Congress has approved $38 billion in new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement through the current fiscal period, on top of $75 billion allocated earlier through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The additional funds include resources designated for family detention operations at federal immigration facilities, including the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
The debate over ICE funding comes as advocates for detained children report ongoing concerns about conditions inside the facility and as the government moves to terminate a decades-old legal framework governing how children must be treated in immigration custody. The Flores Settlement Agreement, originally reached in 1997, sets basic standards requiring that children be held in safe and sanitary conditions and released without unnecessary delay.
What the Right Is Saying
Supporters of increased ICE funding say federal immigration enforcement requires adequate resources to address border security and enforce laws passed by Congress. They argue that detention facilities operate under legal requirements and that conditions at family residential centers meet standards set by courts and regulators.
Conservative lawmakers who backed the funding package have emphasized that immigration enforcement is a core constitutional responsibility of the executive branch. They maintain that facilities like Dilley provide structured environments for families while their immigration cases proceed through the court system, and that releasing detainees without proper adjudication creates risks of absconsment and undermines legal proceedings.
Proponents note that previous administrations of both parties have utilized family detention as part of broader immigration enforcement strategies, arguing that the current funding level reflects operational necessities rather than policy choices outside congressional oversight.
What the Left Is Saying
Advocacy organizations representing detained children say Congress's funding decision will have permanent consequences for thousands of minors. Neha Desai, managing director of the National Center for Youth Law, said children she has spoken with describe prolonged detention, inadequate medical care and psychological harm. "A 13-year-old told us plainly: 'Every day that I remain here is destroying my hope for my life,'" Desai said in a joint statement with partner organizations.
Leecia Welch, chief legal counsel for Children's Rights, said advocates have documented conditions through nearly 100 declarations from children and parents filed in federal court. She cited specific accounts including a 10-year-old with a chronic disease who was denied proper medical care and diet resulting in no bowel movements for over a month, and a two-year-old with an infected gum who was not treated for more than 23 days.
Edward Barsoumian, community advocate at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, argued that eliminating the Flores Settlement Agreement would remove one of the last safeguards standing between children and indefinite detention. "Public outrage can play a huge role in holding our government accountable," Barsoumian wrote, calling on Americans to contact representatives and attend town halls.
What the Numbers Show
According to data cited by advocates, hundreds of children have been detained at the Dilley facility far longer than the 20-day timeframe generally required under Flores court interpretations. Families have raised more than 700 medical concerns to immigration services lawyers assigned to the facility, according to documentation filed in federal proceedings.
The combined ICE funding totals $113 billion across two legislative vehicles: $75 billion through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and an additional $38 billion through subsequent appropriations. The Dilley facility reopened under the current administration after previous closures during earlier administrations.
The Bottom Line
Congress has provided substantial new resources for immigration detention while the executive branch simultaneously pursues termination of the legal framework that sets standards for how detained children must be treated. Advocates say this combination creates conditions that harm minors in federal custody, while supporters argue adequate detention capacity is necessary for enforcement operations.
The Flores litigation remains pending before federal courts, which will determine whether the settlement's child welfare protections continue. Lawmakers from both parties have faced pressure from constituents on all sides of immigration policy as family detention continues at Dilley and similar facilities.