(LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA) — Lehigh County Executive Josh Siegel and County Controller Mark Pinsley ended a lease with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for office space in Allentown and told industrial property owners to avoid deals tied to what local leaders call a federal “mass detention network” expansion.
Siegel and Pinsley announced on January 21, 2026 that the county formally terminated the agreement covering office space in the Hamilton Financial Center, arguing the federal government fell behind on rent and that the county should sever ties with DHS and ICE.
“The department’s failure to pay rent, combined with DHS’s national reputation for recklessness, chaos, and public disorder, warrants ending any relationship with the County. We will not accept their blood money. The department should consider themselves evicted,” Siegel said in a statement dated January 21, 2026.
Pinsley, speaking a day earlier, used sharper language about how far the county should go. “I think the county should be unequivocal and tell ICE: pay your bills, pack your s***, and get the hell out. We’re going to deport ICE,” he said on January 20, 2026.
County framing: lease termination, finances, and public safety
The dispute has pulled together immigration enforcement politics and a landlord-tenant fight over office space, as Lehigh County leaders portray private leasing choices as a pressure point they can influence even when they cannot control federal immigration enforcement authority.
County officials have argued that an ICE and DHS presence in downtown Allentown affects how safe residents feel seeking help from local government. They have tied that argument to the role of landlords and industrial property owners, urging them not to provide space that could support detention-related activity.
Language around “sanctuary” status has also become part of the county’s public messaging and governance fight with the federal government, as local leaders point to limits on cooperation with immigration authorities and the consequences they say follow from increased enforcement activity.
The conflict escalated in late January after the county moved from political statements to concrete steps over property access, using a termination and eviction approach grounded in rent and contracting claims rather than a direct attempt to block DHS from operating in the region.
The financial and contractual core of the dispute
At the center of the county’s case is money and paperwork. Lehigh County alleges the federal government owes over $115,000 in unpaid rent dating back to December 2022 for the Hamilton Financial Center space.
Pinsley has described the rent and paperwork dispute as a “calamity of errors” and pointed to a distinction between a Memorandum of Agreement and a formal lease, arguing that the difference matters for who can bind the government and how a county can enforce a contract.
He has said a Memorandum of Agreement was signed in 2022, but a formal lease was never executed because the federal agent who signed it allegedly “lacked the authority to do so.” The county’s public framing has treated that issue as both a fiscal accountability matter and a governance issue about who can commit public resources.
While county leaders emphasized financial grounds for terminating the arrangement, they also linked the decision to broader objections to DHS and ICE activity. That combination has made the Lehigh County confrontation a flashpoint for residents who see immigration enforcement as a public safety issue and for officials who argue federal operations can undermine community cooperation with local services.
Federal response and prior rhetoric
The federal government has not issued a formal press release regarding the 2026 Allentown eviction as of this week, the county’s account of the standoff shows, but the broader tone of federal pushback appeared earlier after a separate 2025 incident.
Jason Koontz, Public Affairs Officer for the Philadelphia Field Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), addressed rhetoric aimed at ICE in remarks published on July 11, 2025. “This type of dangerous rhetoric is what is fueling a 700 percent increase in assaults on ICE officers across the country. Agents are enforcing immigration law in accordance with federal laws and departmental policies,” Koontz said, in comments attributed to him by LehighValleyNews.com.
Regional context: warehouses, purchases, and detention concerns
Lehigh County’s local resistance also unfolded alongside reporting about plans to expand detention capacity using industrial facilities, a development that has heightened attention on warehouses and other large properties across eastern Pennsylvania.
A January 30, 2026 report by The Washington Post described a Trump administration plan to overhaul industrial warehouses into detention centers for up to 80,000 people. That reporting helped connect the Allentown office dispute to wider concerns about how private real estate could be repurposed for immigration detention.
In early February 2026, ICE reportedly finalized an $87 million purchase of a 518,000-square-foot warehouse in neighboring Berks County and is exploring a former Big Lots warehouse in Schuylkill County in Tremont Township for similar use. Lehigh County leaders’ public lobbying of industrial owners has drawn urgency from that regional activity.
The reported acquisitions and site exploration have widened the issue beyond a single office suite dispute and into a broader fight over infrastructure, with warehouses and industrial parks becoming symbols of whether federal enforcement can scale up operations through deals on private property.
Public safety, trust, and practical impacts
Local officials have argued that the day-to-day presence of federal immigration personnel affects how residents interact with county systems, and they have described a “culture of fear” connected to what they call “unmarked, masked agents” in downtown Allentown.
Those claims carry practical implications for policing and county services, officials say, because residents who fear immigration consequences may avoid reporting crimes, appearing as witnesses, or seeking help from local agencies. The officials’ argument focuses less on formal policy than on behavior, trust, and whether residents believe local institutions can serve them without triggering federal enforcement attention.
The county’s approach also highlights the limited set of tools local governments can realistically use when confronting federal agencies. Counties generally cannot order federal agents to stop enforcing federal law, but they can fight over leases, office access, and payments when federal agencies occupy space subject to local property and contract rules.
Legal mechanics and governance implications
In Lehigh County’s case, the chosen mechanism has been a familiar housing and commercial real estate tool: a landlord-tenant dispute, framed around unpaid rent and termination of occupancy rights. Officials have presented that as a way to constrain a federal footprint locally without directly challenging federal authority to carry out immigration enforcement.
The legal mechanics matter for governance because they shift the argument from immigration ideology to administrative questions like who signed what, what agreements control the relationship, and what remedies are available when one side alleges the other failed to meet payment obligations.
Pinsley’s focus on an MOA signed in 2022 versus a lease that “was never executed” also underscores how public entities can become vulnerable when contracting procedures are unclear. In county government, the difference between a memorandum outlining cooperation and a formally executed lease can determine whether rent is enforceable, what termination clauses apply, and who carries responsibility for approving or recording the agreement.
Sanctuary-jurisdiction language has layered onto these technical disputes, shaping the political stakes around what cooperation looks like in practice. On May 29, 2025, DHS officially listed Lehigh and Northampton counties as “sanctuary jurisdictions” following Executive Order 14287, which mandates the identification of localities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
That designation has become a reference point in local debates over what the county should do, what it already does, and what residents expect of county leadership. In similar fights, the label often becomes shorthand for disputes over information-sharing, the extent of collaboration with federal requests, and whether local leaders encourage residents to use county services without fear.
Market pressures and appeals to property owners
Lehigh County’s effort to persuade industrial property owners not to sell to immigration agencies has added a market dimension to the conflict. By appealing to landlords and sellers, officials are effectively arguing that private property decisions can either enable or frustrate the federal government’s ability to scale operations.
The strategy also reflects a political reality: industrial property sits largely in private hands, and counties often cannot dictate who owners sell to. Officials can still apply public pressure, elevate reputational risks, or highlight potential community impacts when a warehouse becomes associated with detention.
Residents trying to follow the dispute have had to sort official actions from commentary, and to distinguish county statements about lease termination from broader claims about detention infrastructure. County leaders have mixed contract claims, public safety messaging, and arguments about federal conduct in a single narrative, which can blur what is legally dispositive from what is political messaging.
Where to check official statements and reporting
Readers looking to verify what county leaders did, and what documents might back up their claims, can start with the county’s own public channels, including the Lehigh County Executive Newsroom and the Lehigh County Controller Reports. Those sources are where official statements, fiscal arguments, and any supporting records are most likely to appear first.
Federal responses, when they come in the form of formal statements, typically appear through the DHS Newsroom, which may confirm broad policy posture, enforcement priorities, or safety concerns while omitting local contracting details. Koontz’s July 11, 2025 remarks show how federal officials have framed public rhetoric as a safety issue for agents.
News coverage can add detail, including timelines and quotes, but readers can still check whether an article ties its claims to a named official, a dated statement, or a specific document. CBS Philadelphia’s account of the Allentown action appears at CBS Philadelphia (Reporting on Eviction), and Lehigh Valley News published reporting that included Pinsley’s January 20, 2026 remarks at Lehigh Valley News (Resistance Strategy).
Summary and closing context
In a dispute that fuses immigration enforcement, industrial real estate, and county governance, the practical questions often come down to paperwork and authority: what agreement governed the occupancy, who had power to sign it, what rent was due, and what enforcement mechanism a county can use when it alleges nonpayment.
Yet the fight has also become a proxy for a larger battle over federal immigration presence in the Lehigh Valley and beyond, as warehouse purchases and exploration in nearby counties pull more residents into a debate about whether detention expansion will reach their communities.
Pinsley has framed the county’s posture as both a financial demand and a message to federal immigration agencies about leaving local space. “I think the county should be unequivocal and tell ICE: pay your bills, pack your s***, and get the hell out. We’re going to deport ICE,” he said.
