationality Act — both because the facility lacks adequate water and sewer infrastructure, and because the INA required ICE to consider existing detention facilities as alternatives before acquiring new property. ICE, the complaint notes, considered only other industrial warehouses. The fourth count argues the decision was arbitrary and capricious, in that ICE has provided no reasoned explanation for abandoning its prior practice of environmental review, nor any explanation for selecting a site adjacent to a hazardous chemical storage facility, according to the filing.

The state is asking the court to vacate the acquisition decision and permanently block construction and operation.

Follow this and the other warehouse cases at tracker.projectsaltbox.com.

The Department of Homeland Security was back in court Thursday — in New Jersey, this time — defending the same argument it has now made in three states: that buying a warehouse and retrofitting it for detention does not trigger the environmental review that federal law typically requires.

In a 36-page filing that opens by observing that New Jersey “clearly dislikes having immigration detention centers within the State,” the Department of Homeland Security asked a federal court to reject the state’s bid to halt the conversion.

DHS Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction

647KB ∙ PDF file

Download

State of New Jersey and Township of Roxbury v. United States, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Download

The substance of that filing matches its tone. The government’s case rests on a single proposition: the court is being asked to rule on a building, not a detention center, and the two are not yet the same thing.

Modifying an existing building, the government says, is not the same as constructing a new one, and therefore does not require the same level of scrutiny. What a facility will do once it opens — and what pressures it will put on local water systems, sewers and roads — are questions for later.

That position is now being tested in federal courts in New Jersey, Maryland and Michigan, where judges are being asked to decide whether the government can separate the physical building from the detention camp it is intended to be.

David Broderick, a member of Project NINJA, a volunteer civil liberties group in Warren County formed to oppose the Roxbury conversion, compared the agency's definition of the project to Humpty Dumpty's theory of language. “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean,” he said, quoting Lewis Carroll. DHS, he argued, has redefined “project” to mean only the physical work of securing the building — not the end use that work builds to. Federal guidance instructs agencies not to divide connected actions into smaller parts to avoid environmental review. Broderick said that is precisely what is happening here.

How the government cleared the review

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, federal agencies are generally required to assess the environmental impact of major projects before proceeding. But the law allows for exceptions — known as categorical exclusions — when a project is deemed unlikely to cause significant harm. The government has relied on those exclusions, repeatedly, to move forward with the warehouse conversions under its Detention Reengineering Initiative — now paused as the agency undergoes a transition in leadership and a rewickering of its core policies and strategies in the wake of Secretary Noem’s ouster last month.

The mechanism of review runs through a document called a Record of Environmental Consideration, or REC — an internal analysis that agencies use to justify bypassing a more detailed review. According to documents reviewed by Project Salt Box, the analyses in these cases were conducted by Solv LLC, an environmental consulting firm working under a fiscal year 2026 contract with ICE’s facilities management office worth roughly $1.7 million.

Exhibit 1 - Record of Environmental Consideration

15.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

State of New Jersey and Township of Roxbury v. United States, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Download

The REC for the New Jersey facility, located in Roxbury, concluded that the project qualified for multiple categorical exclusions. It defined the work as retrofitting an existing building with security and infrastructure upgrades — nothing built from the ground up. That definition is what allowed the agency to avoid a more detailed review.

The government goes further, claiming that when accounting for the facility’s intended use as a detention center, any physical changes needed are modest enough that existing infrastructure can absorb them. The facility is designed for 542 detainees — a figure the government used to rebut the state’s water calculations, which assumed nearly three times that number. Upgraded sewer connections, if needed at all, would be handled through routine permitting. None of this, the government argues, rises to the level of extraordinary circumstances that would override the exclusions.

The document does acknowledge what the facility is ultimately for — housing units, security systems, and support infrastructure already planned. But it treats those details as belonging to a separate, later stage of the project. Questions about wastewater upgrades and sewer connections, it says, will be addressed in “final engineering review” and future permitting — not now.

But that argument works only if a court agrees to treat the retrofit and the detention center as two separate things: the building as it is purchased, and the detention camp it will become.

State and local officials previously raised concerns about water use, wastewater capacity, traffic and public health. Today, DHS lawyers dismissed them: those problems, the government said, belong to a later stage of the project, once it is clear how the facility will actually run. Based on its narrow definition of the project, the agency concluded it posed no significant environmental risk and required no further scrutiny.

The same argument, three courts

The New Jersey filing is the second time this week the government has made this argument in court. The playbook is roughly the same across all three cases, though each has its own procedural wrinkle.

In Maryland, a federal judge halted a similar conversion after finding that the environmental review had been completed in “just hours” before the property closed. The judge concluded that the agency had decided to proceed before the review was done — that the analysis recorded a conclusion rather than reached one. The court also found that by separating the retrofit from the facility’s intended use, ICE had drawn the boundaries of the project too narrowly. Shortly after, the agency moved ahead with contracting tied to the facility — a sequence the court found had compromised the process, and grounds enough to grant the state’s injunction.

In Michigan, ICE purchased a warehouse near Detroit in early February and did not complete its environmental review until late March — the same day the state filed suit. The review came after the decision, not before it.

In New Jersey, the timeline is longer. The Roxbury review began in late January, was signed off on February 6 and approved on February 24 — one day after the property was purchased. That sequence of events avoids the compressed timing cited in Maryland, but the underlying logic is unchanged.

What a ruling would mean

The legal question in all three cases is one Judge Brendan Hurson in Maryland answered, at least provisionally, when he granted a preliminary injunction last week: can a federal agency define a project so narrowly that it excludes the very purpose the project is meant to serve?

If courts accept that a building and the operation it houses are legally distinct, the government will have leave to expand detention capacity across the nearly dozen warehouses it has already purchased, with little environmental scrutiny required.

Subscribe now

Federal officials defended a plan to convert a suburban Detroit warehouse into an immigration detention facility in a late-night court filing, as records show the project’s environmental review was completed in a single day — just hours after Michigan filed suit.

In its response, filed minutes before a court deadline, the Department of Homeland Security argued that the selection of detention sites falls within its “broad, discretionary authority” under federal immigration law and should not be subject to court review.

DHS' response to State's request for Preliminary Injunction

320KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Michigan v. Department of Homeland Security

Download

The filing also described opposition from some states as putting “U.S. citizens at risk” and pointed to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s prior opposition to ICE detention efforts, noting that she had blocked the sale of a state facility because it did not align with her “values,” framing the legal challenge as an effort to impede immigration enforcement.

Michigan officials argue that federal agencies moved ahead with the purchase and planning of the facility before completing the environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

ICE purchased the Romulus warehouse in early February. In its response, the government acknowledged the site could ultimately be scaled to accommodate as many as 2,000 detainees, though it said it does not currently expect to house more than 500.

State officials have cited concerns about wastewater capacity, traffic and the potential strain on local infrastructure if the facility is converted for detention use.

In its filing, the government said those harms were speculative, describing them as “contingent” on future decisions about how the facility would be used. It also argued that no final agency action had occurred and that plans for the site were still being developed.

Internal environmental review documents describe a more defined project.

NEPA Record of Environmental Consideration, completed 3/24

302KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Michigan v. Department of Homeland Security

Download

A Record of Environmental Consideration, or REC, completed on March 24 — more than a month after the property was purchased and the same day Michigan filed its lawsuit — determined that the project qualified for a categorical exclusion, a streamlined form of review used for actions that “normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.”

The document outlines a detention processing center with housing units, recreation areas and support facilities, while stating that the project would involve “no new building additions, footprint expansions, off site construction, or capacity related improvements.”

It also concludes that the facility would not exceed existing infrastructure capacity, even as it notes that the project “may require upsizing or modification of the existing sanitary sewer lateral” and references “possible sewer connection improvements,” with final capacity to be confirmed through later engineering and coordination with local authorities.

Digital signatures show the review was prepared and approved within roughly 30 minutes on the afternoon of March 24.

The environmental determination came nearly a month after the property purchase and within hours of the lawsuit, while the government’s court filing describes the project as still evolving and not yet final.

The REC also states that the proposed action is “not a piece of a larger action” and does not involve “extraordinary circumstances” that would require more detailed environmental review — findings used to support reliance on categorical exclusions.

Attachments

11.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Michigan v. Department of Homeland Security

Download

In its court filing, the government emphasized that additional environmental review is forthcoming, stating that ICE will complete further analysis before undertaking construction or operating the facility.

That position follows an earlier internal determination that the project qualified for a categorical exclusion, a form of review used for actions not expected to have significant environmental effects.

In a separate case involving a warehouse conversion in Williamsport, Md., a federal judge rejected that approach, finding that DHS relied on categorical exclusions to evaluate a project that would substantially change how the facility functioned. The court wrote that the agency had attempted to “shoehorn” the conversion of a cargo warehouse into exclusions meant for minor renovations and real estate transactions, and that the review itself proceeded at a “rocket’s pace.”

In that case, DHS “stacked” multiple categorical exclusions simultaneously — including those for property acquisition and minor facility modifications — to justify bypassing more detailed environmental review. The court found that approach inconsistent with the scale of the project, where the conversion would introduce sustained human occupancy and strain existing infrastructure. Maryland’s request for a preliminary injunction was ultimately granted.

The same categories used in the Maryland case — covering real estate acquisition, minor renovations and limited construction — are also invoked in the Michigan review, where the agency determined that converting the Romulus warehouse into a detention facility would not constitute a meaningful change in use or require expanded environmental analysis.

Michigan is expected to file its reply by April 28.

Subscribe now

Track this case and others at our updated Warehouse Litigation Tracker, live now at https://tracker.projectsaltbox.com.

This morning, ICE launched a market research effort to establish multiple “highly flexible construction contracting vehicle[s] to support mission-critical facility needs.” According to the record on SAM.gov, the agency is considering awarding contracts to several companies to establish a portfolio of single‑award construction contracts (SACC) that would let it rapidly design, build, renovate, and demolish ICE facilities across the country over the next five years.

The scope of work for SACC is broad. It includes, but is not limited to:

• General design and construction management

• Site planning and environmental planning assessments to support ICE compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal and state environmental requirements

• Alteration, modification, and renovation of existing facilities

• Maintenance and repair of existing buildings and infrastructure

• Demolition of structures and facilities

• Engineering analysis and site assessments (for example, geotechnical surveys) to support design‑build of real property assets

• Design‑build renovation and new construction services

Of note, ICE is assigning this work to NAICS code 236220, a federal industry category for commercial and institutional building construction. Using 236220 is a sign that the agency anticipates using these contracts for large-scale, institutional building work, not small projects or repairs.

More, the solicitation specifies that the SACC IDIQs are also intended to “support emergency responses to natural disasters and emergencies.” It’s not clear why ICE — whose core mission is immigration enforcement — would need a construction contracting vehicle that accommodates disaster response, a function that traditionally falls to FEMA.

“Highly flexible construction contracting”

While the RFI notice is brief, it mentions the need for “highly flexible construction contracting” multiple times and stresses that contractors will be expected to manage multiple task orders simultaneously. That flexibility is baked into the contract structure ICE is proposing. By setting up several single‑award, indefinite‑delivery/indefinite‑quantity contracts, the agency won’t have to compete each individual task order — instead, it will have a small bench of pre‑cleared companies it can tap quickly, avoiding both the delays and the oversight that come with a more competitive process.

This would be even faster than what ICE is currently using. DHS has been relying on WEXMAC TITUS, a Navy logistics program originally designed for international expeditionary contracts, to retrofit warehouses into detention facilities domestically. WEXMAC is a multiple‑award contract, which is faster than full and open competition, but still involves bidding among a defined pool of companies. Four firms competed for the Williamsport, Md., warehouse renovation; six bid on the site in Surprise, AZ.

The proposed SACC model might skip even that limited competition and transparency. ICE could pre‑award contracts to a select group of firms and issue task orders directly on an as-needed basis.

And there’s an even bigger strategic shift at play: where WEXMAC TITUS is a Pentagon program pressed into immigration enforcement use — one that Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) have already challenged, demanding the Defense Department end its agreement with DHS — an ICE-owned contracting vehicle would move detention construction back in-house and entirely out of Pentagon oversight — and the scrutiny that has come with it.

A Search for Large, Experienced Construction Firms

In addition to the typical information required in an RFI (business information, point of contact, etc.), ICE specifically asks for a signed letter from a qualified bonding company confirming that the contractor is currently approved for at least $10 million in bonding on any single project and at least $300 million in total bonded work across all projects.

In plain terms, this means that ICE is looking for construction firms whose insurance company will cover them for up to $300 million. This appears to be a way to filter out smaller and mid-sized firms who are unable to get bonding approvals at that scale.

What to Watch Next

ICE is just now entering the market research phase of this initiative. Interested vendors have until May 6th to respond, and from there, the agency will draft a procurement package. Given ICE’s emphasis on speed, it would not be surprising to see an RFP released on this in the coming months.

Once the full solicitation is out, we should get a clearer picture of the work ICE is planning, which locations each contract will cover, and, ideally, which facilities are likely to be prioritized.

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Subscribe now

A federal plan to convert a warehouse in Washington County, Md., into an immigration processing facility is on hold under a court injunction, after a federal judge found the project failed to comply with federal environmental review requirements.

But meeting notes from a March 16 briefing between Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and county leaders offer the clearest account to date of how the project was advancing — including how federal officials discussed compensating the county and addressing infrastructure demands, even as key terms remained unsettled.

The briefing came after Washington County Administrator Michelle Gordon sent a list of requests in February to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, outlining local concerns tied to the project, including nearly $380 million in infrastructure demands and its fiscal impact.

In an opinion issued April 17, Judge Adam B. Hurson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland halted the project, describing it as “a crystal-clear example” of federal officials failing to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Williamsport Warehouse Opinion

712KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The records, released through the county’s public information portal and reviewed by Project Saltbox, provide a detailed view of how the federal government is structuring financial and operational arrangements with local jurisdictions as it moves to expand detention capacity. In the margin of one page, a handwritten note reads “paused 14 days due to ledigation [sic],” a reference to the temporary restraining order that halted work.

Participants in the March 16 briefing included Dave Venturella, a senior ICE advisor and former executive at the private detention company GEO Group, and Matt Elliston, an assistant director at the agency, along with Ms. Gordon and county commissioners.

3/16 Meeting Notes

1.02MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Because federally owned property is exempt from local taxation, the notes outline a proposed workaround: a Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILOT, set at $2 per bed, per day. The figure appears in both typed and handwritten notes. No formal agreement is included, and the documents do not specify how the payment would be calculated — whether based on maximum capacity, operational capacity, or another measure.

At 1,500 beds — a figure cited in leaked ICE documents and as a “surge” ceiling in court filings — the formula would generate about $1.1 million annually. But ICE has referenced smaller configurations elsewhere, as low as about 520 beds, which would reduce the payment to roughly $380,000. The notes do not indicate which figure would apply. The court noted that even conservative estimates suggested the facility could increase the surrounding population by nearly 50 percent.

The disparity underscores a broader tension reflected in the documents: while county officials were outlining hundreds of millions of dollars in potential infrastructure needs, the federal proposal described in the meeting notes would provide a fixed daily payment tied to bed count.

The notes describe the facility as a short-term processing site, with stays of three to seven days. That model would mean a steady flow of people moving through the site, increasing demand on local infrastructure. The documents do not specify how the proposed payment would be calculated, including whether it would account for that throughput. It aligns with the agency’s description of a “processing center” in its Detention Reengineering Initiative.

The notes also suggest that individuals would be transferred out of state. One entry states simply that individuals would be transferred to a detention facility in Pennsylvania, without further detail on the purpose or specific destination.

Based on Project Saltbox’s analysis of ICE’s recent acquisitions, Pennsylvania is home to at least one large-scale “mega center” in Tremont designed to hold 7,500 individuals, part of a broader network of massive sites intended to receive transfers from short-term processing locations.

During the call, county officials raised concerns about infrastructure, including water and wastewater capacity, road access and electrical load — constraints later echoed by state regulators, who directed Washington County to revisit its wastewater planning.

In response to questions from Project Saltbox, county officials said federal authorities indicated that the work would be handled by KVG, LLC, a contractor hired to renovate the site. According to the county, KVG is responsible for engineering assessments and construction, including evaluating water and wastewater capacity. The company was awarded a $113 million contract, with a ceiling of $641 million, for conversion work at the warehouse. A stop-work order was issued in early April following a temporary restraining order from Judge Hurson.

County officials said federal authorities indicated that the government would pay fees associated with any additional water or wastewater capacity and cover upgrades to the Wright Road sewage pump station. KVG, they said, would also be responsible for temporary solutions if existing capacity proves insufficient.

The March 16 meeting notes include a similar statement, that “DHS/Vendor will pay for infrastructure upgrades,” but do not provide details on scope, cost or timing, and no formal agreement is included in the record. The statements outline a plan for addressing infrastructure needs, but stop short of documenting enforceable commitments.

An email summarizing the March 16 briefing, sent by Washington County official Michelle Gordon to County Attorney Zachary Kieffer, outlines how the project was expected to operate in practice. The notes describe the site as a short-term processing facility with stays of three to seven days and estimate about 500 individuals “on any given day,” even as capacity targets ranged higher. They indicate that “EMS services [are] not anticipated,” with plans for a “full medical unit on staff” and a private ambulance contract, and note that individuals could be “transferred to [a] detention facility in PA,” without further detail.

The email also references infrastructure changes, including an upgrade to the county air traffic control tower, increased utility demand to accommodate detainee capacity, and anticipated coordination with transportation officials over Interstate 81.

It also draws a comparison between the Williamsport warehouse and a “comparable processing center” in Philipsburg, Pa., a reference to the Moshannon Valley Processing Center, an existing ICE detention facility.

The note lists attendees including Tim Kaiser, a division chief at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who has appeared in internal Detention Reengineering Initiative materials. Reporting and document metadata reviewed independently by Project Saltbox and WIRED show Kaiser participating in planning documents about the structure and duration of ICE’s proposed detention network, including facilities designed to hold individuals for up to 60 days, linking the Maryland project to a broader system of short-term processing sites feeding into larger detention centers.

The Washington County project is part of a broader push to expand detention capacity through large warehouse conversions. ICE has purchased 11 warehouses across the United States, with planned populations ranging from about 500 to 8,500 beds.

In total, the agency has spent more than $1 billion on warehouse acquisitions, according to Project Saltbox analysis. Using the $2-per-bed, per-day structure outlined in the Maryland notes, a facility at the upper end of that range would generate roughly $6.2 million in PILOT funds annually for the host jurisdiction.

The Maryland records do not indicate whether similar arrangements are being considered elsewhere. But they show how the project was advancing before the injunction, even as key financial and operational terms — including capacity, infrastructure costs and local compensation — remained unsettled.

Emails released this week through a Maryland Public Information Act request show the site at 16220 Wright Road remained in active commercial use planning shortly before its transition into a project now tied to federal immigration enforcement.

Biz Dev Emails

1.14MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The records do not identify the prospective tenant. But according to emails, the company was exploring a relocation from central Pennsylvania that could have brought about 75 jobs and more than $10 million in investment.

For several years, emails show, officials in Washington County’s business and economic development office worked with the building’s owner — a real estate arm of the investment platform Fundrise — to attract tenants.

In June 2022, shortly after the purchase, Jonathan Horowitz, a business development official for the county, told a representative of the firm that the county had worked with the previous developer and was seeking to establish “a connection from the building owners to the local government.”

By March 2023, that relationship had deepened. After a meeting with Fundrise representatives, Horowitz sent materials outlining local and state incentive programs and wrote, “I’m looking forward to filling your building up asap!”

Emails show the county also offered to connect the company with officials at the Maryland Department of Commerce and assist in assembling incentive packages to attract tenants.

At the same time, emails show, both the county and the property’s owner were grappling with constraints at the site. Access to the warehouse was a recurring issue, with a planned extension of Wright Road not expected to be completed until 2027 or later. Representatives of the owner pressed county officials about whether the project could be accelerated, describing access as a sticking point in discussions with prospective tenants.

In a January 2024 exchange, a Fundrise asset manager described a potential tenant with four or five employees operating forklifts and asked whether existing restroom facilities would meet code. Gregory E. Cartrette, Washington County’s director of permits and inspections, replied that no additional restrooms would be required.

That exchange reflects the building’s original intended use: a large industrial facility designed for limited on-site staffing.

As late as October 2025, the property remained in active leasing discussions with private tenants. Within six months, it had been acquired by the federal government and then — at least for now — stopped by a federal court.

Fundrise told investors it was not actively marketing the property for sale when it received the unsolicited offer, according to investor communications previously reviewed and reported by Project Salt Box, and said it accepted the bid based on its fiduciary obligations and the buyer’s terms. The account suggests the federal purchase did not emerge from a planned sale process but instead overtook an ongoing effort to lease the building to private tenants.

As Project Salt Box previously reported, on Jan. 12, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security formally initiated a consultation process with local officials, stating that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was proposing to purchase and convert the warehouse into a processing facility. Plans outlined in the letter included interior construction of holding and processing spaces, medical areas and visitor facilities.

Four days later, on Jan. 16, Michelle Gordon, the Washington County administrator, circulated the notice internally to county commissioners, describing it as part of the federal government’s due diligence process. She wrote that, to the county’s knowledge, ICE had not yet completed a purchase or made an offer. State land records indicate the federal government executed purchase documents that same day.

Even as the proposal took shape, Gordon reiterated the county’s legal position, writing that federal actions were outside local control and noting that detention facilities were permitted under the property’s industrial zoning designation.

The transition from commercial leasing to federal use unfolded over the following weeks.

By Feb. 10, amid mounting local opposition, the Washington County Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution expressing “full, unwavering support” for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The following day, Gordon wrote to federal officials acknowledging that the department had purchased the property and outlining a series of infrastructure needs tied to the project, including sewer capacity upgrades, water supply considerations and transportation improvements. The county also requested federal assistance for projects ranging from pump station upgrades to a proposed widening of Interstate 81.

Those same infrastructure constraints had been raised months earlier in communications between county officials and the property’s owner during efforts to attract commercial tenants.

The emails do not show direct coordination between county officials and federal agencies prior to the purchase. But they document a compressed timeline in which the warehouse shifted from an actively marketed commercial asset — one facing known infrastructure constraints — to a federal project expected to accommodate far higher levels of occupancy.

The same infrastructure constraints the county had identified in earlier communications — first as barriers to commercial use and later in requests for federal assistance — now underpin the state’s case against the warehouse’s use as a detention center. A federal judge this week issued an injunction halting further work at the site pending environmental review, while Maryland officials have ordered Washington County to revise its sewerage plan — a step that could determine whether the project can move forward at all.

Subscribe now

A federal judge on Wednesday halted the government’s effort to convert a warehouse in Washington County, Md., into an immigration detention facility, ruling that work cannot proceed until a full environmental review is completed — a process federal officials said could take years.

The decision, issued by Judge Adam B. Hurson of the U.S. District Court in Maryland, grants the state’s request for a preliminary injunction, blocking the work while the case proceeds.

The ruling extends a series of setbacks. In March, the court temporarily blocked construction at the Williamsport site. The new order keeps those restrictions in place.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Michigan and New Jersey, where state and local officials are seeking to block the conversion of warehouses into detention facilities on environmental and procedural grounds. The ruling in Maryland could shape how courts evaluate those claims, particularly around environmental review requirements.

Under the injunction in Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement may only carry out limited work, such as maintenance and repairs, but cannot proceed with retrofitting the warehouse for detention use.

At issue are requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates that federal agencies assess environmental impacts before undertaking major projects. Maryland argued that the Department of Homeland Security moved ahead with the purchase and early work without. Documents submitted by ICE lawyers last week in opposition to the injunction show the agency completed and approved its environmental review in a single day, then purchased the property the next.

During the hearing, a lawyer for the federal government acknowledged that completing the review could take years, WBAL reported.

The federal government purchased the 825,000-square-foot warehouse in January for about $102 million and began preparing the site for a facility expected to hold up to 1,500 detainees.

An administrative order issued this week by the Maryland Department of the Environment identified additional limits on the site.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER to the Washington County Board of County Commissioners

604KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The agency found that Washington County’s sewer system is not equipped to support a facility of that scale. The warehouse is currently allocated capacity equivalent to about 400 gallons of wastewater per day — consistent with warehouse use, not a residential facility. The order cites “deficiencies in the County’s water and sewerage plan” and states that infrastructure must be sufficient to “protect the environment, public health, and comfort.”

A pumping station serving the property is already operating near capacity, with more than 99 percent of its available flow allocated.

State regulators said wastewater flows from a detention facility would likely exceed the system’s limits, increasing the risk of overflows and environmental contamination.

The order directs the county to revise its water and sewer plan and bars any increase in sewage flow tied to the property until those issues are addressed.

A spokesperson for the Washington County Board of County Commissioners declined to comment, saying the county “does not comment on legal matters.”

While today’s injunction does not resolve the case, it does render the warehouse unusable for detention for the foreseeable future, unless and until the environmental review is completed.

ICE did not immediately return a request for comment.

According to the DHS Forecast and an RFI released earlier this year, ICE is expanding its East Coast ground transportation contract to the tune of over $100 million. The current contract, worth $53 million, is held by Paragon Professional Services and primarily serves the Baltimore, Boston, Newark, and New York City areas of responsibility.

Draft Pws

978KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The new contract will add the Washington, DC area of responsibility and defines the total operating area, which will include: New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia, and, in some cases, as far as North Carolina, and Georgia.

The forecast anticipates an RFP release in May and a five-year contract start in September.

What Paragon’s Contract Currently Covers

Under the current contract, Paragon is responsible for providing armed ground transportation and guard services for ICE detainees across several Enforcement and Removal Operations field offices, including New York City, Newark, Baltimore, and Boston. The company supplies its own vehicles and two‑officer teams to move detainees between field offices, contract detention facilities, county jails, airports, hospitals, and processing centers, operating around the clock, seven days a week, including holidays.

In addition to moving people, the contract requires Paragon to furnish armed escorts and stationary guards, for when detainees are in hospitals, at court hearings, or held in field‑office holding rooms.

Paragon began this work in 2023, and the volume of task orders has expanded significantly since then. In the first contract year, ICE issued city‑specific orders totaling roughly $11 million across New York City, Newark, and Baltimore combined. New task orders starting in 2025 amount to more than $17 million in dedicated NYC/Newark work, plus about $17 million more for multi‑field‑office transportation, effectively more than doubling the overall annual spending under this contract.

The new contract is anticipated to be over $20 million a year - at least a 15% increase.

The Routes

As part of the RFI, ICE published anticipated routes for most of the areas of responsibility. These details provide insight into expected daily shuttle patterns, long‑haul transfers, and the volume of officer time and mileage the new contract will support.

Baltimore Area of Responsibility

The Baltimore AOR primarily includes the Baltimore Field Office and Salisbury sub‑office, with frequent short runs to Maryland county jails, USMS in Baltimore and Greenbelt, and nearby airports like BWI. It also includes occasional long‑distance trips to contract facilities and jails in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, New England, the Carolinas, Ohio, and Massachusetts, plus more sporadic airport moves to regional hubs such as Philadelphia, Newark, Reagan National, Dulles, and Harrisburg.

Baltimore Transportation Routes With Additional Routes

29.5KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

If this routing plan is any indication, Baltimore will likely see more ICE activity on the ground. The field office and Salisbury sub‑office already run a dense schedule of short‑haul jail and USMS runs across Maryland, moving people around the region several times a week and, on some routes, daily. On top of that, the presence of long‑distance routes suggests Baltimore will continue to serve as a starting point for cross‑state transfers.

Boston Area of Responsibility

The Boston AOR is headquartered at the Burlington Field Office and includes sub-offices in Hartford, Manchester, Scarborough, and Warwick. There will be regular van runs to a network of county jails, contract detention facilities, and airports across Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut. Daily shuttles will transport detainees to nearby facilities like Plymouth County, Strafford County, Wyatt, and Cumberland County. Less frequent but much longer trips will go to FCI Berlin, White River Junction, and the Batavia detention center in western New York.

Bos Anticipated Transporation Routes

45.5KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

The Boston spreadsheet is the most detailed route plan, spelling out one‑way miles, total miles, estimated drive time, officer counts, frequency, and annual miles for each loop. In total, the Boston AOR is planning for about 514,732 miles of ground transport a year, most of it in high‑frequency runs between New England jails and detention sites, with occasional long‑distance trips into upstate New York and northern New England.

Newark Area of Responsibility

The Newark AOR is centered around the Newark Field Office and related addresses like 620 Frelinghuysen Avenue, 970 Broad Street, Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility, and Delaney Hall, with a dense cluster of short routes to county jails and medical facilities across northern and central New Jersey. Many of those trips are under an hour’s drive—moving people to and from Hudson, Bergen, Monmouth, Morris, Sussex, Middlesex, and Union County jails, as well as Newark‑area hospitals—on an “as required” or multi‑times‑per‑week basis.

Newark Transportation Routes 06

333KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In addition to the shorter runs, Newark’s routing plan includes long‑distance trips to Moshannon Valley Processing Center in central Pennsylvania and other out‑of‑state facilities, with single legs stretching roughly 230 to 255 miles one way. This is similar to how the Baltimore AOR will operate, with most movements being local transports and a smaller set of long‑haul runs to contract centers hundreds of miles away.

New York City Area of Responsibility

The New York City AOR revolves around the ERO office at 26 Federal Plaza and sub‑offices in Newburgh and Central Islip, with daily van routes to airports, county jails, and nearby detention centers in New York and New Jersey. Core routes include daily round trips to JFK and LaGuardia airports, Nassau County Correctional Center, Orange County Jail, the Newburgh sub‑office, and Elizabeth CDF.

Nyc Route Paragon

192KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In addition to those daily shuttles, ICE has again laid out “as required” trips from New York to distant facilities like Moshannon Valley, Farmville, Plymouth County, Harrisburg, and Green Haven, often covering hundreds of miles per run. This follows the same pattern as the Baltimore and Newark AORs. The focus is on shorter local transports, but the plan still builds in ad hoc longer‑distance trips.

Washington, D.C. Area of Responsibility

The Washington (WAS) AOR is newly added under the expanded contract. The draft PWS indicates at least two detention facilities in the Washington Field Office region are “coming on line,” but does not yet provide a route table like the ones for Baltimore, Boston, Newark, and New York. Instead, it requires the contractor to establish hubs supporting the Washington Field Office and to be prepared to move detainees within Virginia, the greater D.C. region, and occasionally to the same network of out‑of‑state contract facilities that appear in the other AORs.

It’s not clear which two Washington‑area detention facilities the draft PWS is referring to. Given the timing, one plausible interpretation is that ICE was referencing proposed projects in Hanover County and at Augusta Correctional Center in Virginia, both of which have since been cancelled after public push-back and state‑level intervention.

In Hanover, DHS sought to buy a 550,000‑square‑foot warehouse in Ashland for an ICE processing and holding facility, a plan that fell through after intense local opposition and the developer’s decision not to proceed with the sale. In Augusta County, records obtained by the ACLU of Virginia through FOIA showed ICE actively considering the shuttered Augusta Correctional Center as a potential detention site, but that effort was blocked when Governor Abigail Spanberger rescinded her predecessor’s directive to sell the prison for detention purposes and state and local officials publicly ruled out its use as an ICE facility.

Other sites flagged in the same ACLU FOIA records, including privately operated facilities in or near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Greensboro, North Carolina, remain under consideration and have not yet been publicly taken off the table.

Another Sign of Detention Expansion

While this is technically “just” a transportation contract (and not even a brand‑new requirement) the bigger contract size, added area of responsibility, and the expanded route network all follow the same trends we have been seeing across DHS procurement: ICE is investing heavily into the infrastructure that makes detention and deportation possible, and it’s doing so in ways that are hard to reverse once they’re in place.

Similar to the warehouse purchases that are moving facilities onto ICE’s books for years, this contract would lock in at least a five‑year term, up from three under the current deal. That longer timeline suggests ICE is treating ground transportation as part of its standard detention infrastructure, funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, rather than as a short‑term or surge service. It adds more vehicles, officers, and routes into the routine operations of multiple field offices, and is structured to keep that capacity in place over time rather than adjusting it significantly from year to year.

Maryland’s top environmental agency issued a binding order on Monday barring Washington County from expanding its sewer system, finding that existing infrastructure cannot handle the waste generated by a proposed federal immigration detention center — and that the county’s sewerage plan, last updated in 2009, is too outdated to evaluate whether it ever could.

The Administrative Order, issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment, was filed the same day in federal court as part of the ongoing lawsuit Maryland brought against federal immigration authorities over their plans to convert a massive warehouse in Williamsport into a detention facility for up to 1,500 immigrants.

The order adds a new legal complication to a project that has faced mounting obstacles since the Department of Homeland Security paid $102.4 million in cash for the 825,620-square-foot warehouse in January — without notifying state or local authorities, filing environmental permits, or contacting the city responsible for supplying the building’s water.

“The sewer pipe will overflow and/or backup,” the order states, describing the consequence of putting the facility into operation. The result, the state warns, would “harm the environment and waters of the State” and “create an immediate health hazard and damage real and personal property.”

The Williamsport warehouse currently receives approximately 800 gallons of water per day — an allocation sized for a small warehouse crew. A detention facility housing 1,500 people, using the per-capita figure from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s own planning documents, would require an estimated 209,000 gallons daily.

Nancy Hausrath, Hagerstown’s director of utilities, told her city council last month that she had done the math herself. Hagerstown is the sole water supplier for Williamsport, and her department had not received so much as a phone call from federal authorities. “We have not received any contact,” said Ms. Hausrath.

State environmental officials had projected that the facility would generate more than 187,000 gallons of wastewater daily — more than seven times the load from its prior use as a commercial warehouse. The sewer line serving Wright Road, where the facility sits, was not built for that volume. Monday’s order made those projections binding. The Department of the Environment calculated wastewater flows for both a 1,500-person facility and a smaller, 542-person version — a capacity figure that has not previously appeared in public filings and may reflect a scaled-back federal proposal that emerged during litigation. At either size, the agency found, existing infrastructure “is inadequate to convey wastewater flows.”

Until Washington County submits a comprehensive revision of its sewerage plan and receives state approval, it may not “allocate, authorize, or facilitate any increase in sewage flow” and may not “install, modify, or extend any portion of the sewerage system.”

In March, Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the Federal District Court in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order halting all construction at the property for 14 days, finding that Maryland was likely to succeed in its argument that ICE had violated federal environmental law. Judge Hurson noted that the only environmental review he could identify was a brief floodplain notice posted to a Department of Homeland Security website — and that a renovation contract worth more than $100 million was awarded just one day after that comment period closed.

At the same time, six portable restroom trailer units and two water tanker trucks arrived at the Wright Road property. These types of units operate independently of municipal infrastructure, suggesting that federal contractors might be preparing to work around the water and sewer gap rather than resolve it. Whether portable sanitation units fall within the scope of the restraining order is unclear.

Washington County commissioners knew about the infrastructure shortfall before they voted unanimously to support the project. The day after approving the resolution, County Administrator Michelle Gordon wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to detail what local officials had already identified: the pump station serving the Wright Road property had nearly exhausted its capacity, and the work required to accommodate the facility would cost between $750,000 and $1 million and would need to begin, she wrote, “rather quickly.” The letter also asked Ms. Noem to help secure $300 million to $350 million in federal funding to widen Interstate 81 and $25 million to $30 million to upgrade the county’s regional airport — requests the county tied directly to its cooperation on the detention facility. The county did not raise its infrastructure concerns publicly. In an internal email sent the day the warehouse was purchased, Ms. Gordon had told commissioners that federal supremacy meant the project was “exempt from all State and Local regulations, code and laws.”

Some local officials had recently expressed optimism that ICE was reconsidering its plans, citing a court filing in which the agency said it would not proceed with construction without further environmental review. But ICE made that statement in a brief aimed at defeating a preliminary injunction — arguing there was no imminent harm to halt. The same filing described plans to retrofit the warehouse for an initial capacity of roughly 540 detainees.

Monday’s filing by the office of Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown appeared intended, in part, to press that point before the court. The notice accompanying the Administrative Order told Judge Hurson that the new findings “underscore the inadequacy of existing infrastructure to support the proposed detention facility and the harms that would flow to the State from exceeding the capacity of that infrastructure.”

Stormwater from the Wright Road property drains into Semple Run, which feeds Conococheague Creek, which empties into the Potomac River and eventually the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland has spent tens of millions of dollars restoring the Potomac watershed and has committed to reintroducing 50 million native mussels to the river by 2040. Three state agency secretaries warned in a March letter that sewage overflows from the facility would not stay on the property.

The case is pending before Judge Hurson in Federal District Court in Maryland.