The ICE Gold Rush

How America Turned Detention Into a Business Model

The ICE Gold Rush

How America Turned Detention Into a Business Model

The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter #693: Thursday, December 18th, 2025.

There is a mistake most Americans make when they think about authoritarian crackdowns.

They imagine uniforms.
They imagine shouting.
They imagine dramatic raids and chaotic scenes on television.

What they don’t imagine are invoices.

Because modern authoritarianism…doesn’t arrive with tanks rolling down Main Street.
It arrives with contracts…renewals…no-bid procurement…quiet contract modifications…and expanded line items…buried inside federal budgets.

And nowhere is that clearer…right now…than in the Trump–ICE–private detention pipeline.

This is not a story about immigration policy in the abstract.

It is a story about how enforcement becomes infrastructure…how fear becomes a revenue stream…and how once that system is built…it begins to operate according to business logic…not moral urgency.

The Myth of “Border Security”

Let’s strip away the rhetoric.

Trump’s immigration posture has never been primarily about borders.

Borders are finite.
Fear is not.

What Trump has consistently understood is that immigration enforcement is a uniquely powerful political lever because it sits at the intersection of:

• National identity

• Racial anxiety

• Economic insecurity

• Executive authority

• Emergency justification

But beneath the slogans is a logistical reality that rarely gets discussed:

You cannot scale mass detention and deportation without private infrastructure.

ICE does not own enough facilities.
The federal government does not staff enough detention beds.
Public prisons cannot be expanded fast enough to meet sudden enforcement surges.

Which means any serious expansion must rely on contractors.

And once enforcement is outsourced…profit enters the system.

From that moment on…incentives change.

The Private Detention Backbone

Most people recognize the names:

GEO Group

CoreCivic

But those companies are only the visible pillars.

Behind them is a broader ecosystem:

• Real-estate holding entities

• Transportation contractors

• Medical service providers

• Food service vendors

• Surveillance and monitoring firms

• Maintenance and staffing subcontractors

• “Temporary” facility operators

This is not a simple prison system.

It functions more like a vertically layered supply chain.

Each detained person represents multiple billable categories:

• A per-diem bed rate

• Transportation costs

• Medical services

• Food and maintenance

• Staffing and security

• Facility operations

Detention is not merely an expense.

It is a structured revenue stack.

How the Blueprint Was Built

During Trump’s first term, detention did not expand because Congress debated and approved a sweeping new architecture.

It expanded because existing authorities were interpreted aggressively, and contracting mechanisms were normalized.

Key patterns emerged:

• Increased reliance on “temporary” facilities that became semi-permanent

• Expanded use of contract detention rather than government-run beds

• Accelerated procurement timelines

• Broad discretion granted to ICE field offices

• Reduced practical oversight as capacity grew

None of this required sweeping new legislation.

It required reinterpretation.

And reinterpretation is where executive power quietly scales.

By the time Trump left office the first time…the detention infrastructure was no longer experimental.

It was ready to be reactivated.

Trump’s Second Term and the Reactivation Phase

One of the clearest indicators of policy direction is not rhetoric…but procurement behavior.

In 2025, ICE moved to expand detention capacity through:

• No-bid and sole-source contracts

• Contract modifications rather than new approvals

• Reactivation of previously shuttered facilities

One example illustrates the pattern clearly.

In June 2025, GEO Group announced that ICE executed a contract modification activating the 1,868-bed D. Ray James facility in Georgia under an existing intergovernmental structure.

No new detention law was passed.
No national debate occurred.

Capacity simply came online.

That is how modern expansion happens.

Quietly.
Procedurally.
Legally.

Why Detention Capacity Creates Escalation Pressure

Here is a reality that often makes people uncomfortable, but must be stated carefully:

A detention system built around paid capacity creates incentives to sustain high utilization.

Beds must be justified.
Facilities must be renewed.
Contracts must be extended.
Operators must demonstrate operational “need.”

This does not require malice or conspiracy.

It is basic institutional behavior.

When enforcement becomes contractual…the system is no longer neutral about outcomes. It does not merely respond to violations.

It responds to capacity.

And capacity…once built…exerts gravitational pull.

The Language That Makes It All Palatable

One of the most effective features of this system is how it is described.

Instead of saying:

“We are punishing immigrants.”

The system says:

“We are processing cases.”

Instead of saying:

“We are building detention camps.”

The system says:

“We are expanding capacity.”

Instead of saying:

“People are being held for long periods.”

The system says:

“Cases are awaiting adjudication.”

This language matters.

Because once coercion is proceduralized…resistance sounds unreasonable.

Objections can be dismissed as emotional…ideological…or uninformed.

And policy continues…unchallenged…inside spreadsheets.

Follow the Paper, Not the Speeches

If you want to understand what is actually happening, stop watching press conferences.

Watch:

• ICE contract awards and renewals

• Sole-source and emergency procurement justifications

• Bed-capacity language

• Facility inspection waivers

• Subcontractor relationships

• Lobbying disclosures

• Campaign donations

• Revolving-door employment

Patterns emerge quickly.

Not smoking guns…pressure gradients.

And pressure gradients tell you where a system is moving next.

Why This Is an Authoritarian Risk, Not a Policy Dispute

Authoritarian systems rarely begin with mass arrests.

They begin with normalized detention.

They teach the public…slowly…that:

• Some people do not receive full due process

• Some people can be held for extended periods

• Some people exist in legal gray zones

• Some people are “processed,” not protected

Once that logic is accepted for one group…history shows it does not remain confined.

This is not alarmism.

It is pattern recognition.

Courts, Delay, and Cost Accumulation

Immigration courts are under enormous pressure.

Caseloads are high.
Backlogs are severe.
Outcomes vary widely by judge and jurisdiction.

Data shows high denial rates in many courts…with significant disparities.

And detention costs accrue…day by day.

This creates a system where:

• Delay increases total cost

• Long timelines increase contractor revenue

• Individuals remain detained while cases move slowly

No single actor…has to intend harm…for the outcome to be harmful.

The structure…produces it.
(Remember, I live and die by structure…patterns…and translating complexity…into simplicity)

Why This Story Matters Right Now

As of December 18th, 2025, three forces are converging:

1. A second Trump administration emphasizing aggressive enforcement

2. A detention sector already primed for rapid expansion

3. A legal and procurement ecosystem that allows speed with limited visibility

That combination is volatile.

Not because of what has already happened.

But because of how quickly things can scale.

Speed is the authoritarian advantage.

And the infrastructure is already in place.

Why This Investigation Is Hard to Dismiss

This story is not dangerous because it is emotional.

It is dangerous because it is document-based.

Invoices.
Memos.
Contract modifications.
Procurement notices.
Capacity figures.

You cannot dismiss those as hysteria.

You cannot rebut them…with slogans.

Paper…does not argue.

It records.

The Question That Actually Matters

The most important question is not:

“Do I support immigration enforcement?”

It is:

“Who profits when enforcement expands?”

Because once fear becomes a business model…it must be sustained.

And the people sustaining it are not the ones being detained.

Final Word

America does not collapse overnight.

It gets leased…contracted…renewed…and billed monthly.

The ICE–private detention pipeline is not a side story.

It is a template.

And the most unsettling truth is this:

The machine does not care who is president.

It only cares…that the beds stay full.

#HoldFast

Back soon,

-Jack
Jack Hopkins

Receipt Index: Key Documents, Data & Reporting

(All sources reflect publicly available reporting and disclosures relevant as of December 17, 2025.)

ICE Detention Expansion & Contracting

Associated Press: No-Bid & Emergency Contracting

• AP reporting documents ICE’s use of no-bid and sole-source contracts to rapidly expand immigration detention capacity under Trump-era enforcement priorities.

• Coverage highlights oversight concerns and the speed at which detention capacity can be brought online through procurement mechanisms rather than legislation.

Associated Press: Politically Connected Contract Awards

• AP investigations detail detention-related contracts awarded to companies with political ties, raising transparency and accountability questions in immigration enforcement procurement.

Private Prison Operators & Facility Reactivation

GEO Group: Contract Modification Announcement (June 2025)

• GEO Group publicly disclosed that ICE executed a contract modification effective June 6, 2025, activating the 1,868-bed D. Ray James Detention Facility in Georgia under an existing intergovernmental framework.

• Demonstrates how capacity can be expanded without new legislation or public debate.

CoreCivic: Investor Filings & Earnings Calls

• CoreCivic SEC filings and investor presentations identify ICE as a major revenue source and describe facility activations and reactivations tied to federal detention demand.

• Confirms detention operates through per-diem, capacity-driven contracts.

For-Profit Dominance in ICE Detention

TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse), Syracuse University

• TRAC data consistently shows that a majority of ICE detainees are held in for-profit or privately operated facilities.

• Facility-level reports document detention capacity, average daily population, and operator identity.

• Demonstrates the structural reliance on private detention infrastructure.

Detention Capacity, Bed Utilization & Cost Structure

ICE Detention Facility Data (via TRAC & DHS disclosures)

• Shows detention operates through contractual bed capacity, with daily costs accruing per detainee.

• Supports analysis that detention costs increase with longer confinement periods.

Immigration Court Outcomes & System Pressure

TRAC Immigration Court Data

• Judge-by-judge and court-by-court data shows high asylum denial rates in many jurisdictions and wide disparities.

• Documents extensive backlogs and prolonged case timelines.

Roll Call / Congressional Reporting

• Reporting on immigration court backlog pressures and administrative strain under expanded enforcement priorities.

Procurement & Expansion Signals

Federal Procurement Records & Public Contract Notices

• ICE procurement actions, including:

  • sole-source justifications

  • contract renewals

  • contract modifications

• These records illustrate how detention capacity expands procedurally rather than legislatively.

How to Use This Index (For Readers & Researchers)

This index is not exhaustive. It is a starting map.

Readers who want to go deeper should:

• Search SAM.gov for ICE detention contracts and modifications

• Review SEC filings (10-Ks, 8-Ks) from GEO Group and CoreCivic

• Use TRAC’s facility-level detention tools

• Monitor local government IGSA agreements

• Track AP and investigative outlet updates on detention procurement

The story of detention expansion lives in paperwork, not press releases.

Editorial Note

This investigation focuses on structures, incentives, and documented mechanisms, not individual intent.
All conclusions are drawn from publicly available data, reporting, and disclosed contractual practices.