The past weeks have seen coordinated acts of resistance by people detained in several U.S. immigration facilities. In at least four states, groups of migrants have initiated hunger strikes to protest the conditions of confinement and alleged mistreatment at sites operated by a single private contractor. Family members, lawyers and advocacy groups describe sustained refusal of food and work as a last resort tactic by those who say other channels of complaint failed them.
Officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the private operator dispute many of the accusations, calling some reports inaccurate and emphasizing compliance with agency standards. The clash has produced daily demonstrations outside one facility and raised questions about oversight, access for inspections, and the role of state authorities in monitoring federally contracted detention centers.
Where the strikes are taking place and what detainees allege
Reports identify four facilities where hunger strikes and related protests have occurred: Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey; Desert View Annex in Adelanto, California; North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan; and Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. All four sites are operated by the GEO Group under contracts with ICE. Participation ranges from roughly 20 detainees at some sites to about 300 at others, according to family members and advocates.
Those involved in the actions and their relatives allege a range of problems: limited or delayed medical care, unsafe drinking water, mold, and physical abuse by staff. Families of detainees at Delaney Hall have also alleged that guards used tear gas and beat detainees. Outside some facilities, tensions have escalated between demonstrators and enforcement personnel, with reports of pepper spray being used against protesters.
Responses from officials, the contractor and advocates
ICE has publicly dismissed many of the accusations as inaccurate, insisting that detainees receive three meals daily, clean water, hygiene items, bedding and access to phones and legal counsel. The agency has pointed to its detention standards and the presence of on-site monitoring as evidence of compliance. The GEO Group likewise stated that services provided to detainees are overseen by ICE and other Department of Homeland Security entities to ensure contractual standards are met.
Advocates and legal representatives view the hunger strikes differently. Haddy Gassama, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, described the protests as a predictable outcome of an expanded detention system that lacks adequate accountability. Local immigrant-rights groups and attorneys urged state and federal officials to increase independent inspections and transparency, arguing that internal monitoring is insufficient when detainees allege abuse.
Calls for inspections and state oversight
In New Jersey, critics say the state health department attempted to inspect Delaney Hall but was restricted from full access, prompting a public call from Governor Mikie Sherill to close the facility. Advocates in Michigan and Pennsylvania have urged similar scrutiny and legislative attention, noting that many detainees are held in county or privately run centers where state-level enforcement could play a role if laws require it.
Communication blackouts and barriers
Another recurring issue reported by family members and organizations is limited communication from inside certain units once a strike begins. In Pennsylvania, the local immigrant rights coalition said a unit went dark after detainees stopped eating, complicating efforts by families and legal counsel to obtain real-time information about conditions or medical responses. Such communication interruptions intensify concerns about detainee safety and the ability to document events.
Broader implications and next steps
The hunger strikes have catalyzed wider discussions about the privatization of detention services, the adequacy of oversight mechanisms, and the role of state governments in enforcing health and safety standards at federally contracted facilities. Legal advocates argue that when detainees feel compelled to refuse food, it signals systemic failures: limited complaint mechanisms, inadequate health care, and insufficient external monitoring.
For now, protests outside facilities continue in some locations and public statements from elected officials and advocacy groups press for transparency. The situation remains contested: detainees and families describe daily desperation and alleged abuse, while ICE and the contractor maintain that care and services meet required standards. Independent inspections and clearer avenues for oversight are among the recommendations offered by legal and human rights organizations as potential ways to reduce harm and restore public confidence.
