ICE Deportation Flights Surge and the Debate Over a Dedicated ICE Airline

(MESA, ARIZONA) ICE deportation flights have rapidly expanded in scale, frequency, and controversy under President Trump’s renewed enforcement drive, and the program has a hub at Mesa Gateway Airport. In April 2025, the Department of Homeland Security signed a contract with budget carrier Avelo Airlines to run regular deportation flights from Mesa, with departures beginning on May 12, 2025. The deal marks the first known arrangement with a commercial airline for scheduled removals, blending a public law enforcement mission with private air service.

Under the DHS contract, Avelo operates three aircraft dedicated to these routes, flying both domestic transfers and international removals. Federal officials view commercial lift as a way to contain costs compared with using charters or building a government fleet. Typical pricing runs about $25,000 per flight hour and roughly $100,000 to $200,000 per trip, depending on distance and routing. For an agency juggling detention logistics across the country, schedules from a commercial partner promise fewer last-minute disruptions.

Scope and monitoring of flights

Monitoring groups have documented the shift. The ICE Flight Monitor, maintained by Human Rights First, has recorded more than 40,000 ICE-related flights since 2020, including deportations, domestic shuttles, and transfers to offshore detention sites such as Guantánamo. Activity accelerated in May 2025.

The administration has cited about 140,000 deportations as of April, while outside estimates put confirmed removals closer to 57,000, underscoring the fog around hard numbers and categories like voluntary return versus formal removal.

Key data points
– More than 40,000 ICE-associated flights tracked from 2020 through July 2025.
– Administration claim: 140,000 deportations by April 2025.
– Independent tallies: about 57,000 confirmed removals.
– Per-flight costs: about $100,000–$200,000, at roughly $25,000/hour.

Local and corporate reactions

Officials argue that partnering with a low-cost carrier offers savings at scale. For Avelo, executives have defended the contract as a financial lifeline in a tight passenger market. The company faces heavy public criticism, organized boycotts, and the risk of losing state tax benefits as legislators reconsider incentives for airlines tied to removal flights.

• Boycott campaigns target Avelo Airlines.
• Some state legislators are reconsidering tax incentives and fuel exemptions for carriers involved in removals.
• Municipalities are taking symbolic and practical steps to distance public spending from deportation operations.

One of the most pointed responses comes from New York. In June 2025, State Senator Patricia Fahy introduced the SAFE AIR Act to revoke jet fuel tax exemptions for airlines involved in deportations carried out without a judicial warrant or proof of due process. The bill, pending in Albany, aims to make airlines think twice before carrying deportees on government orders that advocates say bypass basic legal protections.

Municipal actions include:
– New Haven, Connecticut: barred city employees and contractors from using public funds to buy Avelo tickets while the airline flies ICE charters.
– Other local bodies: adopted similar measures restricting use of public dollars for airlines participating in deportation operations.

Political, legal pushback and the “own airline” idea

The administration is weighing a parallel path: a dedicated, government-run deportation airline. Internal discussions at DHS and ICE point to goals of tighter operational control, fewer canceled missions, and insulation from corporate backlash.

However:
– As of August 2025, no official announcement or implementation steps have been taken.
– Obstacles include procurement timelines, maintenance and crew staffing, legal exposure, and the likelihood of lawsuits and state-level penalties.

Advocacy groups, including Human Rights First and the Coalition to Stop Avelo, say the status quo lacks transparency. Their concerns include:
– Flights leaving with little public notice.
– Inconsistent reporting on who is removed.
– Growing use of expedited removal procedures.
– Operations conducted in sanctuary cities and sensitive places like schools and hospitals.
– Reports of mistaken detentions, including U.S. citizens.
– Data showing most detentions are for non-violent offenses.

These concerns have fueled broader debates about fairness and due process.

Data disputes and alternate programs

Data points continue to fuel the debate. On August 14, 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that 1.6 million people had left the United States in her first 200 days, counting both voluntary departures and removals. Independent trackers caution that ICE’s 2025 data may be incomplete and urge careful parsing of categories.

Human Rights First’s monthly flight reports show a rise in departures since May but also highlight gaps in public reporting about due process checks.

Cost-containment efforts include the CBP Home App under Operation Homecoming, which offers a $1,000 stipend and free airfare to encourage voluntary self-departure. Officials say this program could cut expenses by about 70% compared with traditional removals.

• Supporters: call it pragmatic and cost-saving.
• Critics: warn it may pressure people with pending claims to leave before they can see a judge.

Practical impacts on families and legal advice

For families, the stakes are personal and immediate. A parent picked up at work or a student approached near a campus clinic may be moved hundreds of miles on short notice, sometimes without clear information on next steps. Attorneys warn that when removals are fast and flight schedules tight, mistakes are harder to fix.

Recommendations for people facing removal or with loved ones detained:
1. Keep copies of all filings and bond receipts.
2. Maintain contact details for counsel.
3. Relatives should check detention facility information through ICE’s official Detention Management portal: https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management.

Industry calculus and long-term implications

Airlines are weighing short-term revenue against long-term brand risk. Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests carriers face an uneasy tradeoff:
– Short-term revenue from government contracts.
– Long-term brand costs from boycotts and legislative penalties (e.g., loss of fuel tax breaks).

Even if a dedicated ICE airline never materializes, the policy fight may reshape:
– Which carriers are willing to fly removal missions.
– Under what contractual and legal terms those missions operate.

The stakes for Mesa families remain high today, as operational changes, legal challenges, and public pressure continue to evolve around the use of commercial aviation for government deportation operations.