The Trump Administration’s ambitious plan to dramatically expand immigrant detention capacity across the United States is running into a wall of resistance, not from political opponents in Washington, but from communities and local leaders where these facilities are proposed. What began as a policy initiative fueled by a “Big Beautiful Bill” allocating $45 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is now a patchwork of local battles, property owners backing out of deals, and increasingly vocal opposition from elected officials.
The strategy, revealed earlier this year, involves converting existing warehouses and industrial spaces into detention centers, a move that has sparked outrage and concern in cities and towns across the country. The scale of the expansion is significant, with ICE scouting locations in at least eight states, and having already purchased properties in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Arizona for a combined total of over $200 million. But the rollout hasn’t been smooth. The fatal shootings of two U.S. Citizens by federal agents in Minnesota in January have only intensified scrutiny of ICE’s plans and fueled the growing backlash.
In Oklahoma City, a proposed facility near the Western Heights School District faced immediate opposition. After weeks of protests and concerns raised by city council members, the property owner ultimately decided to halt negotiations with the Department of Homeland Security. Mayor David Holt released a statement praising the owner’s decision, signaling a clear message that the community would not passively accept the imposition of a large-scale detention center.
Similarly, in Salt Lake City, Mayor Erin Mendenhall took a proactive stance, sending a letter to the owner of a warehouse rumored to be a potential ICE site, warning that its use as a detention center would violate city code. The move came after a protest by roughly 50 residents carrying American flags and signs reading “ICE OUT.” Mendenhall subsequently called federal immigration enforcement actions in other cities “utterly deplorable” and reiterated her opposition to any detention facility within city limits.
The resistance isn’t limited to Democratic mayors. Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem expressing his disapproval of a proposed facility in Byhalia, Mississippi. Wicker voiced concerns that the town lacked the necessary medical and human services to support a facility potentially housing over 8,500 detainees.
Kansas City, Missouri, saw a particularly direct response. Following a tour of a warehouse by federal agents, the city council swiftly passed a moratorium on approvals for non-municipal detention facilities, effectively blocking ICE from securing the necessary permits. Council member Johnathan Duncan emphasized the importance of protecting the community from being “sold out for short-term profit.” Shortly after the moratorium, the property owner, Platform Ventures, announced that negotiations with DHS were complete.
The pattern continued in Ashland, Virginia, where the owner of a 550,000 square-foot warehouse announced it would no longer sell the property to the government after facing significant local opposition. The Canadian company, Jim Pattison Developments, stated it was unaware of the intended use of the building at the time of the initial offer and acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue.
Even in Maryland, the pushback is gaining momentum. Howard County Executive Calvin Ball announced the revocation of a building permit for a planned detention facility in Elkridge, citing a lack of transparency and public input. A public hearing on the proposed facility saw county leaders and residents alike voicing their opposition.
These local battles represent a significant challenge to the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda. While the $45 billion allocated for detention expansion provides substantial financial resources, it appears to underestimate the power of local resistance and the willingness of communities to fight for their values. The situation highlights a growing tension between federal policy and local control, and suggests that the expansion of ICE’s detention network will likely be a protracted and contentious process. The outcome of these local skirmishes will not only determine the future of immigration enforcement in these communities, but could also set a precedent for similar challenges across the country.
