August, 03 2020, 12:00am EDT
Thousands at Risk of COVID-19 Escalating in ICE "Superspreader" Detention Centers as US States Hit Highest Daily Records--and ICE Deportation Flights Into Central and South America Continue
With case numbers still on the rise across most of the US, IRC calls for individuals detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be released from unsanitary and unsafe ICE facilities, a halt to deportations while a pandemic is underway, as well as support to those awaiting their legal status
NEW YORK
As Coronavirus cases continue to surge across the United States, International Rescue Committee raises the alarm on the public health risk posed by ongoing ICE detention of tens of thousands of people in the United States being held in unsanitary conditions - amidst suspect and potentially "superspreading" levels of COVID infection in ICE detention centers.
ICE currently reports 3,917 cases of COVID-19 in its detention centers across the country since the start of the outbreak with approximately 1,000 positive cases currently in custody. Of particular concern are facilities like Immigration Centers of America - Farmville, which currently records 261 active cases of COVID with 289 total since the start of the outbreak; external inquiries indicate that a total of 359 detainees were tested at Farmville earlier in July, meaning the test positivity rate could be a shocking 80% or higher. Writ large, ICE reports 19,092 tests since February - amounting to a 20% average test positivity rate across all detention centers. This is nearly three times the current positivity rate across the US, still the country most affected by the virus globally. With an average of 660 tests per week since February for an average detained population in that period of approximately 60,000, this results in about 11 tests conducted per thousand people- meaning ICE's testing levels barely eke past WHO safety thresholds.
Philip* is an IRC client from Democratic Republic of Congo currently detained at a private ICE facility in Texas after being transferred from another Texan facility, where there have been 69 COVID cases to date. He recounted his experience in detention: "ICE does not respect any COVID public health measures - they don't pay attention to the rules. Here I am in a room with over 100 people - like being in a crowded market. We are given soap and masks, but ICE agents do not wear masks, and do not respect quarantine - which is especially bad since we share so many spaces and materials. I have never seen them measure a single person's temperature. At the last center they weren't doing widespread testing, and if you were presumed sick you were simply removed and placed in another room, without testing the others. I saw people collapse in front of me and get dragged out - but ICE agents say this doesn't happen. We ask ourselves where those people go - if they died, got deported or got transferred. They don't tell us so we don't panic. What they do say is that health isn't ICE's responsibility."
Olga Byrne, IRC's Director of Immigration, said: "Locking up individuals seeking safety during the most infectious pandemic in 100 years is beyond inhumane. Public health experts universally agree that social distancing is one of the most important measures we can all take to combat the spread of COVID-19, something that is impossible in ICE's detention facilities. We are hearing from clients released by ICE that they were detained in crowded rooms and unsanitary conditions, not being tested at all and being isolated according to the whims of ICE agents rather than any clear public health prerogatives. Already the Administration's 'wall' of recent policies and practices has made accessing protection in the US nearly impossible, and asylum-seekers in ICE detention have limited to zero access to lawyers. Now, as the US deals with record-breaking spikes in COVID cases, the health of asylum-seekers and public health writ large is put directly at risk thanks to the irresponsible actions of ICE."
There are also serious concerns on the reliability of ICE's data on COVID cases in its detention centers. Not all detention centers are doing widespread testing, an alarming fact made worse by epidemiological modeling which suggests the number of COVID-19 cases could in fact be 15 times higher than what ICE discloses.
All the more concerning are ICE's ongoing deportation flights - with over 450 likely deportation flights since the beginning of the year to 15 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. 11 of these countries have confirmed deportees returned positive with COVID-19. Since mid-March alone, ICE has arranged 180 flights from detention centers in hotspot states (Texas, Arizona, California, and Florida) to the Northern Triangle and Mexico in particular. In this same time period, cases across the region jumped from a handful to thousands: in El Salvador, for instance, cases jumped from 0 to nearly 14,000, and in Guatemala, from 1 to over 40,000, undoubtedly exacerbated by ongoing deportations of COVID-positive deportees.
Meghan Lopez, IRC's Regional Director for Latin America, stated: "Central American countries have made good faith efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19, with explicit acknowledgement of the limited in-country resources to respond. Returning deportees to the countries from whence they fled, areas already in the chokehold of poverty, violence and now a pandemic, is irresponsible and dangerous both for the well-being of returnees and for global public health writ large. In countries that have made serious gains in supporting and integrating returnees and host communities, now these same groups face stigmatization or even retaliation out of fear of the virus because of the US' poor handling - as we have seen for instance in the violent attacks against health workers in Mexico."
Olga Byrne, IRC's Director of Immigration, continued: "In light of the pandemic, The Department of Homeland Security should take immediate steps to release all individuals from ICE detention. Immigrant detention is justified only as a form of civil detention to ensure individuals show up to their hearings; given strong evidence on community-based alternatives, it is unjustified to continue placing noncitizens' health at risk by forcing them to remain in congested and unsanitary prison settings. Releases should be supported with individuals having access to clear information on their rights and obligations regarding their ongoing legal proceedings, case management and health services (including testing) in a time of COVID, relying on community-based alternatives and sheltering at home to avoid furthering the spread. The IRC endorses the Immigration Enforcement Moratorium Act, a bill introduced in both chambers of the U.S. Congress earlier this week - which also halts arrests and detention of asylum-seekers and other noncitizens altogether in the US by ICE and CBP. Furthermore, the Administration must immediately halt all deportations while a public health emergency is ongoing - lest these deportations accelerate the spread of the virus to countries with fragile healthcare systems equally in the throes of this atrocious pandemic."
The International Rescue Committee responds to the world's worst humanitarian crises and helps people whose lives and livelihoods are shattered by conflict and disaster to survive, recover, and gain control of their future.
LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


