Is ‘Alligator Alcatraz' detention centre funded by Florida hurricane money?
Florida and federal officials announced the state will build a new immigration detention facility dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz' in the Everglades – an area of wetlands in the south of the state. Because the facility will be partly funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), some Floridians are worried it will affect hurricane relief funds.
Homeland Security's Secretary Kristi Noem 'is using FEMA funds to build her Alligator Alcatraz concentration camp in Florida. At the beginning of hurricane season', reads a June 23 X post, 'when we can't pay our bills or fund meals for kids and the elderly.'
Another June 23 X post reads: 'Florida's building 'Alligator Alcatraz' by diverting FEMA shelter funds meant for housing and aid. They're not protecting anyone, they're stealing emergency relief money to build detention centers in a swamp. Cruelty is always the point.'
These claims come after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted a more-active-than-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to November 30.
The claims also follow President Donald Trump saying he wants to eliminate FEMA and have states handle preparation and response to hurricanes and other disasters. NPR reported that FEMA appears less ready to respond to disasters under Trump because of a management shake-up, employee departures and the cancellation of a programme that helped with disaster relief.
The 'Alligator Alcatraz' facility gets its nickname from Alcatraz, the former maximum-security prison island in San Francisco Bay known for its isolation, security and minimal inmate privileges. The 'Alligator' part is because the 39-square-mile facility will be located remotely in the Everglades, a swampy region surrounded by alligators and pythons, where 'there's nowhere to go, nowhere to hide', according to a June 19 video posted by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. The facility would be six miles north of Everglades National Park.
Governor Ron DeSantis's office told PolitiFact the facility will use temporary buildings and shelters similar to those used during natural disasters. The location will be the abandoned Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, which has an existing airstrip. The state will use the site under the governor's emergency powers.
The Department of Homeland Security posted on June 23 on X that the facility is among its efforts to 'deliver on the American people's mandate for mass deportations. Alligator Alcatraz will expand facilities and bed space in just days, thanks to our partnership with Florida.'
The government will allocate some FEMA funds to the facility, but it will not use disaster relief funds.
The Florida Division of Emergency Management will build the facility for people arrested by Florida law enforcement for immigration law offences. A US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) programme delegates to state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specific immigration functions. Immigrants arrested in other states could also be transferred to the facility under Florida's custody.
How FEMA will fund 'Alligator Alcatraz'
A Noem spokesperson told PolitiFact on June 24 that the new Florida immigration detention facility will largely be funded by FEMA's Shelter and Services Program. Information about that programme is no longer available on FEMA's website, but a DHS spokesperson told us that FEMA has roughly $625m in that programme's funds that can be allocated to build the 'Alligator Alcatraz' facility.
The DHS spokesperson also said that Florida will initially pay for the facility, and then will submit a reimbursement request to FEMA and DHS.
DHS said the facility's total cost will be approximately $450m for one year. It is expected to open 30 to 60 days after construction, which started on June 23, according to The New York Times. It will open with 500 to 1,000 beds and is expected to have 5,000 beds by early July.
Congress approved FEMA's Shelter and Services Program in fiscal year 2023 to give money to state and local governments and nonprofit organisations that provide migrants with temporary shelter, food and transportation. The programme uses money Congress gave Customs and Border Protection, and is administered by FEMA. Before then, including during the Trump administration, migrants received help through another FEMA programme, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which is for people facing homelessness and hunger.
FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which is primarily used after natural disasters, is funded separately by Congress.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump falsely claimed the Biden administration was stealing millions from FEMA's disaster aid fund to help migrants. The Shelter and Services Program funding does not come at disaster victims' expense.
PolitiFact previously reported that in fiscal year 2024, which started in October 2023 and ended in September 2024, Congress directed US Customs and Border Protection to give FEMA $650m for the Shelter and Services Program.
From fiscal years 2021 to 2024, Congress allocated about $1.5bn combined for both the Shelter and Services Program and the Emergency Food and Shelter program. The Trump administration stopped funding for the Emergency Food and Shelter program.
'Alligator Alcatraz' is just one of the ways Florida is planning to detain, process and deport immigrants illegally in the US.
Earlier this year, Florida offered to build immigration detention sites. The state's 'Immigration Enforcement Operations Plan' says it identified several locations in the northeastern and south-central regions of the state that could serve as detention centres. The report said that to make the detention and deportation process 'seamless', the locations 'are typically' near airstrips.
DeSantis said during a June 25 press conference that Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, a training base for the Florida National Guard, soon will be formally announced as an immigration detention facility.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
11 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What cases did the US Supreme Court decide at the end of its 2024 term?
The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists. On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October. But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide. Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court's conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography. But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term. Court upholds preventive care requirements In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture. Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court's liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling. At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country's insurance providers had to cover. It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access. This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost. A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though. They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force's decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care. That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court's decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of 'inferior officers' who did not need Senate approval. Court gives nod to Texas's age restrictions on porn Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material. But Texas's law came under the Supreme Court's microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton. The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas's attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy. The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas's law 'robs people of anonymity'. Writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that 'submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise' of First Amendment rights. But, he added, 'adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification' altogether. The majority upheld Texas's law. Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor. That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula. One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride. Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn. But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment. Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life. In the majority's decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board's policy 'conveys that parents' religious views are not welcome in the 'fully inclusive environment' that the Board purports to foster'. 'The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,' Alito wrote. Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land. At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents' nationality, the child would receive US citizenship. But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect. The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump's order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach. The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits. Amy Coney Barrett, the court's latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority's decision. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
University of Virginia president resigns under US government pressure
The president of the University of Virginia has resigned his position under pressure from the United States Department of Justice, which pushed for his departure amid scrutiny of the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. In an email sent to the university community on Friday and circulated on social media, university president James Ryan said he was resigning to protect the institution from facing the ire of the government. 'I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job,' he wrote. 'To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld.' Ryan's resignation has been accepted by the board, two sources told The New York Times, which first broke the story. It remains unclear exactly when he will leave his post. His departure is the latest indication of ongoing tensions between the administration of President Donald Trump and the academic community. During his second term, President Trump has increasingly sought to reshape higher education by attacking diversity initiatives, pushing for crackdowns on pro-Palestinian student protesters, and seeking reviews of hiring and enrollment practices. Ryan's departure marks a new frontier in a campaign that has almost exclusively targeted Ivy League schools. Critics also say it shows a shift in the government's rationale, away from allegations of rampant anti-Semitism on campus and towards more aggressive policing of diversity initiatives. Just a day prior, the Justice Department announced it would investigate another public school, the University of California, for its use of diversity standards. Ryan, who has led the University of Virginia since 2018, faced criticism that he failed to heed federal orders to eliminate DEI policies. An anonymous source told The Associated Press news agency that his removal was pushed by the Justice Department as a way to help resolve an inquiry targeting the school. Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, called Ryan's ouster an example of the Trump administration using 'thuggery instead of rational discourse'. 'This is a dark day for the University of Virginia, a dark day for higher education, and it promises more of the same,' Mitchell said. 'It's clear the administration is not done and will use every tool that it can make or invent to exert its will over higher education.' Virginia's Democratic senators react In a joint statement, Virginia's senators, both Democrats, said it was outrageous that the Trump administration would demand Ryan's resignation over ''culture war' traps'. 'This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future,' Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said. After campaigning on a promise to end 'wokeness' in education, Trump signed an executive order in January calling for an end to federal funding that would support educational institutions with DEI programming. He accused schools of indoctrinating 'children in radical, anti-American ideologies' without the permission of their parents. The Department of Education has since opened investigations into dozens of colleges, arguing that diversity initiatives discriminate against white and Asian American students. The response from schools has been scattered. Some have closed DEI offices, ended diversity scholarships and no longer require diversity statements as part of the hiring process. Still, others have held firm on diversity policies. The University of Virginia became a flashpoint after conservative critics accused it of simply renaming its DEI initiatives. The school's governing body voted to shutter the DEI office in March and end diversity policies in admissions, hiring, financial aid and other areas. Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin celebrated the action, declaring that 'DEI is done at the University of Virginia'. But America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, said that DEI had simply taken another form at the school. In a May letter to the Justice Department, the group said the university chose to 'rename, repackage, and redeploy the same unlawful infrastructure under a lexicon of euphemisms'. The group directly took aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the 'overreach and political interference' of the Trump administration. On Friday, the group said it will continue to use every available tool to root out what it has called discriminatory systems. 'This week's developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution,' Megan Redshaw, a lawyer with the group, said in a statement. 'They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority.' Until now, the White House had directed most of its attention at Harvard University and other elite institutions that Trump sees as bastions of liberalism. Harvard has lost more than $2.6bn in federal research grants amid its battle with the government, which also attempted to block the school from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. Harvard and its $53bn endowment are uniquely positioned to weather the government's financial pressure. Public universities, however, are far more dependent on taxpayer money and could be more vulnerable. The University of Virginia's $10bn endowment is among the largest for public universities, while the vast majority have far less.
Al Jazeera
13 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
California Governor Newsom sues Fox News for $787m over alleged defamation
California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a $787m defamation lawsuit against Fox News, accusing the network of misrepresenting a phone call between him and US President Donald Trump earlier this month amid immigration arrests and the subsequent protests in Los Angeles. The complaint was filed on Friday in Delaware Superior Court, the state in which Fox Corp is incorporated. Newsom spoke by phone with Trump late on June 6 – early June 7 on the East Coast, soon after protests broke out in Los Angeles following federal immigration raids. Less than 24 hours later, the president sent National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the state, bypassing the governor's office. In an interview with NBC News on June 8, Newsom said that he had a civil conversation with the president, but he never brought up sending the National Guard. 'I tried to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues,' Newsom said. 'He never once brought up the National Guard,' he added. Newsom said he did not speak with Trump again, and confirmed this after Trump falsely told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with the governor 'a day ago'. The suit alleged that the network had a 'willingness to protect President Trump from his own false statements by smearing his political opponent Governor Newsom in a dispute over when the two last spoke during a period of national strife'. The complaint said Fox nonetheless made a misleading video clip and multiple false statements about the timing of the last call, acting with actual malice in an effort to brand Newsom a liar and curry favour with Trump. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' Watters said on June 10 on his show, Jesse Watters Primetime, according to the complaint. Watters's report was accompanied by a chyron, a banner caption along the bottom of a TV screen, that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call,' the complaint added. According to the complaint, Fox's claim that Newsom lied was 'calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm' by making people less likely to support his causes, donate to his campaigns, or vote for him in elections. 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' a spokesperson for Fox News told Al Jazeera in an email. In a follow-up, Al Jazeera asked Fox if Watters and his production team fact-checked claims about the phone call before speaking about it – which is industry standard – but the network did not provide clarification. Newsom's punitive damages request is nearly identical to the $787.5m that Fox paid in 2023 to settle Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit over alleged vote-rigging in the 2020 US presidential election. To prevail in his lawsuit, Newsom would have to show Fox acted with actual malice, meaning it knew its statements were false or had reckless disregard for their truth. According to the New York Times, Newsom would drop the lawsuit if Fox issued a retraction and host Jesse Watters apologised on-air for saying the governor lied about his call with Trump. The governor's office told Al Jazeera that it would not comment because Newsom is pursuing the lawsuit in a personal capacity and not through the office. In an emailed statement, Newsom said, 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences – just like it did in the Dominion case. I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Out of Trump's playbook Newsom's lawsuit comes as Trump has gone after news organisations that have been critical of him. He reached a $15m settlement with ABC News after the network made in an inaccurate claim that a jury found Trump liable for rape in the civil case involving E Jean Carroll, rather than sexual assault. The White House also recently went after the network when former White House correspondent Terry Moran called White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a 'world-class hater'. Moran was later suspended and subsequently dismissed from the network. Trump also sued CBS News for $20bn for the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic rival Kamala Harris, which was reportedly mediated into a settlement agreement of $20m with parent company Paramount Global, causing concern in the news division. Paramount has a pending merger with Skydance. Trump has also slashed funding for public media, which the White House alleged was 'radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news''.
