The Department of Homeland Security is weighing a sharp change in how removals are carried out: buying and running its own planes for deportation flights instead of relying on chartered aircraft. According to people familiar with the talks, the proposal is well into advanced discussions inside DHS, with Secretary Kristi Noem driving the push. The department has not confirmed the plan, but officials acknowledge active internal planning as the administration seeks to speed removals this fiscal year amid rising removal targets.
At the center of the plan is a simple goal: move more people, more quickly. Former and current officials say the second-term Trump administration wants removals to reach as high as one million annually, a pace far above current totals. A DHS-owned fleet, they argue, would cut scheduling bottlenecks tied to private carriers and shield operations from protests that have pushed some airlines to drop contracts, leaving ICE scrambling to find seats on short notice.
Today, ICE Air Operations stages about 12 planes across four hubs in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. All are chartered from commercial operators on per-mission contracts. Officials peg the average cost of a charter at about $8,600 per flight hour, with high-risk missions ranging from $6,900 to $26,800 depending on aircraft type and staffing. Those numbers rise when flights are delayed, repositioned, or run partly empty, as often happens when legal holds or late country clearances force last-minute changes.
Money appears available for a pivot. Congress approved a sweeping DHS budget this year, and ICE, according to the latest spending bill, received over $75 billion, with $30 billion marked for deportation operations. Those figures, cited by officials promoting the change, suggest aircraft acquisition is not blocked by funding. The department has kept details close, but sources say planning teams are mapping purchase options, staffing models, and maintenance footprints. DHS points the public to the official ICE website at https://www.ice.gov for program background.
Policy shift under review
Multiple people briefed on the initiative describe advanced talks to purchase, own, and operate a government fleet dedicated to removal missions. DHS has not issued a formal announcement, but it has not denied the reporting and has acknowledged internal deliberations. Secretary Kristi Noem is leading the work, according to these accounts.
Former ICE leaders estimate that a dedicated fleet could lift monthly removals from roughly 15,000 today to 30,000–35,000, matching the administration’s stated enforcement goals and removing recurring charter bottlenecks that slow operations.
If approved, DHS would likely:
- Base planes at the same hubs already used by ICE Air Operations, while adding capacity as needed.
- Use workhorse narrow-body jets (e.g., Boeing 737s, aging MD-80s) and a mix of smaller aircraft for special escorts.
- Put DHS in control of routes, crew assignments, and security posture — reducing dependence on commercial partners who can face local political blowback.
Proponents argue that owning the fleet would avoid cancellations tied to reputational pressure on airlines. Opponents note that the department’s press office has avoided a flat confirmation, saying DHS is always reviewing operations and making plans to meet mission needs — language that leaves space for a green light.
“DHS eyes own fleet” because charter access is uneven, costs swing widely, and public fights over transportation partners can stall removals while detainees sit longer in county jails or federal holding sites.
Operational and humanitarian concerns
Pressure on airlines has grown. Operators that take federal contracts face pickets, social media campaigns, and in some cities the risk of losing airport or municipal business. Even when carriers keep contracts, public pressure can spook crews or vendors and lead to last-minute substitutions that increase costs and delay removals.
Flights themselves are tightly controlled:
- ICE officers and contractors handle security on board.
- Medical staff are assigned on many missions.
- People are typically restrained for transport — a practice that advocates say raises human rights questions and should be limited.
- Legal groups press for more transparency about who is on each plane and why removal proceeded.
As capacity grows, concerns will likely grow as well, especially for mixed-status families with U.S.-born children and long ties to local communities.
Legal and diplomatic context
Legal context is changing: the Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling gave the government more room to conduct expedited removals to third countries in certain cases. That could expand the number and complexity of flights because each added destination requires:
- Extra route planning
- More handovers on the ground
- More embassy coordination
Receiving countries must agree to accept returnees; their consent drives schedules. Planes cannot launch without documentation, landing slots, and destination clearance. Diplomacy shapes every flight plan.
Cost and timeline uncertainties
Cost remains the biggest unknown. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that buying and maintaining a federal aircraft fleet can run to tens of billions over decades, depending on size, use, and upkeep. DHS has not publicly posted a price tag for any ICE-controlled fleet.
Procurement typically requires months of contracting work, then recruiting pilots, mechanics, and schedulers, followed by flight testing. Even on an aggressive timeline, officials expect the first planes would not fly for several months after purchase and regulatory readiness.
The push fits a broader enforcement posture in President Trump’s second term — expanded use of expedited removal, daily arrest quotas, and coordination of other federal resources during large operations. Each of those steps sends more people into ICE custody faster; without added flight capacity, detention centers fill and removal dockets back up. Supporters stress speed and predictability.
Analysts caution that removal targets often run ahead of legal and diplomatic realities: countries may delay travel documents, judges can pause cases, and some detainees win relief after screenings. Still, backers say a dedicated fleet could help close the gap by reducing cancellations and reroutes.
Costs and capacity debate
Supporters contend ownership would cut the per-flight bill while raising throughput. Key financial points:
- Average charter: $8,600 per hour
- Complex missions: up to $26,800 per hour (depending on aircraft and staffing)
- Up-front capital costs would be high, plus ongoing maintenance and crew costs
- The CBO estimates federal fleets can cost tens of billions over decades
Even rough math suggests scale. If a government fleet pushed monthly removals from 15,000 to 30,000–35,000, detention turnover would accelerate and bed space would clear faster. That pace would align with administration goals and daily arrest quotas.
Backers also want to remove commercial sensitivities from a law enforcement mission. An owned fleet would:
- Keep schedules off commercial booking systems
- Reduce points where political pressure leads to canceled deals
- Potentially lower disruption from local protests
Advocacy groups urge safeguards if capacity expands:
- Clear public reporting on flight manifests, reasons for removal, injury tracking, and complaints
- Stronger access for legal counsel before and after flights
- Independent checks on restraint use, especially for long-haul flights or when detainees report prior trauma
They stress that speed alone should not be the benchmark for success and that oversight must grow with capacity.
Timing and legal pushback
People familiar with DHS planning say procurement could begin as early as the next fiscal year. Even then:
- Recruiting flight crews and training security teams will take months.
- Setting up maintenance lines requires significant lead time.
- Lawsuits and public records requests are expected, particularly in jurisdictions hostile to mass removals.
Advocacy groups are preparing to monitor conditions on board. Result: a likely ramp-up rather than an overnight switch if purchase orders go out this fall.
Reaching one million removals a year remains a stretch, even with more planes. Country clearances, court orders, and limited detention space will constrain the curve. Some detainees will still win relief after screenings. Officials close to planning argue that aircraft access is the biggest practical chokepoint day to day; remove it, and the system can better utilize officers and available beds.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the move would mirror how other federal agencies run transport but with a civil law enforcement twist. Agencies that operate fleets face complex procurement rules, aviation safety audits, and recurring costs that can only be trimmed so far without grounding aircraft.
Leadership, accountability, and public questions
Secretary Kristi Noem has become the face of the proposal inside government, briefing lawmakers and working groups on the need for faster removals and steadier flight access. Her involvement signals political commitment from DHS leadership and aligns with President Trump’s enforcement priorities.
Public accountability will matter if plans proceed. Advocates urge DHS to publish:
- Monthly flight counts
- On-time rates and cancellations (with reasons)
- Data on medical incidents and complaints
- Audit trails for procurement and maintenance
Practical questions for families and advocates include:
- How to learn a relative’s flight date
- How to recover property
- How to arrange travel documents with consulates
Those operational details will test any new system as capacity expands nationally.
This Article in a Nutshell
DHS, led by Kristi Noem, is exploring buying and operating its own deportation aircraft to speed removals and avoid charter cancellations. Current charter costs average $8,600 per flight hour; Congress allocated substantial funds, but long-term fleet ownership could cost tens of billions and faces legal, diplomatic, and humanitarian constraints. Implementation would be phased, requiring procurement, staffing, and oversight.
