November, 20 2019, 11:00pm EDT
Hundreds of Documents Released Detailing Plans to Build Migrant Detention Facilities at Contaminated Fort Bliss Site
Up to 7,500 unaccompanied minors would have been held at toxic site according to plans unearthed by environmental and community advocates.
WASHINGTON
Today, Earthjustice, along with its partners Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, GreenLatinos, Hispanic Federation, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, National Hispanic Medical Association, and Southwest Environmental Center, is releasing hundreds of internal federal documents on the proposed construction plans for a migrant detention facility at Fort Bliss in Texas. These plans came as a result of President Donald Trump's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy, which instigated a need for additional capacity to house migrants and migrant families detained at the U.S.-Mexico border, which brought on the construction or planning of new detention centers.
These bases are known to be riddled with toxic hazards from past military operations, spills, storage of toxic chemicals, unexploded ordnances, and firing ranges. These searchable records include seven sets of FOIA productions and two key documents pertaining to the plans for construction at Fort Bliss. However, this is not the first time that the administration has pursued construction plans on contaminated sites. Goodfellow AIr Force Base was also under consideration for a planned detention facility.
Though the plans have reportedly stalled, Fort Bliss staff began coordinating with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to select a possible site for a temporary detention camp for families or unaccompanied minors in early May 2018. By the end of June, initial plans were for HHS to house 1,000 unaccompanied minors with possible eventual "incremental build up" to 7,500 unaccompanied minors, to be ready by August 31, 2018, and for DHS to house 2,000 people in a family residential center, with eventual potential buildup to 4,000 beds, according to the newly released documents.
"These documents we're releasing today reveal an alarming effort by the Army and DHS to rush plans to build a family detention center at Fort Bliss without taking the necessary steps to make sure the site was free of toxic hazards. Despite known pollution on the site, the Army planned to build a detention center there without completing a full investigation of the extent of contamination or verifying that the waste had been cleaned up," said Earthjustice attorney Melissa Legge. "This should signal to lawmakers, journalists, and the public how unscrupulous this administration can be while pursuing ill-conceived and dangerous anti-immigration policies."
Our expert's report notes that there were several problems with the project at Fort Bliss, including that the Army did not adequately investigate to determine what types of waste had been disposed of at the site, that the methods used for testing the soil samples were inadequate or never completed, and that samples taken after the supposed clean-up still had concerning levels of pollution. Additionally, our expert notes that illegal dumping on the site may continue to this day. As a result, there is now even greater uncertainty about the environmental hazards at the site and a greater need for thorough testing, analysis, and cleanup.
"The Trump administration has proven again and again that it cannot be trusted with the health and safety of vulnerable migrant children," said Laura M. Esquivel, director of National Advocacy for Hispanic Federation, the lead plaintiffs in the FOIA case. "We have witnessed the tremendous emotional and psychological cost borne by children housed in inhumane conditions. Adding intentional exposure to potentially toxic environments would make the Trump administration responsible for yet another cruel, misguided, and intentional action that would compound the irreparable damage to the physical and mental wellbeing of thousands of migrant children being separated from their parents at the border. The public has the right to know if these conditions exist, and the Trump administration must be held accountable for additional harms caused to those seeking refuge in this country."
The government's actions were probed by health, labor, civil rights, and environmental organizations, represented by Earthjustice, through Freedom of Information Act requests -- as well as record request lawsuits -- to reveal where it planned to detain migrants, then slated to be housed at Fort Bliss Army Base and Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas, and to identify hazardous waste sites that could impact detention center sites. These documents are a result of that request.
Why does the Freedom of Information Act Matters in our Democracy?
Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act has provided the public the right to request records from any federal agency. It is the bedrock transparency law that keeps reporters and the American people in the know about their government. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the "basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
'One Family Is About to Control CBS, CNN, HBO, and TikTok': Alarm Grows Over Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger
"When Democrats win back power we are going to break up these anti-democratic information conglomerates," said Sen. Chris Murphy. "All of them."
Feb 27, 2026
Concerns are mounting about the state of the US media landscape now that it looks increasingly likely that Paramount Skydance—a company controlled by the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a donor to President Donald Trump—will succeed in its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
One day after Netflix announced that it was dropping its previously accepted bid to buy Warner, many critics demanded that antitrust laws be invoked to block the Paramount-Warner merger from going through.
Alvaro Bedoya, former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission, warned that the Ellison family could soon use their control over vast swaths of US media properties to engage in mass censorship, and he pointed to their decisions to cancel Stephen Colbert's program and to refuse to air an interview with Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico.
"One family is about to control CBS, CNN, HBO, and TikTok," he wrote in a social media post. "They’ll buy [Warner Bros. Discovery] with $24 billion in money from the Saudis, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi. To win over Trump, they canceled Colbert... and blocked Talarico. Much more will follow. Block this rotten deal."
Craig Aaron, co-CEO of Free Press, said the proposed Paramount-Warner merger was "even worse" than the proposed Netflix-Warner merger.
"This deal endangers our democracy by giving a family of pliant billionaires even more control of vast swaths of our news coverage, TV stations, and movie studios," Aaron said. "Allowing more mergers in the already highly concentrated movie business will harm filmmakers and industry workers when Paramount delivers on its promise to make deep cuts to please its Wall Street backers."
Writing in the American Prospect, David Dayen described the Paramount-Warner merger as the "worst-case scenario" that has "echoes of media-political consolidation as we see in dictatorships the world over."
Dayen argued that state governments still had time to block the merger, but warned that they were in a race against time given that Paramount's consultants "are trying to speed run the deal in a matter of weeks."
"The states could challenge the merger even after the feds bless it," Dayen continued, "but by then, Paramount and Warner Bros. would have likely commingled their assets, engaged in layoffs, and made it very difficult to untangle the merger, particularly for judges who are inherently conservative on these matters."
Some Democratic lawmakers are warning that they aren't going to stop fighting the Paramount-Warner merger even if it goes through.
In an interview with Semafor, Sen. Ruben Gallego (R-Ariz.) predicted that the Ellisons would come to regret aggressively buying up US media properties.
"Once we take power, whoever the president is, we’re going to break up your companies," said Gallego. "So all the investment you did to create these mergers are going to be for naught. Your investors are going to be pissed at you, and you’re likely going to end up getting fired as the CEO because you wasted so much money and corrupted yourself in the process."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) echoed Gallego's argument in a social media post.
"Paramount should enjoy its growing news monopoly while they have it," he wrote, "because when Democrats win back power we are going to break up these anti-democratic information conglomerates. All of them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Transgender Kansas Residents Sue Over State's Invalidation of Driver's Licenses
"SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
Feb 27, 2026
Accusing Kansas Republican lawmakers of violating the state's Constitution and waging "a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans" by passing a law that invalidates their driver's licenses, the ACLU on Friday filed a lawsuit on behalf of two transgender residents and called on a state judge to block the statute.
The organization took legal action a day after SB 244 went into effect, rendering the birth certificates and driver's licenses of about 1,700 Kansans invalid because they have been changed to reflect the gender identity of the people they were issued to, rather than their sex assigned at birth.
Transgender Kansans across the state received letters this week from the Kansas Department of Revenue instructing them to "surrender [their] current credential" and exchange it for one that matches their sex assigned at birth.
“Your current credential will be invalid immediately,’’ warns the letter, adding that driving without a valid license could result in penalties.
SB 244 also prohibits transgender Kansans from updating the gender marker on state-issued birth certificates and driver's licenses in the future, prohibits transgender people from using public restrooms that match their identity on government property, and allows anyone who suspects a transgender person is in violation of the law to sue the individual for damages of up to $1,000.
The bathroom provisions were added to SB 244 without a hearing or any public comment.
The state's Democratic governor, Laura Kelly, vetoed the legislation, but Republican legislators overrode her veto.
"A confident republic does not need to erase people to prove a point. It can hold together across deep differences without turning paperwork into a weapon."
Harper Seldin, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, called the law "a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia."
“The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police," said Seldin. "Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
States including Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have laws requiring the gender marker on a person's driver's license to match their sex assigned at birth, but Kansas is the first state to invalidate the licenses of people who have changed the gender markers.
The law was passed as President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers denounce what they view as radical "gender ideology," including science-backed findings that a person's gender can be fluid and that gender-affirming healthcare can reduce depression and suicidal ideation.
In 2025, the ACLU tracked more than 600 anti-LGBTQ laws and proposals in states. At least 74 were passed into law.
In the lawsuit filed in the District Court of Douglas County, two anonymous plaintiffs identified as Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe argue that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution's guarantees of personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
They argue that the law is discriminatory and violates equal protection laws because other Kansans are free to change their name or choose whether or not to list other aspects of their identity, such disclosing veteran status or a disability, on their licenses.
One critic calledlled SB 244 "humiliation with a state seal."
"This does not make anyone safer on the road. It just forces people to carry documents that lie about who they are, and then punishes them when those lies put them at risk at traffic stops, pharmacies, airports," the social media user said. "A confident republic does not need to erase people to prove a point. It can hold together across deep differences without turning paperwork into a weapon."
Heather St. Clair, a lawyer with Ballard Spahr, a law firm helping to represent the plaintiffs, said the law amounts to "state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state Legislature’s preferences."
Ballard Spahr, she said, "is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction to block the law from entering into force while the case is being decided.
The advocacy group Southern Equality applauded the legal challenge.
"We are grateful to the ACLU for filing a lawsuit against this heinous law in defense of trans Kansans," said Southern Equality. "We join in solidarity with trans people everywhere: You belong in public spaces, and we will not stand by while your rights are stripped away."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Finds 4 Data Breaches Cost Public $20 Billion, Fueling Calls for Action to 'Protect Americans From Scams'
"As international criminal syndicates increasingly use scams to target Americans, data brokers shouldn’t make it harder for people to protect themselves," said the Joint Economic Committee's ranking member.
Feb 27, 2026
Just four major data broker breaches in recent years have cost US consumers over $20 billion, according to a Thursday report from a key leader in Congress that argues "additional action is needed to protect Americans from scams."
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC), launched a sweeping investigation into financial scams last July. As part of it, she's examined data brokers, which collect and sell individuals' personal information. These companies often operate with limited transparency, her report explains, making it "more difficult for individuals to secure their information online and, ultimately, protect themselves from the growing threat of scams."
"Data brokers, for example, can enable scams by making consumers' personal information available to bad actors, who can then use details like Social Security numbers, home addresses, or banking information to develop customized and convincing scams," the report explains. "In some cases, data brokers have allegedly sold this information directly to scammers; in others, cyber hacks of data brokers have exposed individuals' data to uncontrolled circulation online."
Last August, after Wired reported that some data brokers took steps to hide their opt-out pages, Hassan issued investigative requests to Comscore, Findem, IQVIA Digital, Telesign, and 6Sense Insights. The report states that all of the companies but Findem responded with "actions to make their opt-out options more accessible to consumers and other parties," which "included removing 'no index' code that had blocked opt-out pages from search engine results, adding opt-out links in more prominent locations, and publishing blog content explaining how people can exercise their privacy rights."
"Notably," the report continues, "Findem did not respond to the ranking member's requests or written outreach from committee staff and has not removed the 'no index' code from its opt-out page—raising serious concerns about its responsiveness to opt-out requests and commitment to data privacy."
While recognizing the other companies for their positive responses, Hassan's report also stresses that more must be done. For instance, she requested information about efforts "to audit or assess the visibility of opt-out options or the success rates of opt-out requests," and "only 6sense stated that it contracts with third-party auditors to conduct both of these assessments."
Highlighting the need for further action, Hassan's staff estimated that identity theft stemming from four large data broker breaches—Equifax in 2017, impacting 147 million US residents; Exactis in 2018, impacting 230 million; National Public in 2023, impacting 270 million; and TransUnion in 2025, impacting 4.4 million—cost American consumers $20.9 billion.
"As international criminal syndicates increasingly use scams to target Americans, data brokers shouldn't make it harder for people to protect themselves," Hassan said in a statement. "This report shows the scope of the threat that people face from data broker breaches and underscores the importance of protecting Americans' private data."
She added that "it is encouraging that after we launched our investigation, many companies took steps to improve opt-out options for Americans, which in turn can help more consumers keep their information out of the wrong hands."
As a related webpage from the Electronic Privacy Information Center details: "There is no federal law in the United States that adequately regulates the data broker industry. As a result, private companies invade our private lives, spy on our families, and gather our most intimate facts, on a mass scale, for profit. EPIC supports state and federal legislative efforts that set limits on data brokers’ collection, use, retention, and disclosure of personal data."
In recent years, members of Congress have introduced various legislative proposals aimed at reining in data brokers—including in the Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act, introduced on Monday. The bipartisan bill would, among other things, close the so-called "data broker loophole" that, as Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) put it, "intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment" to the US Constitution.
There are some limits that have passed, including in Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024. Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission sent letters reminding 13 companies of their obligations to comply with the PADFAA, which "prohibits data brokers from selling, licensing, renting, trading, transferring, releasing, disclosing, providing access to, or otherwise making available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to any foreign adversary country or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary."
However, as Lartease Tiffith, an expert at American and George Mason universities, laid out in an article for Just Security last November, while Congress enacted the PADFAA "with the right goal," the law, as written, "could penalize legitimate US companies for routine global operations while failing to deliver the targeted national security tool Congress intended."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular