ICE Bought 11 Warehouses for $1.07 Billion. Now It Plans to Sell 7.

The spending: purchase price, sunk costs, and money at risk

The strongest way to understand the report is to keep its financial categories separate. Buying a property creates an asset that may later be sold. Paying for security or an assessment creates an expense. A contract obligation commits funds but does not necessarily mean all the money has already been paid.

Source: GAO-26-108663, page 8. The approximate $20.5 million total is HLG’s addition of GAO’s rounded $7.7 million and $12.8 million figures. The rows should not be added into one grand total.

Seven of eleven is approximately 64% of the warehouses purchased. That is the share ICE intended to sell, not the share of the purchase money proven lost. GAO warns that selling those seven properties for less than their $707 million purchase price would create additional waste. Its report does not supply completed sale prices.

How the warehouse plan became a resale plan

The initiative began in December 2025 under the name Detention Reengineering Initiative. ICE announced plans to open 24 warehouse facilities by November 2026: 16 regional processing centers with capacity for up to 1,500 people each, and eight larger facilities capable of holding up to 10,000 each.

The agency bought 11 warehouse facilities between January and April. In June, the Homeland Security Secretary acknowledged that DHS was reevaluating the model because appropriate due diligence and planning had not been conducted. ICE told GAO it was working with the General Services Administration to sell seven properties.

That chronology matters. The decision to purchase preceded the reassessment that put most of those purchases on a disposal track. GAO’s criticism concerns the analysis behind the decisions, as well as the expenses those decisions generated. A large building does not, by itself, establish that a detention project is practical or financially sound.

HLG’s earlier warehouse-detention explainer examines the model’s implications for families. This September 2026 audit supplies a newer accounting of the government’s purchases and planning failures.

Hagerstown and Surprise: $426 million in renovation obligations

The four warehouses ICE intended to retain also carry financial exposure. GAO identified March 2026 renovation obligations of $113 million in Hagerstown, Maryland, and $313 million in Surprise, Arizona. Together, those commitments total $426 million.

GAO reported that conversion work at the two locations was largely on hold as of September because of legal challenges. Its page 8, footnote 30 describes the Maryland preliminary injunction and the Arizona agreement to pause conversion efforts while environmental reviews proceeded. These were different legal mechanisms, and the report does not establish a permanent nationwide ban on warehouse detention.

The unanswered financial question is how much of those obligations will ultimately be spent, adjusted, or recovered if the projects change. The audit supports asking that question. It does not support calling all $426 million a completed loss.

Six initiatives reveal a larger planning problem

The warehouse purchases are one part of the audit. GAO reviewed six new detention-expansion approaches and found that ICE had scaled back four as of July 2026. The report distinguishes identified waste from initiatives that create a risk of future waste.

Sources: GAO’s September report, pages 6–11, and its June 9 Camp East Montana report. The $92 figure is a median bed rate for specified facility types, not a universal all-in cost per detainee. GAO explains the exclusions and assumptions on page 4, footnote 14. These figures are not a single additive waste estimate.

The common accountability test is whether the government established what it needed and compared realistic options before committing resources. A more expensive facility is not automatically unnecessary. But an agency needs evidence to explain why it chose that facility and what additional value taxpayers receive.

The bill does not end when the government owns the building

GAO found that ICE’s facility acquisition plan included purchase and renovation estimates and three years of operating costs. ICE had not projected costs beyond those first three years, even though the major funding sources discussed in the report are available for obligation only through fiscal year 2029.

That creates an obvious question for future budgets: Who funds staffing, medical care, maintenance, utilities, and other recurring costs after the temporary funding window? Buying a facility changes who owns the asset. It does not eliminate the cost of running it.

The audit also found that ICE had not adequately specified the characteristics of the beds it needed, including location, gender, security classification, and medical requirements. Officials described shortages of space for women and people with complex medical issues. A national bed count can rise while the system still lacks the right capacity in the right place.

HLG’s analysis is that the public needs an accounting of what each site cost, what it can safely do, and what taxpayers will still owe after 2029. Readers following the commercial side can also consult HLG’s background on who receives money in the detention economy.

What DHS says—and why August 31, 2027 matters

DHS agreed with GAO’s recommendation to develop a comprehensive strategic plan. In its September 15 written response, reproduced in the report, DHS said it remained committed to immigration enforcement and meeting demand for detention space, including through facilities designed for ICE’s needs.

The response says the plan will identify expansion goals, activities, resource requirements, milestones, and responsibilities. It will also address facility requirements, staffing, contracts, funding, and coordination with stakeholders. The stated completion date is August 31, 2027.

GAO warned that earlier completion may be warranted because substantial funding is already available and further waste remains possible. That date is ICE’s estimated completion date in response to an audit recommendation; it is not a court-ordered deadline. The recommendation remained open on the report’s release page when reviewed for this article.

For the public, the next useful question is what controls will govern new purchases and operating commitments while the comprehensive plan is being prepared. A promise to plan should be accompanied by an explanation of how current spending decisions are being tested.

Six questions local reporters and taxpayers can ask now

The audit gives local communities a practical reporting agenda. These questions are HLG’s analysis of the records that would help establish whether a particular project is justified; they are not findings that every listed defect exists at every facility.

1. What was purchased, and at what price? Request the property description, appraisal, acquisition approval, closing date, and purchase documents. Distinguish the seller, building owner, renovation contractor, and detention operator.
2. What was checked before closing? Seek environmental assessments, utility-capacity reviews, projected renovation costs, and evaluations of alternative sites. Ask which questions remained unresolved when funds were committed.
3. What is the cost after acquisition? Ask for separate totals for purchase, renovation obligations, payments, security, utilities, maintenance, and termination charges. Separating these categories helps prevent double counting.
4. What happens if the project changes? Ask whether a site is retained, under review, declared excess, offered for sale, or actually sold. Request the expected proceeds and identify any continuing liabilities.
5. Can the facility deliver the services its population requires? Ask about medical staffing, confidential attorney communication, visitation, transportation, and accommodation of specific medical needs—not simply maximum occupancy.
6. What happens after fiscal year 2029? Request a longer-term operating forecast, the anticipated funding source, and the assumptions used if occupancy or enforcement priorities change.

This approach also gives Ohio readers a national spending story they can evaluate without assuming the report identifies an Ohio warehouse. The warehouse discussion names Hagerstown and Surprise as retained sites; it does not provide a complete site-by-site list of all eleven purchases. A reliable local follow-up needs the underlying property and agency records.

Why planning failures matter for people in detention

For detained people, a facility’s location, staffing, medical capacity, and attorney access are immediate concerns. GAO’s separate June report found that Camp East Montana initially opened without space for attorney and family visitation and without meeting other key detention standards. Financial oversight and the conditions people experience inside facilities are connected.

The September audit does not itself order anyone’s release or decide an individual’s immigration case. Families should obtain case-specific advice about custody, transfers, access to counsel, and any available legal challenge. HLG’s deportation and removal defense services explain how the firm assists people facing immigration enforcement.