(MESA) Avelo Airlines is facing growing backlash over its role in deportation flights under a new ICE contract, with protests spreading across three states and mounting pressure from elected officials. The carrier began operating deportation charters on May 12, 2025, after signing a long‑term ICE contract on April 7, 2025, centered in Mesa, Arizona. While Avelo does not run removal flights from Connecticut, the controversy has hit the airline’s East Coast operations hard, especially at Tweed New Haven Airport, where Avelo carried 94.64% of commercial passengers between May 2024 and April 2025.
Contract and operations centered in Arizona
Avelo’s deportation flights are based in Mesa, Arizona, not at its East Coast hub. The company has emphasized that point as protests flared at Tweed New Haven in Connecticut and at airports in Albany, New York, and Baltimore‑Washington International in Maryland.
Demonstrations have drawn hundreds of people calling on airport authorities and local governments to cut ties with the carrier until it ends the ICE contract.
Chief Executive Andrew Levy has defended the agreement as a financial lifeline, saying it helps stabilize the company and protect more than 1,100 jobs. The airline has also retooled parts of its route map in 2025, including reported closures and exits from some West Coast operations, to meet contractual needs tied to removal flights.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the ICE contract has become central to Avelo’s business planning this year, even as public reaction intensifies.
Deportation flight activity has surged nationwide:
– From January through July 2025, at least 5,962 deportation flights were recorded — about a 41% increase over the same period in 2024.
– Roughly 80% of those flights were operated by GlobalX, Eastern Air Express, and Avelo Airlines, according to advocates tracking removal charters.
– The rise aligns with tougher enforcement patterns that critics say have expanded under President Trump’s policies, including cases that raised due‑process concerns.
Political and community response
Local and state officials have taken concrete steps in response to the contract:
– The City of New Haven barred city employees, contractors, and grant recipients from spending public funds on Avelo tickets while the airline maintains its ICE contract.
– Other nearby cities adopted similar measures that could dent Avelo’s revenue in markets important for its growth.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong demanded transparency, asking Avelo to release the ICE contract and answer questions about deportation operations and the treatment of people on board. As of mid‑April 2025, Avelo had not provided the contract, prompting sharper criticism and warnings that state support — including a jet fuel tax break — could be at risk.
At rallies and in letters:
– Senator Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT) called the ICE contract a “bad mistake,” arguing an airline should not risk complicity in unlawful deportations.
– Senator Alex Padilla (D‑CA) condemned the partnership, citing concerns that faulty procedures could harm immigrants with pending claims or court protections.
– Activists such as John Lugo in New Haven have organized repeated protests, accusing the airline of profiting from deportations and urging airports to review leases and incentive agreements.
Families have described the emotional toll of seeing Avelo aircraft associated with removal operations, even though the flights originate from Arizona. For many, the protests reflect alarm over stories of Venezuelan immigrants and U.S. residents ensnared in high‑speed enforcement under President Trump, sometimes in defiance of court actions. The reputational risk for Avelo has grown as airport communities weigh whether the ICE contract fits local values and business plans.
Secrecy, tracking hurdles, and calls for oversight
Advocates say airlines running deportation flights have made it harder to track aircraft by using dummy call signs and blocking tail numbers through the FAA’s Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed program (LADD). That practice, they argue, reduces public accountability for removal operations carried out with taxpayer funds.
Tom Cartwright, who monitors deportation flights, has criticized both the rise in charters and the information blackout that shields schedules and routes from public view.
Transparency demands now sit at the heart of the dispute. Critics want:
– The full Avelo–ICE contract released.
– Clear rules for medical screening, restraints, access to legal counsel before boarding, and procedures if court orders intervene.
– Documentation of how ICE selects passengers for flights, and what happens when asylum claims, humanitarian parole, or family ties might justify a pause.
Avelo has not publicly disclosed those terms, citing business sensitivities, while saying it complies with law and government directives.
For readers seeking the government’s description of removal operations, the Department of Homeland Security points to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations. Official information is available at ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). While the agency outlines its authority and responsibilities, critics argue the current scale and methods of deportation flights merit deeper public review.
Local policy levers and potential consequences
Local actions continue to spread:
– Connecticut lawmakers have floated steps that could revoke tax breaks or other state support if Avelo keeps the ICE contract.
– Airport boards are being pressed to scrutinize leases, marketing deals, and gate assignments.
– Some officials say they cannot block a federal removal program; others note they can still decide which airlines receive local benefits, branding support, and route development funds.
The path forward for Avelo Airlines is uncertain. Political pressure and ongoing protests could shape its future route network and airport relationships. Financially, the ICE contract may offer near‑term stability, but reputational costs could weigh on bookings at airports where community opposition runs high.
For passengers, the debate creates confusion: Avelo’s deportation flights do not operate from Connecticut, yet the airline’s presence at Tweed New Haven makes it the focal point of organizing and policy pushback.
Practical guidance and community response
Practical questions remain for people at risk of removal. Advocates advise individuals to:
1. Keep copies of any court filings.
2. Identify legal counsel in advance.
3. Maintain updated contact information with the court when required.
4. Verify case status and upcoming hearings, especially amid reports of rapid scheduling and transfers tied to removal flights.
Community groups are coordinating:
– Hotlines and know‑your‑rights sessions.
– Airport‑area vigils to document experiences and connect families with legal help.
For now, the numbers tell a stark story: deportation flights are up sharply, Mesa is the contract base, and protests show no sign of fading.
Avelo’s leaders frame the ICE contract as a difficult but necessary choice to keep the company afloat and protect jobs. Opponents — from Attorney General William Tong to national lawmakers and local activists — are betting that public pressure, procurement scrutiny, and the spotlight on secrecy will force a change.
Whether that shift comes from boardrooms, city halls, or courtrooms will define the next chapter of a fight that began in spring and has only intensified through summer 2025.
This Article in a Nutshell
Avelo Airlines signed a long‑term ICE contract on April 7, 2025, and began operating deportation charters from Mesa, Arizona, on May 12, 2025. The deal has drawn protests across Connecticut, New York and Maryland, centering on Tweed New Haven Airport where Avelo handled 94.64% of commercial passengers between May 2024 and April 2025. From January–July 2025, at least 5,962 deportation flights were recorded, a 41% increase year‑over‑year, with roughly 80% run by GlobalX, Eastern Air Express and Avelo. Critics allege secrecy tactics like dummy call signs and LADD blocking, demanding release of the Avelo–ICE contract and clearer safeguards for medical screening, access to counsel, and responses to court orders. Local authorities have barred public spending on Avelo tickets and are considering tax and incentive changes. Avelo defends the contract as stabilizing and protecting over 1,100 jobs, but mounting reputational and regulatory pressures could reshape its network and local partnerships.
