Deportation Surge and Its Effects on Detention Companies

July 28th, 2025
Roshan Shivnani

For decades, immigration detention in the United States has rested on a patchwork of private contracts, federal funding, and local cooperation. But never has the business of detaining migrants loomed larger than it does now, as a new GOP budget and dramatically expanded enforcement strategies drive a surge in detentions across the country.

This month, under the Trump administration—building on funding activated after passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” signed into law on July 4, 2025—an unprecedented $45 billion was allocated for immigration detention, set to run through September 2029. That allocation marks a quadrupling of ICE’s annual detention budget, constituting an additional $10.6 billion per year, or a 308% increase over ICE’s Fiscal Year 2024 detention budget.

According to Department of Homeland Security statements, the vast majority of this new funding is earmarked for expanding detention capacity, which overwhelmingly contracts out to private prison firms specializing in immigrant detention. Estimates suggest this funding could increase detention capacity to at least 116,000 beds, with an anticipated average daily population of up to 100,000 detained individuals.

Since July, the federal government has implemented expedited removal proceedings, shuttered the CBP One asylum app, launched “self-deportation” incentive programs and provided expanded military support at the southern border. These measures have contributed to an escalating population of detained individuals, many held for longer periods. The result is a windfall for private contractors such as CoreCivic and GEO Group, the two largest operators in this space. They, along with all other private prisons, are only gaining power as private prison companies now detain 81% of people in ICE custody, a figure that has been rising rapidly.

Yet, as the crackdown on these individuals has surged, the requirements have only fallen. The Supreme Court’s late June decision cleared the way for mass removals of encampments and forced relocations, eliminating previous requirements that cities or states provide adequate shelter space before removing individuals deemed unlawfully present or seeking asylum.

Critics, including many immigration advocates and some local governments, argue that this rapid growth of private detention facilities undermines transparency and accountability. Litigation continues over poor conditions at several high-capacity centers in Texas, Louisiana and California, where many detainees are held. Ultimately, these deeply political matters are calling into question the role of private companies and the government, which are mobilizing them, in their already contentious immigration policy.

Extemp Analysis by: Roshan Shivnani

Question: How will the Big Beautiful Bill’s changes to immigration impact private detention firms?

AGD: This a topic that’s probably easier to find stories about - a narrative would work well here.

Background: To cover all your bases, I would start by outlining the long-standing reliance on private detention firms in U.S. immigration enforcement, despite ongoing controversy over detainee conditions and due process. Then, I would explain the recent sharp escalation under the Trump administration culminating in the July 4, 2025, signing of the Big Beautiful Bill, which allocates $45 billion for immigration detention and enforcement through 2029.

(focus 1. Private firms and their history (judges probably haven't heard about this) 2. Recent change with bill)

Answer: Doubles down on their influence and controversial practices that come with it

Massive Funding Increase and Budget Expansion
Private Detention Firms Poised for Large Financial Gains
Controversy over Accountability and Human Rights

I think the analysis here is fairly straightforward. For point 1, I would explain how the Big Beautiful Bill massively increases funding and detention capacity, transforming immigration enforcement into a significantly larger and more resource-intensive system. For point 2, I would focus on how this influx of money primarily benefits private detention firms by guaranteeing contracts and driving their expansion, solidifying their control over detention infrastructure. For point 3, I would highlight the humanitarian and oversight concerns that remain unresolved, such as poor conditions, indefinite detention of families, and diminished transparency. Overall, the bill accelerates the privatization of immigration enforcement while raising serious ethical and legal questions about the treatment of detainees.