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
an hour 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''.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Explosive': US Supreme Court deals blow to those challenging Trump's power
Washington, DC – The United States Supreme Court has dealt a major blow to those challenging Donald Trump's use of presidential power, in what the president and his allies have hailed as a major victory. In its decision on Friday, the nine-member panel weighed whether courts could block an executive order on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule directly on the president's order, which would limit citizenship for US-born children based on their parents' immigration status. But in a six-to-three ruling, the court's conservative supermajority did severely curtail the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions: blanket bans on presidential actions stemming from legal challenges. The court's move, according to Allen Orr, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), is nothing short of 'explosive'. 'For lawyers and people who practice law, this is a drastic change from the way we've had courts run in the past,' he told Al Jazeera. 'It's weakening the judiciary yet again, as a balancing act [against the executive branch].' No immediate change to birthright citizenship Friday's ruling lifts the nationwide block on Trump's executive order that seeks to redefine birthright citizenship, which generally allows those born on US soil to be recognised as American citizens. However, Trump's order, signed just hours after he took office for a second term on January 20, would restrict citizenship for individuals born to undocumented parents in the US. That 'opens the door to partial enforcement' of Trump's order, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of several groups that have challenged the attempted policy. That is, at least until the Supreme Court makes a determination on whether birthright citizenship is indeed protected by the US Constitution, as proponents – and the court's own precedents – have long maintained. If no further action is taken, in theory, the order could be blocked in the handful of states where judges have already issued injunctions related to at least 10 individual lawsuits. But it could go into effect in dozens of other states where judges have issued no such injunction. The Supreme Court's ruling says Trump's order will not be enforceable for at least 30 days. But Leon Fresco – a former deputy assistant attorney general who oversaw immigration at the Justice Department under President Barack Obama – warned that, after that 30-day period, there could be grave consequences for the newborn children of immigrants. 'If there isn't an injunction in your jurisdiction that prevents the executive order from being implemented and you're born to a parent without a status that confers you citizenship, then the government could deny you either a passport, if you apply for a passport, or a Social Security number,' he told Al Jazeera. Class action challenge The decision on Friday does not completely remove the possibility of a judge issuing a nationwide injunction to an executive order. Legal experts say it just severely restricts the avenues. Prior to the decision, groups and individuals could launch a panoply of legal challenges in federal courts across the country, any of which could result in nationwide injunctions. Now, a judge can only issue a blanket pause in response to a class action lawsuit, which is a complaint brought on behalf of an entire 'class' of people. The process is typically more complex, time-consuming and costly. The Supreme Court's majority opinion, Fresco explained, also clarified that only one nationwide class action lawsuit can represent a specific challenge. 'There wouldn't be this ability, which happens now, where plaintiffs can file cases in five or six different courts, in hopes of getting one judge in any of those courts to issue a nationwide injunction,' he said. 'With the class action, you'll only have the one time to win,' he added. 'If you lost, you'd have to hope that the appellate court changed it, or that the Supreme Court changed it.' Class action lawsuits also have stringent requirements for who can participate. A judge must agree that all plaintiffs are pursuing the same case and that there are no substantial differences in their claims. Shortly after Friday's ruling, the plaintiff, CASA Inc, an immigration advocacy group, swiftly refiled its legal challenge against Trump's birthright citizenship order. Now, it is pursuing the case as a class action lawsuit. Critics, meanwhile, took aim at the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal judge on the nine-member panel, criticised her colleagues for ruling on national injunctions but not on Trump's executive order, which she called blatantly unconstitutional. 'The majority ignores entirely whether the President's Executive Order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Yet the Order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error.' Absent a class action lawsuit, individuals and groups will be forced to launch their own lawsuits to get individual reprieves from potentially illegal presidential orders. That's because the conservative supermajority ruled that court injunctions in most cases should only apply to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit at hand. In a post on the social media platform X, Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote that the Supreme Court's decision allows Trump to 'rip away birthright citizenship, forcing individuals to file burdensome lawsuits to get it back'. Wider implications But Friday's decision not only restricts who is protected by a given court injunction, it also has sway over how much the judicial branch of government can continue to serve as a bulwark against the executive branch. Critics of universal injunctions have long accused federal judges of overstepping their authority by blocking presidential action. Among those celebrating Friday's decision was Senator Chuck Grassley, who has spearheaded legislation on the issue. In a statement, he called such injunctions an 'unconstitutional affront to our nation's system of checks and balances' that 'ought to be stopped for good'. Proponents, however, say the ability for judges to issue swift, wide-reaching pauses on controversial policies is needed to safeguard against presidential overreach. Many see Trump as taking the expansion of presidential powers to a new level during his second term. Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has issued 164 executive orders, surpassing the 162 issued by former President Joe Biden during his entire presidency. That number – for a span of about five months – is rapidly approaching the total for Trump's entire first term: 220. Meanwhile, federal judges issued at least 25 national injunctions to Trump's orders during his first 100 days in office, some of which paused cuts to federal funding, attacks on diversity initiatives and overhauls to the US immigration systems. Some of those court cases will likely be re-challenged in light of the latest ruling, experts said. In a post on X, Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat, warned the courts ruling 'will only embolden Trump and his dismantling of our federal government'. 'It will create an unworkable patchwork of laws that shift depending on who you are or what state you're in.' Orr, the former law association president, agreed with that assessment. 'This decision does not build consistency across the United States at a time when people need these standards,' he said. 'People do not have time or money to wait to have these issues resolved.'
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump lambasts Khamenei, says he'd bomb Iran if nuclear activities restart
President Donald Trump has hit out at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's claim that Iran won its recent 12-day war with Israel, also saying the United States will 'absolutely' bomb the country again if it pursues nuclear weapons. The US president launched a torrent of abuse at Iran's Supreme Leader on his Truth Social platform on Friday, claiming he had saved Khamenei from 'A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH' and accusing him of 'blatantly and foolishly' lying when he claimed 'victory' in the war the previous day. In his first sortie since the Israel-Iran war ended with a ceasefire earlier this week, Khamenei had also said Iran 'slapped America in the face' by launching missiles at a major US base in Qatar following US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. In Friday's post, Trump said he had demanded Israel pull back from 'the final knockout'. 'His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,' he said. The question of whether US attacks destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities is moot – a leaked intelligence report contradicted Trump's account of events, suggesting the military's strikes had set the country back by mere months. The US president said that Khamenei's comments, which he described as 'a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust', had led him to drop work on 'the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery'. Future of nuclear programme Trump's rant against Khamenei came on the back of bellicose comments earlier that day at a White House news conference. Asked whether he would consider new air strikes if the recent attacks had not succeeded in ending Iran's nuclear weapons programme, Trump said, 'Sure, without question, absolutely.' He said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites. But Iran has approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, a move widely seen as a direct response to the strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites. '[IAEA Director General] Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,' Araghchi said on X. 'Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.' Grossi said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority, as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13. Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz indicated on Friday that his country might still be on a war footing with Iran, saying he had instructed the military to prepare an enforcement plan against the country. The plan 'includes maintaining Israel's air superiority, preventing nuclear advancement and missile production, and responses to Iran for supporting terrorist activities against Israel', Katz said. Katz said on Thursday that Israel had wanted to 'eliminate' Khamenei and would not have required US permission to do so.
