Part I — Your Tax Dollars at Work: Inside America's Largest Private Prison Company

CoreCivic Inc. manages more than 65,000 beds across 45 facilities in the United States. If you haven't heard of them, you're not alone—but your tax dollars have. In 2025, the company received hundreds of millions in federal contracts, primarily to detain immigrants awaiting deportation. As lawmakers debate immigration policy, one fact gets lost: every policy choice creates a direct financial incentive for companies like CoreCivic.

Here's what citizens should understand about the private prison industry and the company at its center.

The Business Model: Beds for Dollars

CoreCivic's revenue model is straightforward: the federal government pays a daily rate (per diem) for each person detained in their facilities. In many contracts, they've negotiated "guaranteed minimums"—meaning taxpayers pay for a certain number of beds whether they're filled or not.

Think of it like a hotel that charges you for 100 rooms every night, even if only 50 have guests.

When Congress passes a law allocating $45 billion for detention beds, CoreCivic's stock price goes up.

The 2025 windfall: When Congress passed H.R. 1 (the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act") in mid-2025, it allocated $45 billion for immigration detention through 2029. CoreCivic's stock price surged. In the third quarter of 2025 alone, the company reported $580 million in revenue—an 18% increase from the previous year.

The company reactivated idle facilities almost overnight. The Diamondback Correctional Facility in Oklahoma, sitting empty for years, came back online to house ICE detainees. The West Tennessee Detention Facility in the small town of Mason reopened after local officials—facing budget collapse—voted to accept the facility despite community protests.

The Revolving Door: Government Officials to Corporate Board

CoreCivic's board of directors reads like a roster of former federal law enforcement leadership:

• Stacia Hylton: Former Director of the U.S. Marshals Service (2010-2015)
• Harley Lappin: Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (2003-2011)
• Thurgood Marshall Jr.: Former Cabinet Secretary under President Clinton

When a former director of the U.S. Marshals Service sits on the board of a company bidding for Marshals Service contracts, the line between public service and private profit blurs.

This isn't illegal. But it raises questions: Are these officials bringing expertise to the company, or is the company buying access to procurement processes and agency culture?

What Taxpayer Money Buys: The Conditions Inside

Federal oversight reports paint a troubling picture of what happens inside some CoreCivic facilities.

The Torrance County Case

In 2022, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General issued a rare "management alert" calling for the immediate removal of all detainees from the Torrance County Detention Facility in New Mexico.

Inspectors found:

• Critical staffing shortages
• Unsanitary living conditions
• Security lapses that endangered detainees

Despite the recommendation, ICE continued using the facility. CoreCivic maintained the contract.

A 2025 follow-up by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found conditions hadn't meaningfully improved. In August 2022, Kesley Vial, a 23-year-old Brazilian asylum seeker, died by suicide at the facility. His family's lawsuit alleges CoreCivic staff ignored clear mental health warning signs due to chronic understaffing.

Deaths in Custody

In summer 2025, two detainee deaths drew Senate scrutiny:

• Abelardo Avellaneda Delgado (68) died in transit while being moved by TransCor America, CoreCivic's prisoner transport subsidiary. Questions remain about whether the transport van had proper medical monitoring equipment.
• Jesus Molina-Veya died by suicide at the Stewart Detention Center in Georgia—the third suicide at that facility since 2006.

Senators Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock demanded a DHS investigation, calling the pattern "evidence of systemic failure."

The Forced Labor Lawsuit

Perhaps the biggest legal threat to CoreCivic's business model is a class-action lawsuit that alleges the company violated federal anti-trafficking laws.

Detainees were forced to perform janitorial work for $1 per day or sometimes no pay at all. Refusal could result in solitary confinement.

The claim: Detainees at CoreCivic facilities were forced to perform janitorial work—cleaning common areas, not just their own cells—for $1 per day or sometimes no pay at all. Refusal could result in solitary confinement.

CoreCivic calls this a "Voluntary Work Program." The plaintiffs call it forced labor under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

The case survived multiple dismissal attempts. A court certified a nationwide class of detainees. If CoreCivic loses, it could face billions in back-pay damages. More importantly, it would eliminate a cost-saving measure the industry relies on: using detainee labor to keep operational expenses low.

The Economic Promise vs. The Reality

CoreCivic pitches itself to struggling rural towns as an economic lifeline. The company promises jobs, tax revenue, and stability.

Mason, Tennessee: A Case Study

In August 2025, the town of Mason (population ~1,000) faced a choice: welcome back the CoreCivic detention facility or risk insolvency. The company promised:

• $325,000 in annual property taxes - 240 new jobs

Mayor Eddie Noeman championed the project. Over 150 residents protested, arguing the town was trading its soul for corporate revenue. They questioned whether locals would actually get the jobs, or whether management would commute from Memphis, taking salaries with them.

The city council voted to proceed.

What the Research Shows

Academic studies on prison towns reveal a pattern:

• Crowding out: Prisons deter other industries from locating nearby due to stigma
• Leakage: Economic benefits are lower than projected because higher-paid staff live elsewhere
• Volatility: When a facility closes, the local economy faces collapse

The prison had become the county's largest employer—making officials defend the facility regardless of its performance.

In Torrance County, New Mexico, county officials warned of "economic ruin" if the OIG's closure recommendation was enforced. The prison had become the county's largest employer—making officials defend the facility regardless of its performance.

The Political Machine

CoreCivic maintains a sophisticated influence operation:

Federal lobbying: In Q1 2025, the company lobbied on appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Prisons. It also supported the "Fair Access to Banking Act," which would penalize banks that refuse to lend to private prisons—a counter-response to the ESG divestment movement.

Political contributions: In December 2024, CoreCivic's PAC donated $500,000 to pro-Trump causes ahead of the inauguration.

State-level influence: The company has ties to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), where corporations and state legislators draft model legislation favoring privatization and stricter criminal codes.

The company states publicly that it doesn't lobby for laws that determine the basis for incarceration—like sentencing guidelines or immigration enforcement levels. But its financial support for candidates who champion strict enforcement creates a feedback loop: policies that increase detention directly increase the company's revenue.

The Core Question: Can Profit and Justice Coexist?

The fundamental tension is this: CoreCivic is a corporation with a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns. In this business, that means maximizing the number of people detained and the length of their detention.

When Congress passes a law allocating $45 billion for detention beds, CoreCivic's stock price goes up. When detainee populations drop, revenue falls. The company's interests are structurally opposed to reducing incarceration.

Supporters argue private companies bring efficiency and innovation to overburdened public systems. Critics argue you can't have a profit motive in human confinement without creating perverse incentives.

What Happens Next?

CoreCivic is entering what may be a "golden age" of profitability. The alignment of the White House, Congress, and federal enforcement priorities has unlocked billions in contracts.

But the political pendulum swings. The 2026 midterms could shift congressional oversight. A future administration could reverse enforcement priorities. The forced labor lawsuit could fundamentally alter the economics of private detention.

For now, your tax dollars continue flowing to CoreCivic at record rates. Whether that's good policy or a structural conflict of interest depends on whether you believe the profit motive can be aligned with humane treatment—or whether putting a price on human detention creates incentives no amount of oversight can fix.

What You Can Do

If you're concerned: - Contact your congressional representative about oversight of private detention contracts - Ask how guaranteed minimum clauses affect taxpayer liability - Support transparency requirements for detention facility conditions - Research whether your state uses private prisons and what oversight mechanisms exist

If you support the current system: - Advocate for stricter operational standards in contracts - Support independent inspections and public reporting - Push for accountability when facilities fail to meet safety standards

The debate over private prisons isn't going away. But it should be informed. Now you know where the money goes, who profits, and what it buys.

What questions do you have about private detention? What would you want to know about how your tax dollars are spent on immigration enforcement?