- GAO report reveals significant oversight failures at the nation’s largest ICE detention facility in Fort Bliss.
- Investigators documented $11.5 million in waste on staffing and meals before any detainees actually arrived.
- The facility opened with critical safety gaps including missing security cameras and inadequate medical screenings.
(EL PASO, TEXAS) — A U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation released June 9, 2026 found that Camp East Montana, the largest ICE detention hub in the country, opened at Fort Bliss Army base with costly contract failures, serious safety gaps, and conditions that fell short of national detention standards.
GAO report GAO-26-108886 describes a rapid buildout that burned through public money before detainees arrived. It also documents missing safeguards once they did. The soft-sided facility near El Paso, Texas, was built for 5,000 detainees. In practice, the report says, ICE and Army planners moved ahead without the inspections, oversight, and medical controls required for a site of that size.
Those failures carried legal weight as well as operational cost. Camp East Montana held non-citizens who may be pursuing asylum or other relief, yet the report says detainees spent weeks without a law library, attorney meeting space, or family visitation. Access to counsel in detention does not turn USCIS into the responsible agency here. It remains a DHS and ICE detention issue, with direct effects on the ability to pursue immigration claims.
Camp East Montana also sits inside a wider detention push. The facility was part of a $170 billion immigration enforcement expansion launched in 2025. That drive included warehouse conversion plans and other fast-track detention projects now facing court challenges from states and cities that argue the expansion bypassed legal and procedural limits.
Heather MacLeod, a GAO director, said the agency found “significant issues” in plan acquisition and oversight. Her statement tied those failures to wasted resources and threats to detainee health and safety. She also said the facility did not meet national detention standards when it opened.
By the time the report was issued, Camp East Montana had become a case study in what happens when detention capacity is expanded first and basic controls are checked later. The findings are not limited to bookkeeping. They reach armed security, medical screening, disability access, and the recordkeeping needed after deaths in custody.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Facility | Camp East Montana, a soft-sided detention site at Fort Bliss Army base in El Paso, Texas |
| Scale | Built for 5,000 detainees, the largest ICE detention hub in the United States |
| Early waste | At least $11.5 million spent between August 1, 2025 and August 15, 2025 on staffing and meals before detainees arrived |
| Contract structure | Guaranteed minimum payments required payment for 5,000 beds even when the population fell to 1,600 detainees |
| Opening failures | No perimeter cameras, no ADA-compliant showers, and tuberculosis screening by symptom questionnaire instead of mandatory skin tests |
| Security incidents | A detainee escaped in October 2025; a contract guard lost a loaded firearm in January 2026 |
The money loss began before the first transfer. GAO-26-108886 says the government spent at least $11.5 million from August 1, 2025, through August 15, 2025, on meals and staffing before a single detainee arrived. Additional costs followed from guaranteed minimum contracts that locked the government into paying for the full 5,000-bed capacity even when the daily count dropped to 1,600 detainees.
Security standards were weak from the start. The camp opened without perimeter security cameras. It also lacked ADA-compliant showers. In October 2025, a detainee escaped. In January 2026, a contract guard lost a loaded firearm, and the report says it remained unrecovered as of March.
Medical screening also failed in a basic way. Tuberculosis screening relied on symptom questionnaires rather than mandatory skin tests. GAO says that decision allowed an infected detainee into the general population and led to an outbreak risk inside the camp. Detainees with chronic illnesses, including HIV and diabetes, also lacked formal treatment plans.
| Issue | Evidence/Date | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-opening waste | $11.5 million spent from August 1, 2025 to August 15, 2025 | Public funds were spent before any detainee arrived |
| Overcapacity payments | Contracts guaranteed payment for 5,000 beds while population fell to 1,600 detainees | Millions more in avoidable costs |
| Escape | October 2025 | Raised immediate questions about perimeter controls |
| Lost firearm | Contract guard lost loaded weapon in January 2026 | Created an unresolved safety threat inside or near the facility |
| TB screening failure | Symptom questionnaires used instead of mandatory skin tests | Exposed detainees and staff to preventable health risk |
| Deaths in custody | 3 detainees died in first six months | Prompted questions about supervision, medical care, and evidence handling |
| Due process barriers | Weeks without law library, attorney space, or family visitation | Detainees may have faced added difficulty preparing claims or communicating with counsel |
The human cost runs through the report. 3 detainees died in first six months of operation. One was Geraldo Lunas Campos, 55, who died in January 2026 by asphyxiation. The local coroner ruled the death a homicide. GAO also said evidence tied to his death was missing or destroyed.
Another detainee died by suicide after staff left the person unattended for longer than required 15-minute observation intervals. That finding sits beside the report’s broader criticism of supervision and emergency response. Medical neglect appears elsewhere in the document as well, especially for detainees with chronic conditions who lacked formal care plans.
Access limits reached the legal side of detention. Weeks passed without a functioning law library, designated attorney meeting rooms, or family visitation. In many cases, detained non-citizens depend on those channels to gather records, speak with counsel, and prepare applications or defenses. Delays or denials in that setting may affect access to relief, even though USCIS does not run ICE detention facilities.
The report places those failures in the context of a larger political push. Camp East Montana was one of the highest-profile projects in the 2025 enforcement expansion. GAO says senior leadership pressed to expedite the opening at all costs, a direction that contributed to the use of an inexperienced contractor and the bypassing of pre-occupancy inspections.
⚠️ GAO-26-108886 identifies wasted spending, weak security, failed health screening, and due process barriers at Camp East Montana. The detention buildout tied to the 2025 enforcement expansion also faces ongoing legal challenges from states and cities.
DHS responded by pointing to a contractor change. DHS spokesperson Lauren Bis said a new contractor would allow Camp East Montana to maintain detention standards and provide more on-site medical care. That statement addresses future operations. It does not erase the report’s finding that the site opened below standard.
MacLeod’s statement was sharper. She said plan acquisition and oversight failures contributed to waste and safety risks, and she said the facility did not meet national detention standards when it opened. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin used the report to attack the administration’s detention practices, saying the findings showed dangerous conditions inside a broader mass-deportation campaign.
✅ Investigators and lawmakers scrutinizing the next detention expansion will likely focus on contract governance, mandatory pre-occupancy inspections, firearm accountability, medical screening rules, and access to counsel safeguards.
Readers who want to verify the record should start with GAO-26-108886, issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office on June 9, 2026. ICE Newsroom postings and DHS press releases may help track contractor changes, public statements, and any corrective actions announced after the report. Court filings in challenges brought by states and cities may also show whether Camp East Montana becomes part of a wider legal test over rapid detention expansion.
This article discusses governmental reports and ongoing legal and policy debates. Information reflects GAO findings and official statements as of the dates cited.
Readers should consult official sources for the most current guidance on detention standards and related rights.
