Report finds ‘dehumanizing' conditions in Florida immigration detention centers
The 92-page report, ''You Feel Like Your Life is Over': Abusive Practices at Three Florida Immigration Detention Centers Since January 2025,' was released this week by Americans for Immigrant Justice, Human Rights Watch and Sanctuary of the South. It alleges widespread mistreatment of migrants detained at the Krome North Service Processing Center, Broward Transitional Center and the Federal Detention Center in Miami.
The organizations—an immigrant-rights law firm, a global human-rights watchdog and a worker-led collective—reviewed documents and interviewed 17 current and former detainees, along with family members and attorneys.
Detainees described extreme overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and abusive treatment by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and private contractors. 'Some were shackled for prolonged periods on buses without food, water, or functioning toilets; there was extreme overcrowding in freezing holding cells where detainees were forced to sleep on cold concrete floors under constant fluorescent lighting,' the report states. 'Many were denied access to basic hygiene and medical care.'
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Bureau of Prisons did not respond to the Miami Herald's requests for comment.
Emergencies were ignored
Medical neglect was a central theme of the findings. Detainees with diabetes, HIV, asthma, kidney conditions and chronic pain reported being denied essential medications and doctor visits.
Among the cases described in the report:
▪ A man with chronic illness said he collapsed after being transferred from the Federal Detention Center in downtown Miami to the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach without his required daily medication. His family discovered he had been hospitalized under a false name. He was returned to detention in shackles.
▪ One man said he coughed up blood for hours in a crowded cell. When detainees protested, a Disturbance Control Team stormed in, zip-tied them and forced them to lie face down on a wet floor. One detainee reported seeing an officer instruct colleagues to turn off the CCTV camera. Another said an officer slapped him.
▪ A man detained at Krome described collapsing from a strangulated hernia after being denied care. 'The doctor told me if I had come in any later, my intestines would've ruptured,' he said. 'I had to throw myself on the floor just to get help.' He said he also witnessed officers hogtie and beat detainees who refused to board a transfer bus after a peaceful protest.
▪ Two men said they were denied HIV treatment while detained at Krome. One, previously held at the West Miami-Dade facility in 2020 and provided daily medication, was re-arrested in February. Despite the facility having his medical records, he waited 12 days before seeing a doctor. Similarly, another man had to wait over 13 days to receive his HIV medication, causing his previously undetectable viral load to become detectable.
▪ Another woman described witnessing the death of Marie Ange Blaise, a 44-year-old Haitian woman in the Broward Transitional Center. 'We started yelling for help, but the guards ignored us,' she said. 'By the time the rescue team arrived, she wasn't moving.'
READ MORE: Florida congresswomen demand answers after Haitian woman dies in ICE custody
Detainees said they were made to eat while handcuffed behind their backs, according to the report. They also described retaliation for seeking mental health support. At the Broward Transitional Center, they said, people who asked for help were placed in solitary confinement for weeks.
Women held at Krome, a facility meant for men, reported being confined without bedding or privacy. One woman recalled arriving late at night on Jan. 28 and being held for days in a cell that was typically used for intake procedures and had just one toilet covered in feces.
'People in immigration detention are being treated as less than human,' Belkis Wille, the report's author and associate crisis and conflict director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. 'These are not isolated incidents, but the result of a fundamentally broken detention system that is rife with serious abuses.'
Enforcement and Detention
Immigration detention has surged nationwide since the beginning of Trump's second term, leading to overcrowding. In Florida, federal and state crackdowns have driven the detained population at Krome to nearly triple in three months. The Federal Detention Center, previously unused for immigration detention, began housing hundreds of immigrants earlier this year.
The report emphasizes that the current administration has shown that 'any non-citizen, not just those with criminal convictions, are prone to apprehension and detention.' It highlights that the Department of Homeland Security exercises broad authority to detain and initiate removal proceedings against anyone out of lawful status.
This includes people who entered the country without authorization, overstayed tourist or work visas, had student visas revoked or lost temporary protections such as humanitarian parole or Temporary Protected Status after they expired or were terminated. The report contrasts this approach with that of Trump's previous administration, which placed less emphasis on detaining and deporting non-citizens in these categories , instead focusing more narrowly on individuals with criminal records or those deemed national security threats.
The expanded scope of enforcement — and the proliferation of 287(g) agreements linking local police and corrections and federal immigration enforcement — is contributing to a 'dramatic increase in arrests and detentions,' the report states.
Within a month of Trump's second term, the number of people detained by ICE began to rise. Throughout 2024, an average of approximately 37,500 people were held in immigration detention each day. By June 20, that number had climbed to over 56,000 detainees on any given day—a 40 percent increase compared to June 2024, according to Human Rights Watch analysis of ICE data.
Advocates have raised serious concerns about detainee safety and access to basic services amid extreme overcrowding in Florida's immigration detention facilities. At Krome, the number of detainees surged by 249 percent by March compared to pre-inauguration levels, with the facility at times holding more than three times its operational capacity, according to Human Rights Watch report.
By June 20, the total number of immigration detainees across the three facilities in Florida remained 111 percent above levels seen before President Trump's return to office, underscoring the ongoing strain on the state's detention infrastructure under the administration's intensified immigration enforcement policies.
Human Rights Watch says it sent letters on May 20 and June 11 to ICE, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the private companies managing Krome and Broward Transitional Center, detailing their findings and requesting responses. It says only the company operating Krome replied, saying it could not comment publicly.
Echoes of previous reporting
The findings in the report echo conditions independently documented by the Miami Herald in recent months. The Herald interviewed three former Krome detainees, along with attorneys and family members of three others held at the west Miami-Dade complex. They described a facility pushed to the brink, with detainees living in distress.
READ MORE: 'Inhumane:' Overcrowding strains Krome detention center amid Trump's immigrant crackdown
Although Krome and other ICE-run detention centers are bound by strict standards covering medical, mental health, hygiene, legal access, abuse prevention and language services, immigration attorneys told the Herald that conditions at Krome are 'the worst seen in 20 years' and have 'risen to the level of an international human rights disaster.'
Another Herald investigation revealed last month that migrant detainees held at the Federal Detention Center in Miami are facing harsh and potentially rights-violating conditions. The facility, primarily designed for criminal defendants, is now also housing immigrants.
According to legal documents and interviews with detainees, Bureau of Prisons staff and attorneys, the center is plagued by crumbling infrastructure, frequent use of force and severely limited access to legal counsel. While some detainees say the basic living conditions are slightly better than those in nearby ICE-run detention centers, access to legal support is significantly worse. Detainees report difficulty in communicating with attorneys, making legal phone calls or preparing for court. These findings raise concerns about due process, since immigration detention is civil in nature and not meant to be punitive.
The government has expanded detention capacity to federal prisons. Under a February contract, ICE began placing detainees in five Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities. Legal documents and interviews reviewed by the Herald show these immigrants face harsh conditions, deteriorating infrastructure, and limited legal access—though in some cases, facilities are better maintained than traditional ICE centers.
A Feb. 7 letter from Bureau of Prisons administrators classified immigrant detainees as 'pretrial inmates,' despite their civil—not criminal—status.
Recommendations
According to the advocacy organizations report, the abuses described violate ICE's own Performance-Based National Detention Standards and National Detention Standards, as well as international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and the UN's Mandela Rules.
The report urges the federal government to scale back detention and adopt community-based alternatives that provide legal, housing, and healthcare support—especially for asylum seekers, people with disabilities and others in compliance with immigration proceedings.
It recommends that Congress repeal mandatory detention laws, reduce ICE funding and expand legal aid and oversight. DHS and ICE are called on to end the use of prisons, jails and private facilities for civil detention, improve medical care and increase transparency.
For Florida officials, the report recommends ending 287(g) agreements with local law enforcement and rejecting new detention contracts. It also calls on United Nations bodies to investigate conditions in U.S. immigration detention and hold the government accountable for rights violations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump voters wanted relief from Medical bills. For millions, the bills are about to get bigger
President Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills. Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident. At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients' bills, as well. New federal guidelines for COVID -19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket. The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees. And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports. That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates. 'For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,' said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. 'The Trump administration is just throwing them off.' White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration's health care policies will affect Americans' medical bills. The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. 'You won't even notice it,' Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. 'Just waste, fraud, and abuse.' But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans' financial security. 'These changes will hit our communities hard,' said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. 'When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,' she said. 'Medical debt wrecks people's lives.' For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network. 'People will not seek out the treatment they need,' she said. Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to 'make America affordable again' and 'expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.' Polls suggest voters were looking for relief. About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt. Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block. Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers' credit scores in states that implemented the expansion. 'We've seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people's financial well-being,' Caswell said. Trump's tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated. The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don't renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces. This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills. Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn't pay their medical bills. The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people. But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped. Levey writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Business Journals
5 hours ago
- Business Journals
Waiting for pharmacy benefit manager reform from Washington? Here's what to do now.
If you're frustrated with your pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), join the club. A recent survey found that three-fifths of large-company benefit leaders said their PBM contracts were opaque, overly complicated, and contained clauses that profit the PBM at the expense of employers and patients. Thankfully, you're not stuck. Washington is working on PBM reform, one of the rare issues for which there is agreement between both parties in Congress and the Trump administration. Of course, consensus isn't always enough to create legislation, and any passed law will take time to come into force. A recently-enacted bill in Colorado addresses some of these issues, but will not apply to many large employer-sponsored plans. What follows is a guide to the problems with PBM contracts, the reform proposals, and two approaches to addressing the existing issues that don't require waiting on Washington: Finding a new generation of PBM committed to more transparency; and Negotiating a more transparent arrangement with your current PBM. The problem with large PBMs Pharmacy benefit managers were created to reduce employer costs, yet over time they have evolved in ways that often incentivize increases in plan sponsor and employee costs: Vertical Integration: Nearly 80% of the prescription market (which totaled $600 billion in 2023) is controlled by PBMs run by the three largest health insurance carriers: CVS Caremark (owns Aetna), OptumRX (owned by UnitedHealth Group), and Express Scripts (owned by Cigna). Spread pricing: PBMs charge employers more than they pay pharmacies for drugs, keeping the difference. Drug company rebates: These payments are often in return for PBMs steering business to their products and can include other undisclosed fees. Misaligned Incentives: By favoring their own specialty and mail-order (or retail) pharmacies, PBMs may be restricting competition and limiting their interest in negotiating the lowest pharmacy markups. A recent FTC study found that PBMs often charged employers a markup for specialty drugs distributed through their affiliated pharmacies of more than 100% — and sometimes more than 1,000%. Recently, the big PBMs have started joint ventures to manufacture their own generic and biosimilar drugs, creating another potential conflict. Secrecy: PBM common practices such as spread pricing, rebates, contractual gag clauses, price list manipulation and others have created an environment ripe with opaqueness and confusion for employers. The proposed legislation Congress has been looking closely at PBM reform for several years, and a detailed bipartisan bill was removed from last December's stop-gap budget after Elon Musk tweeted that it was too long. Leading committees are now working to pass something similar. Indeed, two bills that passed Committee last year were reintroduced: The Prescription Pricing for the People Act directs the Federal Trade Commission to complete its ongoing study of PBM practices. The Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Transparency Act bans spread pricing, incentivizes PBMs to pass 100% of the rebates they receive to plan sponsors, encourages transparency, and requires annual reporting by PBMs of their pricing, reimbursement, and rebate practices. Other proposals go further, including the Patients Before Monopolies Act, which would ban PBMs and insurance companies from owning a pharmacy. The states have been busy as well, increasing their oversight of PBM practices through new legislation and reporting requirements. Unintended consequences of all of this are a concern for consultants and employers looking to control costs. In Colorado, Governor Polis signed HB 25-1094 into law in May. Effective in 2027, this law will regulate how PBMs can earn income, how they structure their formulary, and how they reimburse unaffiliated versus PBM-affiliated pharmacies, among other changes. Unfortunately, this new law won't apply to many large employer-sponsored healthcare programs. So large employers in Colorado are still left to design their own pharmacy strategy. Switching to a transparency-oriented PBM In recent years, more employers have switched their pharmacy programs to a new crop of PBMs who are unaffiliated with large insurers—including Navitus Health Solutions, Rightway Rx, Capital Rx, and SmithRx—and offer a more transparent business model. The advantages Pass-through pricing: Employers get the full benefit of network discounts and rebates, and instead of spread pricing, they pay a disclosed administrative fee per prescription. Fewer conflicts: The independent PBMs are less likely to have pharmacy operations or other business interests that differ from those of employers. Transparent disclosures: Employers get access to granular information about the pricing of each prescription rather than the opaque summaries provided by the large PBMs. Aggressive cost management: The independent PBMs emphasize lower net cost options in their formularies and have strict prior authorization requirements for more expensive drugs. The disadvantages Negotiating intermediaries: Since the upstart PBMs are small, many band together by using rebate aggregators, entities that negotiate lower prices with drug companies. But these negotiations have a downside: They can obscure the details of drug company rebates, especially since most of the aggregators are owned by the same insurance conglomerates that own the big PBMs. Potential disruption: Changing PBMs means employees must adjust to a new formulary, pharmacy network, and prior authorization procedures. Members may also object to the stricter utilization controls these companies use. Buying power: Smaller PBMs do not have the volume that the larger players do and are also unable to take on the risk of aggressive discount and rebate guarantees which can lead to a financial arrangement that appears to be less advantageous for employers. Renegotiating with your existing PBM Many companies that have investigated using a more transparent PBM ultimately decide that the advantages of sticking with a large provider outweigh the frustrations and potential conflicts. They are: Convenience: Dealing with one company that provides medical benefits, pharmacy benefits, and mail-order pharmacy service can be easier for employers and plan members alike. Lower effective prices: Some employers find that the greater bargaining clout of the large PBMs delivers good value even if the mechanics of their arrangements remain murky. Increased transparency efforts: Faced with the prospect of increased regulation, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRX have all announced programs that disclose more information about pricing and pass more of their rebates to employers. As they are just being instituted, their real-world impact remains to be seen. In any case, employers and their advisors can't afford to wait to scrutinize their PBM's business practices and press for more advantageous contracts. The time is now to: Look at the fine print: A typical PBM contract may specify high-level drug discounts, rebates, and dispensing fees. Dig deeper, and you can find exclusions and key definitions, such as what is a 'specialty drug.' Press for full pass-through of rebates: Work through every category and proposed exception to insist that rebates for all drugs go to the employer. Ask about conflicts: How does the PBM interact with its affiliated pharmacies? Are reimbursements different than those for independent pharmacies? Are the dispensed drugs made by brands it owns? Check its approach to cost control: What is its philosophy for adding drugs to its formulary? How does it generate prior authorization guidelines for drugs with high rebates? What percent of authorization requests are approved? Audit performance: At the end of a contract, demand a detailed itemization of all claims to ensure that the PBM has met its commitments. If it hasn't, fight for a financial adjustment. Whether your company decides to find a new PBM or renegotiate its deal with the current provider, there are a lot of details to consider. An experienced broker or consultant will help you sort through those complex contracts designed to confuse. And if Washington does end up passing PBM reform, that advisor will also be able to adapt your plan to take maximum advantage of the new rules. To learn more, contact Chris Mast, an actuary and benefits consultant with Alliant Employee Benefits in Greenwood Village, CO. Mast has worked with employers across Colorado and the US for more than 20 years. He can be reached at Alliant's Pharmacy team is made up of industry experts, pharmacists, and data specialists who provide marketplace perspective and insights, vendor capabilities, and practical knowledge to secure the best pricing and contract arrangements. Our buying power and partnerships enable us to support your benefits strategy, pharmacy program, and cost management throughout the entire program lifecycle. Learn more about Alliant at
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Kennedy considering firing members of preventive services task force
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is considering removing all 16 members of a highly influential advisory committee that offers guidance about preventive health services, such as cancer screenings, HIV prevention medications or tests for osteoporosis, according to two people familiar with the plan. The United States Preventive Services Task Force is a group of independent doctors, nurses and public health experts who volunteer to regularly review volumes of the latest scientific research about diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, heart disease and mental health, as well as mammograms for breast cancer. Health and Human Services' spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in an emailed statement Friday that 'no final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again.' Earlier this month, Kennedy caused alarm among task force members after he abruptly postponed a scheduled meeting that was set to focus on heart disease and prevention. At the time, task force members weren't given a reason for the cancellation or whether the meeting would be rescheduled. Kennedy's plans were first reported Friday by The Wall Street Journal. The task force plays an important role in protecting access to screenings and tests because the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, mandates that most private insurers provide the services that the group recommends to patients at no cost. The task force makes its recommendations using a grading scale. Under federal law, services that get an A or B grade but must be covered by insurance plans at no cost for patients. The advisory group has come under fire from conservative groups for some past decisions, including its 'A' recommendation to cover the HIV prevention pill, known as PrEP. The advisory group has come under fire from conservative groups for some past decisions, including its 'A' recommendation to cover the HIV prevention pill, known as PrEP. That recommendation led to a lawsuit from several Christian employers that ended up before the Supreme Court, where the justices decided 6-3 to uphold the Affordable Care Act provision that requires insurers to cover task force-recommended preventive services for free. However, the court agreed with the Trump administration that Kennedy has final say over decisions made by members of the task force because HHS has oversight over the group. As health secretary, he also has the authority to remove and replace members. Kennedy has made children's chronic disease a keystone of his position as the country's top health official. It's unclear which areas of health care Kennedy might target by shaking up the panel. In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — which makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about vaccines, including for children — and replaced them with eight new members. The new panel includes well-known vaccine critics.
