The rapid effort by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to convert commercial warehouses into detention centers has hit another controversy: big price tags.
The initiative has involved a parade of warehouse purchases in which the government has repeatedly paid tens of millions above documented appraisal values or recent sale prices. In a competitive real estate market, theDepartment of Homeland Securitysays the prices represent "fair market value."
On March 3, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker criticized Homeland Security SecretaryKristi Noemat a hearing on Capitol Hill, accusing DHS of supporting an "incredible empire of for-profit companies that are profiting at rates we've never seen."
"You paid $129.3 million for a facility in my state that was assessed at less than half of that, at $62 million," Booker said to Noem, who has since beenousted by President Donald Trump. "To work for a president who says he's a great dealmaker ... I can't believe he thinks that you're a great dealmaker."
Meanwhile, in Hamburg, Pennsylvania, DHS paid $87.4 million for a warehouse that sold in 2024 for $57.5 million, public records show.
"Those prices are pretty eye-popping," said Troy Schaum, a professor at Rice University with expertise in commercial and institutional real estate development, adding that there could be a number of explanations for the price jumps.
Schaum said that appraised values, which are used for tax purposes, almost always lag behind true market values. And even in states like Georgia that require assessments to keep up with the market, doing so can be challenging as high demand for data centers and other emerging technologies inflates prices for commercial space.
In February, DHS purchased an empty warehouse in Social Circle, Georgia, for $128.5 million. The property's current value: $29.7 million, according to the Walton County Tax Assessor'swebsite. And in Oakwood, Georgia, the government paid $68 million for a warehouse and surrounding land that was appraised in 2025 for a combined $7.1 million, according to Hall County records.
In a statement, ICE defended the purchases and said DHS is paying "fair market value for these properties."
"For each site, an appraisal is prepared in accordance with the DOJ's Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition standards," the agency said. "They are independently reviewed and approved by a government appraiser to establish the fair market value of the property and serves as the basis of our purchase price of the property."
The federal appraisals have not been made publicly available, leaving critics with state tax records, recent sale prices and other data to approximate the value of the properties.
The warehouse spending spree is being funded byTrump's Big Beautiful Bill Act, which set aside $38.3 billion toboost ICE's detention capacity. To do this, the agency has begun buying up commercial warehouses that it intends to retrofit into sprawling detention facilities, some of which would hold up to 10,000 undocumented immigrants slated for deportation.
The effort has drawn backlash from officials from both parties, who've criticized ICE for not notifying local communities of its plans and raised concerns that the facilities could overwhelm local infrastructure, especially in rural communities.
Experts in federal property acquisition said DHS may be paying high prices to compel developers and commercial landowners to sell their property despite local opposition. They also noted the agency now has billions at its disposal to buy property.
"They've got money to burn," said Rick Su, a professor of law at the University of North Carolina and an expert in immigration and local government. "When you double or triple a budget, this is the kind of spending spree you would expect."
Su also said DHS's actions appear to be out of step with standard procedures for federal land acquisition, which typically involve local input, extensive review processes and bidding procedures. ICE's initiative has also been marked by a series of mistakes that have led the agency to retract statements about several proposed facilities.
"The scale of this particular effort does seem to be rather large and also rather rushed," said Sara Bronin, a law professor at George Washington University and an expert in property land use and zoning.
Why is ICE buying warehouses?
DHS is purchasing commercial space as part of an initiative to increase ICE's immigration detention space by 92,600 beds, according to planning documents reviewed by USA TODAY. The agency is seeking to bring all 24 proposed facilities online by October, internal documents show.
As of early March, the government had purchased at least 10 warehouses and was eyeing at least two others, according to a USA TODAY analysis and the Department of Homeland Security. Local pushback has contributed to the collapse of at least 11 additional deals, including some after the government paid tens of millions for commercial space.
The resistance has been consistent across communities nationwide even though DHS has targeted heavily Republican districts for warehouse purchases.
Local, state and federal officials have raised concerns about transparency and whether their communities have the infrastructure to support what would become the nation's largest immigration detention centers. Some officials and advocates are also questioning whether warehouses built for commercial cargo can be made to house people, citing reported problems at detention centers constructed in the last year.
Planning documentsrelated to a proposed processing center in New Hampshire show ICE planned to spend $158 million retrofitting the warehouse, adding recreational areas, dormitories, courtrooms and cafeterias, as well as religious spaces and medical facilities.
DHS says each detention facility will meet federal standards and provide jobs to surrounding communities.
Advertisement
"These will be very well-structured detention facilities meeting our regular detention standards," ICE said in a statement, adding: "Sites undergo community impact studies and a rigorous due diligence process to make sure there is no hardship on local utilities or infrastructure prior to purchase."
Deals struck with little local notice
ICE and DHS's procurement process appears out-of-step with federal land acquisition procedures, which typically involve coordination with local officials and an extensive review process, some experts say.
"ICE is certainly not following ordinary procedure," said Su, noting that the government often works to "get the best price" through bidding processes or surveys of alternative sites.
Over the last several months, elected leaders, including Republicans, say they learned of the plans only after the government finalized real estate deals.
"There was absolutely no warning," said Commissioner Christian Leinbach at a public meeting in Berks County, Pennsylvania, where DHS bought a 500,000‑square‑foot warehouse, which is about the size of eight football fields.
In New Jersey, where DHS bought a 470,000-square-foot warehouse in Roxbury, the township's all-Republican council unanimously voted to oppose the facility after news of the purchase circulated. Booker said he tried to arrange a meeting between the agency and local officials but said DHS didn't respond.
"That is unacceptable," Booker said to Noem at a hearing in Washington on March 3. "You didn't even have a conversation."
Bronin called it "unusual" that the federal government has proceeded with sales of such large sites without alerting local authorities. She also raised concerns about the pace at which DHS is buying warehouses. Bronin said site selections alone can take "months if not years" to allow for environmental reviews and other requirements.
ICE has said in documents shared with local authorities that it conducts site inspections, environmental surveys, water‑infrastructure reviews and explores "alternative options" for each of the warehouses it's attempting to purchase.
Still,local and state officialshave said they've not received such reports despite requesting them. Others said the federal government's responses have been insufficient.
On Feb. 23, Maryland's attorney general filed a lawsuit seeking to block a detention facility in Washington County. The lawsuit accuses ICE of keeping the community "in the dark" about the facility it paid $102.4 million for and said the agency failed to perform a "required environmental review."
The Department of Homeland Security described the lawsuit as an effort to "stopPresident Trumpfrom making America safe again."
Retractions and errors complicate ICE's warehouse rollout
ICE's rapid expansion has also been marred by a string of errors that officials say have eroded public trust.
Over a three‑day span in February, the agency retracted three separate statements announcing warehouse purchases.
"ICE has NOT purchased a facility in Lebanon, Tennessee," the agency toldThe Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network, a day after confirming the acquisition to multiple news outlets. "That statement was sent without proper approval, and this mistake has since been rectified."
ICE also walked back statements saying it had bought warehouses in Chester, New York, and Roxbury, New Jersey – sowing confusion in each community.
In New Hampshire, Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte and Republican lawmakers have criticized the administration's handling of a proposed ICE facility in the state, accusing the agency of rushing the process and providing inaccurate information.
ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons testified to Congress that he had shared an economic impact report with Ayotte's office. But the governor said "this is simply not true" and wrote in a statement that she did not receive the report until after Lyons' appearance on Capitol Hill.
"After my office inquired about the economic impact study following today's Senate hearing, DHS has now for the first time distributed the document," Ayotte said. "Once the document was received, we immediately shared it with the Town of Merrimack. We are publishing this document on my website for the public to find."
The report itself raised fresh concerns: Its first paragraph refers to the "Oklahoma economy."
"The data we got last night was clearly a cut‑and‑paste job," said New Hampshire state Sen. Tim McGough, a Republican. "It said Oklahoma in the first paragraph, and it talked about a sales tax and an income tax. We don't have either of those here."
Christopher Cann is a national breaking news reporter for USA TODAY. Contact him via email at ccann@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:ICE warehouse detention center project hits 'eye-popping' costs
