Leaked Docs Expose Trump's $55bn Plan to Build Massive ICE Detention Centers with 'Biohazard Facilities'

The chain‑link fence was already in place. But this summer, there was something new about the camp on the edge of rural Louisiana: rows of white canvas tents, each tall enough for a grown adult to stand upright, stretched as far as the eye could see.

It wasn't a festival site. It wasn't emergency housing. What was emerging, according to internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) planning documents, looked like the next generation of immigration detention centres — built fast, at scale, and with little public scrutiny.

For a nation long divided over how to manage its borders, the idea that such facilities could sprout in warehouses and fields with little legislative oversight has unsettled advocates, human rights lawyers and lawmakers alike. What cannot be ignored is the mechanism at the heart of it all: a £44bn ($55bn) US Navy contract.

How A Navy Contract Became Central To Immigration Detention Expansion

According to Common Dreams, it wasn't meant to be this way.

The Worldwide Expeditionary Multiple Award Contract (WEXMAC) was originally a logistics tool designed to help the Navy move equipment quickly for overseas missions. It was never intended to build domestic holding facilities. Yet DHS has quietly expanded the contract's ceiling from about £8bn ($10bn) to roughly £44bn ($55bn).

That gargantuan shift has turned a military procurement vehicle into a kind of blank‑cheque authorisation. Through WEXMAC's 'task order' process, DHS can now commission construction and conversion of sites without the usual competitive bidding or public visibility. Imagine a spreadsheet where a navy supply contract suddenly doubles, triples and then no one is quite sure who signed off.

According to sources familiar with internal strategy, some detention facilities could accommodate up to 10,000 people at a time. There are plans for a mix of hardened structures and soft‑sided tent cities in states like Louisiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania. When the outline of such sites was leaked earlier this year, it prompted immediate alarm among rights groups — not just for the scale, but for the secrecy.

What Makes Current Immigration Detention Plans So Controversial

There's a long, documented history of mistreatment within existing immigration detention centres in the United States.

A 2025 Human Rights Watch investigation into facilities in Florida described systemic neglect: detainees denied basic hygiene, crowded dormitories where personal space was non‑existent, inadequate medical care and treatment that crossed into degrading behaviour. Previous oversight reports — some court‑mandated — revealed negligent medical practice, racist abuse and inappropriate use of force.

One court ordered supervision at California's largest ICE facility after severe medical neglect came to light. In that case, people with diabetes were reportedly denied insulin and others with serious conditions were left untreated. In the background of all this, habeas corpus petitions are surging, as detainees increasingly challenge the legality of their confinement.

There are human stories behind these headlines. An Irish man held in a Texas facility described his stay as 'psychological and physical torture' despite having a valid work permit and pending application to adjust his status. Such accounts aren't isolated — they have become part of the record that advocates point to when they argue that expanding the detention system risks entrenching abuse.

And that's the crux of the anxiety now: this isn't just about building more beds. It's about embedding a system that critics say has already demonstrated deep flaws.

Government Defence Meets Public Backlash

Federal officials argue that rising numbers of irregular border crossings and enforcement actions necessitate more infrastructure. 'We need capacity to process and house individuals lawfully apprehended,' one senior official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

But that bureaucratic logic has a cold quality when set against reports of medical neglect, overcrowding, and degrading conditions. Civil liberties groups say using a naval contracting mechanism to rush domestic detention facilities creates accountability gaps. They point out that traditional procurement rules exist for a reason: transparency, cost control and public oversight.

What Happens Next

For now, Congressional scrutiny is building. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have called for hearings, and rights advocates are preparing legal challenges, arguing that unchecked expansion threatens civil liberties and risks locking in abuses that watchdog groups say are already present.