Alaska Suggests 'Bear Alcatraz' For Migrants to be Detained
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The state of Alaska has floated the possibility of detaining migrants in an isolated site surrounded by bears.
"We don't have alligators, but we have lots of bears. I am not aware of any plans for an Alaska version of Alligator Alcatraz," the state said in a statement aired on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle on July 1.
Newsweek has contacted the office of Governor Mike Dunleavy for comment via email outside of office hours.
Why It Matters
It comes after Florida unveiled 'Alligator Allcatraz', a new migrant detention center being developed on a remote airstrip in the Everglades. The facility aims to house up to 5,000 detainees and uses the area's natural isolation and wildlife as part of its security measures.
The remote facility is expected to cost Florida approximately $450 million annually to operate. The proposal comes amid President Donald Trump's push for what he has described as the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.
What To Know
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, called on every Republican governor to contact the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to begin arranging the construction of new detention facilities to house migrants.
"Every governor of a red state, if you are watching tonight: pick up the phone, call DHS, work with us to build facilities in your state so we can get the illegals and criminals out," Miller said.
President Donald Trump tours "Alligator Alcatraz," a new migrant detention facility at Dade-Collier Training and Transition facility, Tuesday, July 1, 2025, in Ochopee, Fla.
President Donald Trump tours "Alligator Alcatraz," a new migrant detention facility at Dade-Collier Training and Transition facility, Tuesday, July 1, 2025, in Ochopee, Fla.
Evan Vucci/AP
The facility is designed to accommodate individuals detained under Florida's expanded immigration enforcement measures. It will hold people arrested by state law enforcement through the federal 287(g) program, as well as those transferred to Florida's custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The facility is operated by the State of Florida through the Division of Emergency Management and takes advantage of the state's declared immigration emergency, which allows for rapid deployment of resources. National Guard units trained under the 287(g) program will help run the site.
The projected cost is about $245 per bed per day, adding up to roughly $450 million in operating expenses for the first year. Florida officials say they plan to seek federal reimbursement from the Department of Homeland Security, which will use FEMA funds.
The idea for "Alligator Alcatraz" originated with Governor Ron DeSantis's administration, which used emergency powers to authorize construction of a new detention center in the Everglades. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier first described the plan publicly during an appearance on Fox News.
Brown bears fishing for salmon on the Moraine River on August 20, 2017 in Katmai National Park, Alaska. The state of Alaska has floated the possibility of detaining migrants in an isolated site surrounded by...
Brown bears fishing for salmon on the Moraine River on August 20, 2017 in Katmai National Park, Alaska. The state of Alaska has floated the possibility of detaining migrants in an isolated site surrounded by bears. More
Getty
It comes after President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem toured the facility along with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
During the visit, Trump praised the Everglades' remote location and native wildlife as effective deterrents against escape attempts.
The tour comes amid growing backlash from immigrant rights groups and civil liberties organizations, which argue that such facilities pose serious risks to detainee safety and civil rights. The White House, however, has defended the plan as a necessary measure to carry out the president's plans to conduct mass deportations.
What People Are Saying
Tom Homan told NewsNation: "We can simply load a plane right there and take them to their home country. So it's actually ... a cost savings on the beds compared to the last administration. It's extreme cost savings on transportation."
Secretary Noem said in a statement: "Under President Trump's leadership, we are working at turbo speed on cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people's mandate for mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens. We will expand facilities and bed space in just days, thanks to our partnership with Florida."
Mich González and Katie Blankenship, Founding Partners of Sanctuary of the South, said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "DHS and ICE are spending billions of taxpayer dollars to terrorize our communities and build unnecessary cages that will lead to more premature death and family separation while lining the pockets of the prison industrial complex. Enough is enough! We must come together as a people to stop ICE's campaign of violence and demand what we need—access to healthcare, education, and housing—in short, a dignified life for all our families."
What Happens Next
The facility will be used to detain migrants as the administration ramps up pressure on ICE to remove millions of people as part of the Republican party's hardline mass removal policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hamas requests 'unacceptable' changes to Gaza deal, PMO says
The reports came after Hamas said it discussed the current deal framework with other Palestinian factions, and they were "unified" in their "positive" response. Israel has deemed the changes Hamas attempted to make to the recent proposal for a Gazaceasefire and hostage release agreement 'unacceptable,' the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement Saturday night. 'Following a situation assessment, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed to respond positively to the invitation for proximity talks and to continue the negotiations for the return of our hostages based on the Qatari proposal that Israel has agreed to,' the PMO said. Israel's negotiation team will depart on Sunday to Qatar for negotiations These 'close talks' with Hamas would be an attempt to close the remaining gaps between the parties and conclude the details of the hostage and ceasefire deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to leave Sunday for a meeting with US President Donald Trump on Monday. Hamas recently said they discussed the current US-backed ceasefire-hostage deal framework with other Palestinian factions, and they were 'unified' in their 'positive' response to the proposal. However, there seem to be several details in the response that have not been clarified yet. Qatari outlet Al-Araby reported that Hamas requested 'minor amendments' to the plan, which mediators in Doha based on the Witkoff proposal. Ynet reported that the three changes to the deal that Hamas is seeking regard aid distribution in the Gaza Strip, the withdrawal of IDF troops, and a commitment to not resume fighting after the 60-day period ends. On the last point, Hamas is reportedly demanding security guarantees from the US, Qatar, and Egypt. In the deal, 10 live hostages are supposed to be released over the course of 60 days: eight on the first day and two more released on day 50. The bodies of 18 deceased hostages would be returned in three phases across the two-month ceasefire. The Jerusalem Post originally reported that in exchange for the hostages, 125 Palestinian prisoners plus 1,111 Gazans arrested after October 7, 2023, would be released. Hamas is reportedly demanding that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation be removed from the enclave and that the distribution of aid return to the format from previous ceasefires. The Ynet report noted that the agreement, as originally seen by Hamas, only stated that 'aid will be distributed through agreed channels, including the UN and the Red Crescent,' and did not mention the GHF. Hamas also allegedly is pushing for a segmented withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza, which was outlined in an earlier version of the agreement. However, the current Qatari-drafted agreement states that the IDF will redeploy its forces to 'maps to be agreed upon,' thus indicating some discrepancies. In the original Witkoff framework, the IDF will redeploy to northern Gaza and the Netzarim corridor at the start of the ceasefire. However, after a week and pending the release of several hostages' remains, the military will pivot and redeploy to southern Gaza. A military source told Ynet that 'during the ceasefire, the IDF will remain in the original perimeter set in the buffer zone, plus 250 meters into the Strip.' This implies a new buffer zone extending 1.2 to 1.4 kilometers into the Gaza Strip. Additionally, the army 'will not withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor.' Within Gaza, there appears to be mutual support for the ceasefire deal. Palestinian Islamic Jihad stated that Hamas had informed it of the deal and that it was 'interested in progressing toward an agreement.' Israel's security cabinet was meeting late Saturday night. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has said that Hamas must be eliminated before any agreement and that Israel should encourage emigration from Gaza. 'It is time to stop the slogging in the Strip and strive for a quick resolution of Hamas, which is the ultimate goal of the war,' he said. Similarly, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that he would oppose any agreements that would end the fighting in Gaza. 'I can tell you with all my heart that it won't happen. I'm talking to Netanyahu about it, and I don't get the impression that he's on his way there,' Smotrich said. However, Trump has said that he intends to be 'very firm' with Netanyahu about ending the war in Gaza during their meeting on Monday. Relatives of hostages held captive in Gaza held rallies urging the government to seal a deal with Hamas for the release of their loved ones all at once.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘reciprocal' tariff pause is about to expire. Cue the confusion
The 90-day deadline President Donald Trump set for countries to make trade deals with the United States or risk substantially higher tariffs is just days away. What will happen after that's reached at 12:01 a.m. ET on July 9 is anyone's best guess. The stakes could not be higher, with the entire global economy on notice. On April 2, a date Trump dubbed 'Liberation Day,' he unveiled new, 'reciprocal' tariff rates for key US trading partners, with some levies as high as 50%. Collectively, the rates were the highest the US has charged on foreign goods in over a century. Economists quickly sounded alarms about a recession hitting not just certain countries, but rather the whole world. As the tariffs went into effect on April 9, they sparked a sell-off on Wall Street and the bond market rebelled, forcing Trump to announce a three-month pause to give countries more time to solidify deals with the US, saying investors 'were getting a little bit yippy, a little afraid.' Since then, almost all goods the US imports have been subject to a minimum 10% tariff. Stocks, meanwhile, have not only recovered all those losses but have set multiple new record highs. And inflation has barely budged. But if tariffs start to rise again and inflation roars back, those gains could quickly get erased all over again. After months of meeting with foreign government officials and countless claims that several trading partners were on the cusp of completing deals, only three have been announced. One of those, with Vietnam, has yet to be finalized and few details are known about it. Still, the Trump administration is advertising that a flurry of deals are forthcoming. At the same time, the president has threatened to send letters to countries that don't ink deals, telling them the rate at which their exports to the US will be taxed. Leading up to July 9, Trump administration officials threatened to simply return to April tariff rates, or possibly even higher levies. They also floated the possibility of extending the pause for countries 'negotiating in good faith,' without defining what that means or which it includes. It's not clear where Trump, who will get the ultimate say, stands. 'We can do whatever we want. We could extend it; we could make it shorter,' Trump recently said. 'I'd like to make it shorter. I'd like to just sent letters out to everybody, 'Congratulations, you're paying 25%.'' 'We'll look at how a country treats us — are they good, are they not so good — some countries we don't care, we'll just send a high number out,' Trump also recently said. On Friday, he said he'd begin sending letters over the coming days. 'They'll range in value from maybe 60% or 70% tariffs to 10% and 20% tariffs,' Trump said. For many countries, such rates would deal an even bigger economic blow compared to the levels Trump announced in April. But countries may have the opportunity to still negotiate, given Trump said most new rates won't take effect until August 1. The deal Trump announced on Wednesday with Vietnam, which calls for minimum tariffs of 20% on Vietnamese goods, double the rate throughout the three-month pause, has raised the possibility that countries may not be able to score lower rates even if they reach a trade agreement. But considering tariffs on Vietnam were set to rise to a minimum of 46% if the rates Trump announced in April held — which was among the highest Trump announced — 20% suddenly feels like a relief. That may be an intentional strategy on Trump's part, allowing him to stick to his major campaign promise of levying higher tariffs on other nations in an effort to raise revenues and bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. 'On balance, we take the US-Vietnam accord as a positive step toward more durable bilateral deals for the US and toward greater clarity for investors,' Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, global head of equities at UBS Global Wealth Management, said in a note last week. 'Headline risks around trade may persist as negotiations continue, but we think the market impact should moderate as President Trump's negotiating tactics become increasingly familiar,' he said. 'Ultimately, we expect the US administration to prioritize economic stability over more maximalist tariffs, especially ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.' 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Business Insider
33 minutes ago
- Business Insider
A conservative crackdown on advertisers has forced a 'brand safety' reset
Conservative media company The Daily Wire is celebrating the downfall of " brand safety," and benefiting from the new state of play in the ad business during the second Trump era. Last week, The Daily Wire's commercial team received a request for proposal, or RFP, from Omnicom, one of the world's biggest ad agency groups. An RFP typically indicates an agency or advertiser's interest in buying ad space. The RFP was a huge win for The Daily Wire. It was only the second time it had received an inbound ad request from Omnicom. The first was in May, but the latest was a much bigger buy. Last year, The Daily Wire's famous cofounder and podcaster, Ben Shapiro, testified that the site had been unfairly shunned by major advertisers and ad agencies who, he said, had deemed its content unsafe for their brands. "Brand safety was being defined by people with a severe bias against a certain point of view," The Daily Wire's editor in chief, Brent Scher, told Business Insider in an interview. But since President Donald Trump's return to the White House, the power dynamics around "brand safety" — the practice of brands seeking to avoid their ads appearing next to, or otherwise supporting, "unsafe" content — have shifted, with some advertisers scrambling to avoid any whiff of anti-conservative bias. The situation is particularly acute for Omnicom, making its outreach to The Daily Wire both unprecedented and unsurprising. Last month, Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Republican-led Federal Trade Commission, gave conditional approval to a proposed $13.5 billion merger of Omnicom and fellow ad company IPG, which would create the world's largest ad agency. It had an unusual caveat: Omnicom agreed to a consent order that would prevent it from colluding with other companies to encourage its advertiser clients to boycott media based on publishers' "political or ideological viewpoints." 'Brand suitability' versus 'brand safety' The FTC's move is the latest victory in the battle against brand safety waged by US conservatives. Brand safety in 2025 has become such a political flash point that some ad execs are changing the way they talk about the topic. "I hear the phrase 'brand suitability' far more than 'brand safety' now," said Liam Brennan, a marketing consultant and former ad agency director. "It makes it sound like a cop out, but it's a shift in the approach brands are taking. Before it was 'block, block, block,' now it's more about where my brand should be appearing. It's a more positive approach." While the Trump administration's actions have turned up the heat on brand safety practices, a broader backlash has been building for some time. Brand safety began as a seemingly innocuous practice of preventing brands from appearing next to the worst of the internet, such as violence, pornography, and illegal content. But it gradually expanded, with brands seeking to avoid a wide variety of political issues, or platforms that supported them. In investigations and lawsuits, lawmakers and other high-profile conservatives have argued that ad practitioners, brand safety tech vendors, and industry groups forced the brand safety pendulum to swing too far into partisan areas, unfairly depriving right-leaning outlets of ad dollars. Media companies on the left have said they, too, have been harmed by advertisers who deemed news sites as unsafe for brands. "What may have started as a good idea expanded, and then became too broad," said Mark Penn, CEO of the advertising holding company Stagwell. "Consequentially, it wasn't really about brand safety — it became almost brand censorship." The emergence of brand safety The practice of brand safety arose as advertisers shifted from analog media buying — placing deals directly with the TV stations, billboard owners, or newspaper proprietors they wished to buy space with — toward digital. Using technology, advertisers could target their audiences across swaths of websites, social platforms, and apps with just a few clicks. However, this meant they had less visibility about the content their ads were likely to appear next to. Brand safety technology was created to give advertisers more control over the types of content they wanted to fund or avoid. Keyword block lists were an early but somewhat blunt tool, helping advertisers avoid appearing in articles about grisly news topics like murders or natural disasters. However, marketers often didn't maintain good block list hygiene. Mike Zaneis, CEO of ad industry accreditation organization the Trustworthy Accountability Group, said he was recently reviewing brand block lists that still had the term "Ariana Grande" on them, years after the deadly terrorist attack that took place at the pop star's Manchester Arena, UK, concert in 2017. "Never mind that she's won two Grammys since then," Zaneis said. Enter: The conservative backlash The scrutiny on brand safety notably dialed up in 2024 and took on a partisan tone. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, released an investigation that accused advertisers of illegally colluding to withhold ad dollars from conservative-leaning media like The Daily Wire, X (after Elon Musk's takeover of the company), and "The Joe Rogan Experience." The report took aim at an initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which developed brand safety frameworks and common definitions that advertisers and Big Tech platforms like Meta and YouTube could universally adopt. Elon Musk's X then sued several major brands, including Mars and CVS Health, alleging their participation in GARM involved a conspiracy to withhold ad dollars from the platform formerly known as Twitter. The conservative video platform Rumble also sued GARM and some of its members, making similar claims in its suit. GARM shut down shortly after X's suit was filed. Its parent organization, the World Federation of Advertisers, denied wrongdoing but said GARM didn't have the resources to fight the legal action. In a May legal filing seeking to dismiss the X case, the defendants said the lawsuit was an attempt to use the courts win back business X had "lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers." In a statement, the WFA said GARM provided tools to help advertisers better exercise their freedom to choose where to place their ads in the best interests of their brands, and that it was always voluntary and pro-competitive. "WFA will continue to fight these allegations, and we are confident that the US judicial system will find in our favor," the statement said. While GARM is no more, the lawsuits and the Judiciary Committee's investigation continue, and the FTC has joined the brand safety battle under the Trump administration. Ferguson, the FTC chair, has said that maintaining a free ad market and free speech is a top priority and that he hopes other ad companies will adopt policies similar to those in the Omnicom-IPG consent decree. That notice extends to other advertising vendors in the brand safety sphere. In May, the FTC sent sweeping civil investigative demands to media watchdogs and rating firms, including Media Matters and Ad Fontes Media, seeking information about their brand safety practices. In one such letter, viewed by BI, the FTC sought documents related to relationships with GARM, the publicly traded ad verification firms Integral Ad Science and DoubleVerify, and other entities that track and characterize "misinformation," "hate speech," "false" or "deceptive" content, and other similar categories. While the FTC's actions have made many in the ad industry nervous, some execs consider much of brand safety to be, as Stagwell's Penn puts it, a "fabricated issue." Penn said there were only limited situations in which brands might really be negatively affected by where their ads appeared. "From the polling I've done, conservatives think that they were being censored and demonetized, and liberals think they were being censored, so nobody was particularly happy about what was going on," Penn said. (Stagwell owns the public opinion and advisory firm The Harris Poll.) Will the brand safety crackdown benefit news publishers? Execs at The Daily Wire say the scrutiny on brand safety was warranted and has gotten results. "My team is inside of the bigger agencies, having discussions, whereas the door was automatically shut 12 to 16 months ago," said The Daily Wire's SVP of ad revenue, Christine Hoffmann. "We're getting business from Fortune 500 companies, like Chevron, like Amazon, like Paramount, and that was business that was nonexistent to us." Other conservative news outlets, including Fox News and The National Review, have also noticed a bump in advertising interest since Trump took office for the second time. Ad industry insiders previously told BI this reflected advertisers' realization that half of the country voted for Trump, but that it could also be a signal of advertisers hedging against political risk. The notion that the crackdown on brand safety will provide a long-term bump to news publishers is untested and, for many industry insiders, feels unlikely. An executive from the media buying giant GroupM testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last year that just 1.28% of its clients' global ad budgets went toward news outlets. Meanwhile, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon — with their superior scale and adtech — are set to take in more than half of global ad spending outside China this year, according to the latest forecast from the World Advertising Research Center. Omnicom has agreed to be audited to demonstrate its compliance with the FTC's proposed consent decree, which also includes an agreement not to create block lists, unless requested to do so by clients. The FTC's provisional agreement says Omnicom-IPG can't collude with other firms to steer client ad spend based on political ideologies, which might cause some advertisers to simply opt to avoid news altogether. As BI previously reported, some ad industry insiders and analysts think the government's crackdown on brand safety is an overreach that will hurt publishers of all kinds while further consolidating power with the tech giants. New tools could help brands avoid the censorship label, but there's no room for GARM 2.0 Some in the ad industry tell BI they're hopeful that brand safety could enter an apolitical era, powered by tech rather than individual decisions over blunt filters. "My view is that AI will bring greater nuance to brand safety — making it more effective for buyers and less restrictive for sellers," said David Kohl, cofounder of the performance marketing firm Symitri. Kohl said startups like Mobian are building models that assess context, user sentiment, and real-time ad performance to identify which media environments deliver and which don't. Elsewhere, Stagwell is creating what Penn describes as a politically neutral news marketplace, in partnership with the adtech company The Trade Desk, enabling advertisers to buy multiple news sites at once, according to demographics. While brand safety might become more tech-enabled, it seems unlikely there will be a GARM 2.0 for some time yet. "It would be far too easy to become a target," said Lisa Macpherson, a former marketing executive who now serves as the policy director of Public Knowledge, a tech policy consumer advocacy group. Just ask the advertising agency group Dentsu. Late last year, Dentsu quickly exited its involvement with the creation of a new coalition that had intended to encourage ad investments in "credible" news. Days after the press release about the coalition was published, the House Judiciary Committee requested documents from the ad firm, having noticed similarities to GARM. In response, Dentsu said it had decided "not to pursue the initiative" nor "pursue any other effort with similar aims." Macpherson said advertisers would continue to do what's necessary to protect their investments in their brands. Yet, as the threat of lawsuits and document demands related to GARM rumbles on, people in the ad industry will likely avoid using the phrase "brand safety" in emails or marketing materials. "They may describe it differently," Macpherson said. "They will be very careful to couch it in language that evokes their constitutional right" to send ad dollars or not spend money on certain media outlets based on the suitability for their individual brands, she added. Zaneis of TAG said the recent government and legal scrutiny of brand safety practices might have been the jolt the industry needed, forcing marketers to pay closer attention to an issue that had gotten out of hand. "We may not like how we got here as an industry, but it's where we should have been all along," Zaneis said.
