US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is exploring a new form of mobile detention in Pennsylvania, with procurement documents calling for temporary holding facilities that could remain close to field enforcement operations.
The proposal could change how ICE handles the logistical problem of holding people after arrests. Rather than relying entirely on fixed detention centres, the agency is considering contractor-operated mobile units that can be used until they are full or an enforcement operation ends.
The development comes as ICE expands its wider detention network, including through new contracts for permanent facilities. The Pennsylvania proposal therefore points to a different question: how much detention capacity can be brought to an enforcement operation rather than bringing every detainee to a detention centre?
Mobile Units Could Change Field Operations
The Pennsylvania procurement material describes the proposed units as 'mobile detention facilities' and identifies GTI, a transportation subsidiary of GEO Group, as the intended operator. Project Salt Box co-founder Michael Wriston described the proposal as a network of vehicles that could remain near officers while arrests are carried out.
That could give ICE officers greater flexibility during large or geographically dispersed operations. Detainees could remain in temporary custody near the area where arrests are taking place instead of requiring officers to repeatedly leave the field for transport. The distinction is important: the publicly available material describes a procurement plan, not proof that a nationwide system of mobile detention vehicles is already operating.
Conditions Inside the Units Are Less Clear
The documents publicly described so far provide some limits but leave other operational details unspecified. The mobile units would reportedly be used until they reach capacity or until an operation is complete. The requirements also state that women cannot be held in them for more than 10 hours.
Other questions, including the arrangements for food, bathroom access, medical care, and the length of detention for other groups, are not fully answered in the publicly available material described in the reporting. ICE and GEO Group did not respond to requests for comment about the proposed vehicles.
That makes the proposal different from a conventional detention centre, where a fixed location provides a more clearly defined setting for oversight and inspection. A mobile system would introduce temporary holding capacity directly into field operations.
ICE Is Still Building Permanent Capacity
The mobile proposal is emerging alongside substantial investment in conventional immigration detention. GEO Group said in its 2025 results that new or expanded contracts awarded that year increased its ICE detention capacity from approximately 20,000 beds to about 26,000 beds across four facilities. The company also reported expanded secure transportation contracts supporting ICE.
That expansion has continued in 2026. GEO announced a five-year ICE support-services contract in July for the 1,188-bed Big Horn Facility in Colorado, followed by a contract in August for its 1,320-bed Rivers Facility in North Carolina.
The company's filings show that transportation is already an important part of its ICE business. In 2025, GEO said new and amended contracts expanded secure ground transportation services at several ICE facilities, alongside increased air-transport support. The proposed Pennsylvania model would take that transportation role further by combining movement and temporary holding capacity.
Pennsylvania Could Become a Test Case
Pennsylvania is the focus of the current mobile detention proposal, although the documents do not establish that it will become a nationwide model. The proposal comes as ICE pursues wider detention-related construction and procurement activity. DHS acquisition records show the agency planning additional infrastructure work at multiple ICE locations, illustrating how its detention requirements extend beyond any single facility.
The Pennsylvania proposal could nevertheless have broader implications if it progresses. Permanent detention centres require land, construction, staffing, and long-term operations. Mobile units offer a different model in which some capacity can be positioned around particular enforcement operations.
For communities, that could make detention infrastructure less tied to a single building and more closely connected to where enforcement activity takes place. The biggest shift may therefore be logistical rather than architectural: ICE is exploring whether detention capacity itself can move with the operation.
