President Donald Trump’s expanded immigration crackdown has drawn global scrutiny as Guantanamo Bay becomes a holding site for migrants labeled “high-threat”—a policy now mired in allegations of civil rights violations and due process concerns. While administration officials insist the facility targets violent criminals, families and advocacy groups argue individuals without criminal records are being detained indefinitely.
The first group of migrants arrived at the controversial military base on February 4, following an executive order directing Homeland Security and Defense to expand Guantanamo’s Migrant Operations Center. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared the facility would house the “worst of the worst,” but critics highlight glaring inconsistencies.
“Holding migrants incommunicado at Guantanamo violates basic rights,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. “This administration cannot bypass accountability.”
An ABC News investigation revealed 14 of 53 detainees had federal charges—primarily illegal entry violations. Notable cases included:
- A migrant charged after a detention center riot
- An individual tied to a smuggling conspiracy
- Nonviolent asylum seekers with no criminal history
Jose Rodriguez Simancas and Jhoan Lee Bastidas Paz, both detainees, were charged solely with improper entry. Their families provided Venezuelan criminal background checks and denied gang affiliations alleged by DHS. Barbara Simancas, Jose’s sister, claims tattoos of his children’s names led to wrongful accusations: “They’re using any excuse to justify this cruelty.”
A senior DHS official defended the transfers, stating, “There’s a system for phone access” and accusing activists of prioritizing “dangerous criminals over citizens.” Yet detainees’ relatives report zero communication since February, fueling fears of indefinite detention without legal recourse.
This unprecedented use of Guantanamo for civil immigration cases—paired with limited transparency—has intensified debates over presidential authority and migrant rights. With federal lawsuits underway, the facility’s role in Trump’s immigration agenda remains a flashpoint for legal and ethical challenges.