In the past week, Kristi Noem, Homeland Security Secretary, made a visit to the U.S. military base located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This visit comes as the Trump administration initiates the transfer of individuals it labels as criminal migrants to this facility. Noem stated that the base is intended to “house the worst of the worst and illegal criminals in the United States.” In January, President Trump signed an executive memo that directed the expansion of the naval station’s facilities to their full capacity.
The idea of sending undocumented immigrants to Guantanamo Bay is fundamentally flawed. This action raises significant legal, logistical, and human rights concerns that could lead to more issues than solutions for our already broken immigration system.
At first glance, this move might seem like a strategic PR maneuver, giving some Trump supporters the impression of a tough stance on immigration. However, both Trump and Noem are likely to discover that using Guantanamo as a detention site is a misguided policy.
Guantanamo is historically recognized as a detention site for terrorism suspects, but it has also served as a holding area for migrants previously. During the early 1990s, thousands of Haitians and Cubans detained there were caught fleeing their countries. Unlike the current scenario, they had not entered the U.S. This difference is critical because undocumented migrants within the U.S. are entitled to due process rights governed by our Constitution. Along with a Supreme Court ruling that grants Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their detention, this situation predicts prolonged legal disputes.
If the administration believes that sending migrants to Guantanamo will bypass scrutiny regarding their treatment, it is mistaken. Known as “the Gulag of our time” by Amnesty International, Guantanamo is under a global spotlight. Lawsuits related to the holding of migrants there have already begun, with a federal court recently halting the transfer of three Venezuelans, signaling more legal challenges on the horizon.
Importantly, sending migrants to Guantanamo isn’t synonymous with deportation. It doesn’t remove them from the U.S. immigration framework or shift them from civilian to military jurisdiction, as previously argued for enemy combatants detained overseas. This merely relocates them offshore under constant U.S. government oversight.
The financial implications of detaining migrants at Guantanamo are considerable. Expanding the base’s capacity will demand substantial funding for essentials such as food, water, staffing, healthcare, and possibly education. There remains ambiguity on whether children will be accommodated in the base’s uncomfortable tents.
Given its isolated location, nearly everything required on the base, from construction materials to food, must be imported. According to a 2019 New York Times analysis, maintaining each detainee cost $13 million annually, a figure President Trump labeled as “crazy” and akin to “a fortune.” In sharp contrast, it costs approximately $57,000 per year for each immigration detainee within the U.S.
Attempting to fulfill Trump’s promise to send 30,000 migrants to Guantanamo would cause costs to skyrocket. By comparison, about 40,000 migrants are detained across the entire United States. At the beginning of January, Guantanamo had just 15 detainees managed by the Defense Department. Scaling operations to house potentially 30,000 migrants would heavily strain the Homeland Security budget, impacting other priorities like mass deportations and border security, advocated by the president’s supporters.
The administration’s plan includes holding migrants at Guantanamo until their deportation is feasible. However, countries like Cuba and China have historically refused deportee repatriation, and diplomatic relations might influence other countries’ willingness to accept deportees. This scenario risks transforming Guantanamo into a permanent holding facility once again.
Guantanamo’s current reputation is tarnished due to misconduct during the post-9/11 “war on terror.” Even last year, the International Refugee Assistance Project found conditions there were unsuitable, citing issues such as undrinkable water, exposed sewage, and inadequate healthcare.
This plan to house migrants at Guantanamo could be counterproductive. In 1993, a federal judge ordered the release of Haitian migrants from the base due to insufficient medical infrastructure and violations of due process.
Overall, Guantanamo Bay detention for migrants is a misguided approach, expected to be costly, ineffective, and inhumane—a false remedy that could evolve into a significant political and humanitarian crisis.
Raul A. Reyes is known as an immigration attorney and contributes to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. He can be found on X at @RaulAReyes and on Instagram at @raulareyes1.
