Guantanamo’s Shift: From 9/11 Combatants to Immigration Detention

(GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA) The U.S. government has dramatically expanded the Migrant Operations Center at Guantanamo Bay under a January 2025 executive order signed by President Trump, shifting the base’s role from the post‑9/11 detention of terrorism suspects to holding large numbers of undocumented immigrants. The order directs the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to scale up capacity to as many as 30,000 detainees, with operations now run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and staffed jointly with the Department of Defense.

As of September 2025, officials say the site has held more than 650 immigration detainees since February, while over 9,000 people are being vetted for transfer pending screening and logistics. The military detention camp—once a symbol of the war on terror—now holds 15 remaining detainees linked to terrorism cases, a stark contrast to the new immigration footprint.

Critics warn the move risks repeating the legacy of indefinite detention. Supporters say it helps manage crossings, hold “high‑priority criminal aliens,” and pressure home countries to accept deportations.

In March 2025, an undisclosed number of immigrants were transferred from Guantanamo to Louisiana as court challenges advanced. A major class action, Luna Gutierrez v. Noem, is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C., contesting the legality of holding non‑citizens offshore and alleging denial of in‑person legal counsel, use of solitary confinement, and punitive conditions. Judges are expected to rule on key issues soon—decisions that could reshape the government’s plan to rely on Guantanamo Bay for immigration enforcement.

Policy shift and chain of command

The executive order recast Guantanamo Bay as an immigration tool rather than primarily a military detention site.

• ICE oversees the expanded Migrant Operations Center.
• The Department of Defense provides logistics, infrastructure, and security support.
• The expansion has drawn over 530 Department of Defense service members and about 130 Department of Homeland Security personnel, underscoring the scale and complexity of the operation.

President Trump has framed the policy as a deterrent, calling Guantanamo Bay an appropriate place to hold “the worst criminal illegal aliens.” Homeland Security officials emphasize that detainees are not meant to be held indefinitely and that transfers will follow vetting, legal review, and removal planning.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the administration views the offshore setting as both:

• a pressure point in negotiations with foreign governments over repatriation, and
• a signal of toughness on border enforcement to domestic audiences.

The plan depends on congressional funding for additional expansion, transportation contracts, and long‑term site operations. Appropriators remain divided:

• Supporters argue the offshore model can relieve crowded onshore facilities and improve screening.
• Opponents argue it is costly, less transparent, and risks insulating the government from court oversight—especially when access to counsel is limited by distance and security rules.

Legal and human impact

Plaintiffs in the Luna Gutierrez case describe a system that places access to legal representation out of reach. Lawyers report obstacles to in‑person visits, limited phone access, and delays in receiving case files. For asylum seekers or people fighting removal, those limits can weaken claims based on fear of persecution, family ties, or medical needs.

Human rights groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, have condemned the policy as an extension of a facility long associated with indefinite detention and abusive conditions.

Legal scholars highlight constitutional and international law questions:

• Whether offshore detention dilutes due process protections for non‑citizens with pending immigration proceedings.
• Obligations under refugee and anti‑torture treaties.
• Potential remedies if courts find access to counsel or to courts is hindered—such as ordered changes to access rules, time limits on detention, or required transfers to the mainland for hearings.

The administration’s defense:

• Guantanamo Bay is under U.S. control.
• Detainees reportedly receive medical care, interpretation, and credible fear screenings where applicable.
• ICE conducts background checks and criminal history reviews, and then places detainees on a path toward removal, parole, or further proceedings.
• Officials say the policy targets those deemed higher‑risk after screening, not broad categories of recent arrivals.

Operational, fiscal, and family impacts

Operational challenges are substantial:

• Secure air and sea transport is required for transfers.
• Specialized staffing and coordination with consulates and courts are necessary.
• These logistics drive up costs—estimated in the hundreds of millions—and require repeated congressional sign‑offs.

Any funding shortfall or adverse court ruling could slow or halt transfers and prompt large‑scale movement of detainees back to the mainland.

Families and communities feel the impact first:

• Offshore placement adds travel barriers, complicates custody issues, and limits regular communication for families separated from children in the U.S. 🇺🇸
• Employers can face sudden labor gaps when workers are identified as “high‑priority criminal aliens.”
• Community groups and legal clinics struggle to operate across an ocean, straining usual support networks.

Inside the facility, conditions vary by security level and case status. Lawsuits claim:

• Solitary confinement has been used for longer than necessary.
• Detainees struggle to obtain confidential legal calls or private spaces to discuss sensitive claims.

Officials respond that safety and order require strict rules and that medical, mental health, and translation services are available. Independent verification is difficult because access for journalists, lawyers, and monitors is tightly controlled and travel is lengthy and expensive.

Courts, Congress, and international reaction

Court rulings in Washington could be decisive:

• If judges uphold the policy, expect further expansion and more transfers.
• If courts strike parts of it, the administration may need to move detainees back to the mainland and revise access rules.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are weighing:

• Costs, civil liberties, and border politics.
• Funding conditions that would require robust legal access, public reporting on conditions, and clear limits on who can be sent offshore.
• Others seek broader authority to move people to Guantanamo Bay until removal.

Internationally, rights bodies and foreign governments have questioned the return of Guantanamo Bay as a mass detention site for migrants. Diplomats worry about due process and treaty compliance. Some home countries may resist repatriation—especially in cases involving criminal convictions or public attention—leading to long detention times and complex negotiations.

Stakes for individuals

For people caught in the system, the consequences are immediate and personal:

• A father with a decade in the U.S., a clean record, and U.S. citizen children could still be sent offshore if classified as a priority after a new arrest.
• An asylum seeker fleeing gang violence might face months of detention far from counsel able to gather country evidence, witness statements, and medical records.

Distance can shape outcomes as much as law—potentially weakening access to documents, witnesses, and adequate legal preparation.

Practical guidance and next steps

Families, lawyers, and community groups trying to locate a relative at Guantanamo Bay or confirm transfer details can start with official ICE detention information and case status tools. For basic agency guidance and contacts, see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Officials encourage sponsors and attorneys to:

1. Keep documentation ready.
2. Respond quickly to notices.
3. Track court dates closely.

These steps are especially important if a transfer to the mainland becomes likely.

Where things stand going forward

• The administration is using Guantanamo Bay as a tool for immigration enforcement while relying on congressional funding and court rulings.
• The capacity target of up to 30,000 highlights the policy’s messaging role, even though current detainee counts are far lower.
• The central test will be whether the process respects due process, keeps people safe, and moves cases toward lawful resolutions.

If courts expand access to counsel or set deadlines, offshore detention could lose its deterrent effect and become politically harder to defend.

As judges consider the Luna Gutierrez case and other challenges, the government’s reliance on Guantanamo Bay faces a critical legal stress test. The outcome will shape whether the base becomes a long‑term part of immigration enforcement—or whether its new role is curtailed and detainees are returned to mainland custody.