ICE Pushes Mega-Centers and Regional Processing Centers in $38B Plan

(US) — ICE drafted a nationwide detention expansion plan that would add large new facilities and short-term intake hubs to speed removals, according to an internal memo dated February 13, 2026, that appeared on a New Hampshire procurement website.

The memo lays out what ICE calls a “safe, humane civil detention” pipeline designed to move migrants from arrest to removal in an average of 60 days, using new mega-centers and regional processing centers tied to transfers, medical checks, case screening and access to immigration courts.

The proposal has drawn attention as Congress and watchdogs scrutinize ICE contracting and detention capacity, and as procurement activity and site searches accelerate ahead of a promised enforcement push later this year.

ICE described the buildout as a way to consolidate detention logistics into fewer, larger campuses while adding intake and screening capacity closer to where arrests occur, reducing reliance on scattered small facilities and shifting more control toward ICE-owned sites run by contractors.

In the memo, ICE framed the plan as an integrated system: people arrested in the interior or transferred from other holding locations would move first through regional processing centers for initial screening and then on to longer-stay mega-centers while their cases and travel documents progress.

That approach would change how detainees move through the system, with more transfers between facility types and greater use of standardized contractor operations, while also concentrating detention in a smaller set of large locations that local officials and residents may seek to block.

ICE’s planned regional processing centers would use converted warehouses as short-stay intake sites, holding 1,000-1,500 detainees for 3-7 days while officers complete medical exams, biometrics collection and asylum screenings.

The memo also described mega-centers as large detention campuses that would hold between 7,000-10,000 people, with some sites designed to hold up to 10,000, and it outlined built-in services meant to keep cases moving without frequent off-site transport.

ICE said the mega-centers would include video courtrooms and remote interpretation suites, aiming to expand court access through technology rather than repeated movements to and from existing court locations.

Plans also called for space for over 60 consular officers at the mega-centers, reflecting ICE’s focus on travel documents and coordination with foreign governments as cases move toward removal.

The memo included an additional category of acquisitions described as “turnkey” facilities, meaning existing detention sites that ICE could take over rather than build from scratch.

ICE tied the two main facility models to a broader throughput strategy, arguing that large campuses and standardized short-stay processing would allow the agency to move detainees more quickly through medical screening, case triage and court scheduling.

Under the plan’s sequencing, ICE would secure sites through purchase or lease, convert warehouse space for holding and processing functions, install equipment for biometrics and medical intake, and set up secure communications and video links for immigration court access.

Contractor mobilization and staffing would follow, with the memo signaling a need for coordinated transportation and transfer schedules to keep beds available as people move from intake screening to longer-term custody.

ICE also pointed to technology readiness as a milestone, particularly for video court operations and interpretation support, which the memo described as central to handling cases at scale.

The plan explicitly linked capacity to enforcement pace, describing detention space as a gating factor for arrest operations and removal flights, and positioning larger campuses as a way to smooth bottlenecks caused by smaller facilities.

As context for the buildout, the memo said existing detention space skews heavily toward smaller sites, noting that only 21 of 220 facilities can hold over 1,000 people.

ICE argued that a limited number of large sites would allow more predictable contractor staffing, more uniform processing, and higher volumes of medical and screening operations in a single location.

Funding for the proposed expansion would come through congressional allocations under the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which ICE described as part of a $45 billion DHS package approved last year.

The memo tied the money to federal appropriations and contracting authority, which would flow into design and conversion work, services contracts, medical and transportation support, and security operations.

That funding structure, common in past detention expansions, can draw oversight questions about contract transparency, cost controls and standards, especially when multiple vendors manage custody, health care and transportation across dispersed sites.

ICE’s memo emphasized a shift toward ICE-owned facilities managed by contractors over private leases, a model the agency has promoted as a way to standardize operations and reduce reliance on landlord-run arrangements.

Even so, the scale of warehouse conversion and acquisition would likely require complex transactions, including real estate purchases, local permitting and utility hookups, and arrangements for staffing in areas that may not have existing detention workforces.

ICE said it has already purchased at least seven warehouses exceeding 1 million square feet in Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Deals were nearing completion in New York, the memo said, while proposed buys in six other cities failed due to activist pressure on sellers.

Those siting efforts underscored how detention projects can hinge on local politics, with zoning and permitting fights, neighborhood opposition and pressure campaigns aimed at property owners.

The memo’s reference to stalled deals also suggested a practical constraint: even when federal funding and contracting plans exist, local resistance can slow or stop a project before construction or conversion begins.

ICE’s siting strategy centered on warehouse conversions, a model that can shorten timelines compared with new construction but can prompt local concerns about infrastructure load, traffic, and the impacts of a large detention footprint.

The memo did not list every target location for future facilities, but it signaled a multi-state approach that relies on large buildings, transport access and contractor labor pools.

In New Hampshire, ICE shared an economic analysis with Governor Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), projecting $300 million in spending over three years and 1,252 new jobs.

The projection, included in the memo, framed detention facilities as a source of local contracting and payroll growth, a pitch ICE has used in other jurisdictions to counter opposition.

The economic claims arrived alongside signals of a workforce ramp-up inside ICE itself, with the memo noting ICE’s addition of 12,000 new law enforcement officers to drive 2026 enforcement surges.

That staffing increase, paired with the planned reliance on contractors to manage facilities, pointed to heightened competition for nurses, guards, transportation workers and other staff, particularly in regions already facing tight labor markets.

Local officials in areas where ICE seeks warehouses can weigh potential job creation against concerns about strains on public services, emergency response capacity and community tensions tied to hosting large detention sites.

Oversight pressure sharpened a day earlier on Capitol Hill, when Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons testified on February 12, 2026, before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Lyons told senators that 1.6 million individuals face final deportation orders, with 800,000 having criminal convictions.

Senator Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) questioned plans for New Hampshire facilities during the hearing, connecting the national detention blueprint to local siting questions.

The testimony provided a political backdrop for ICE’s push, as lawmakers weigh the pace of removals, the resources required to detain people while cases proceed, and the implications for due process when cases move through large, contractor-run sites.

Border czar Tom Homan announced a temporary enforcement drawdown to align with scaling arrests and capacity, a move that tied arrest volume to the availability of detention space and processing slots.

Critics, including advocacy groups and some state governors, have opposed what the memo described as a “detention-first model,” arguing the strategy expands custody ahead of other reforms and entrenches detention as the default response.

Opponents also raised concerns during a DHS funding lapse, warning the approach hardens removal policy as Fortune 500 companies seek more work visas and parole.

Labor economists, cited by critics, estimated a $9 billion GDP loss from removing work-authorized migrants, placing a macroeconomic argument alongside legal and humanitarian objections to expanding detention.

ICE’s memo, however, described the expansion as necessary to build a predictable removal pipeline, using initial processing centers to standardize medical checks and screening while mega-centers consolidate court access and consular coordination.

In the weeks ahead, the plan’s next public signals are likely to come through procurement postings, additional real estate transactions and renewed congressional scrutiny as ICE moves from paper proposals to signed contracts and site commitments.

→ In a NutshellVisaVerge.com

ICE Pushes Mega-Centers and Regional Processing Centers in $38B Plan

ICE has drafted an internal plan to overhaul the U.S. detention system by building massive ‘mega-centers’ and regional intake hubs. The proposal, funded by a $45 billion DHS package, seeks to standardize the removal process within a 60-day window. While ICE emphasizes efficiency and job creation, the plan faces significant opposition from local activists and concerns regarding the macroeconomic impact of mass removals.