The Intersection of Deportations, Private Prisons, and IDEA Rights for Students with Disabilities
A look at the implications of what the incoming President has promised
President-elect Donald Trump has wasted no time in reigniting the harsh rhetoric of his previous campaigns, vowing swift mass deportations that will rely on military force and federal resources. His plans include declaring a national emergency to bypass typical legislative hurdles, with “vast holding facilities” serving as staging centres for the operation. These proposed measures signal a return to an era of mass removals, reminiscent of Operation Wetback in the 1950s, which forcibly deported hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants. However, the scale of Trump’s ambition is unprecedented in modern times, with a lack of existing infrastructure to support such an effort. Unlike the mid-20th century, today’s enforcement plans will likely depend heavily on private actors to fill the gaps.
The private prison industry stands poised to reap enormous benefits from Trump’s immigration policies. Companies such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, long-time supporters of Trump’s political campaigns, are ready to meet the demand for detention infrastructure. GEO Group alone contributed over $1 million to super PACs backing Trump, investments that could pay off handsomely under his administration. During Trump’s first term, private detention centres experienced significant growth, bolstered by policies that ramped up arrests and detentions of undocumented immigrants. Contracts with these companies often included guaranteed minimum payments, ensuring profits regardless of actual occupancy. With plans for mass deportations now on the table, the financial windfall for these private operators is evident. New facilities, likely constructed on federal lands to expedite the process, will further entrench the role of for-profit entities in immigration enforcement. These partnerships underline the symbiotic relationship between private prisons and Trump’s administration, where policy decisions align neatly with corporate interests, raising critical questions about accountability, ethics, and the human cost of such actions.
The Impact on Vulnerable Children
Across the United States, state policies have generally ensured that school-aged children are admitted to public schools regardless of their immigration status. Many states have enacted their own versions of DACA, striving to protect the educational rights of undocumented students and shielding them, at least to some extent, from federal immigration enforcement actions. Yet, these safeguards are of little comfort in the face of President-elect Trump’s proposed deportation agenda, which targets immigrant communities indiscriminately. Among those most at risk are children with Individualised Education Programs (IEPs), whose federally protected educational rights risk being ignored entirely in the chaos of detention. Particularly vulnerable are autistic students and those with or at risk for Emotional and Behavioural Disorders (EBDs), whose needs for stability, routine, and specialised services are unlikely to be met in detention environments.
The trauma of family separation and detention disrupts children’s lives in profound and lasting ways. Detention centres, with their sterile, noisy, and restrictive environments, are inherently ill-suited to the needs of vulnerable children, compounding the psychological toll of being uprooted from their homes and schools. Autistic students, as well, often struggle with sensory processing challenges that such environments exacerbate, leading to heightened anxiety, meltdowns, or shutdowns. For autistic children and those with EBDs, the loss of trusted caregivers and routines can trigger severe behavioural crises. The lack of access to trained educators or therapeutic support in detention only deepens these harms, resulting in setbacks that may take years to address.
Past events provide a chilling glimpse into what such policies may bring. The 2019 ICE raids on Mississippi poultry plants arrested nearly 700 undocumented workers, leaving hundreds of children traumatised and without parental care. Schools scrambled to provide emergency support, while some children faced weeks or months of acute distress. Kheri Martinez, then a seventh grader, experienced the terrifying uncertainty of not knowing when—or if—her mother would return. For Martinez and others, the scars of that event lingered long after the immediate crisis passed. Academics faltered, trust eroded, and the psychological weight of the experience remained.
These stories underscore the unique vulnerability of immigrant children with disabilities, whose rights to stability, routine, and education are protected under federal law but all too often ignored. The risks posed by Trump’s deportation agenda extend beyond legal violations; they represent a systemic failure to prioritise the welfare of society’s most defenceless members.
Legal Protections Under IDEA
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees that all children with disabilities in the are entitled to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), a right that includes specialised instruction, accommodations, and related services as specified in their IEPs. These protections are federally mandated and apply to every eligible child within the United States, regardless of their immigration status. IDEA’s scope is broad and unequivocal in its application, ensuring that no child can be excluded from receiving the educational support they need. However, the question remains whether these protections will be upheld in the chaotic and often opaque environment of detention facilities, especially those run by private companies on federal land.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program offers a troubling precedent. Despite multiple court rulings affirming DACA protections, the Trump administration’s repeated attempts to undermine and ignore these decisions have left thousands of immigrant children in legal and educational limbo. This history raises serious concerns about whether IDEA’s requirements will be respected under an administration willing to flout court orders and sidestep legal obligations. For children with disabilities detained in the wake of Trump’s deportation agenda, the risk of IDEA protections being disregarded is alarmingly high.
Providing IDEA-mandated services in detention facilities is fraught with challenges. The first hurdle lies in determining which Local Educational Agency (LEA) is responsible for ensuring compliance. Facilities on federal land often exist in a jurisdictional grey area, where local school districts may disclaim responsibility, and federal oversight is inconsistent at best. This ambiguity leaves detained children, particularly those with EBDs, vulnerable to falling through the cracks. The reliance on private, profit-driven detention facilities further exacerbates the problem. These companies operate with little oversight and have no financial incentive to invest in the qualified personnel or resources necessary to meet federal educational mandates (for a laugh, go to their websites and search for teaching jobs).
Even where the intent to provide services exists, significant resource shortages are common. Many detention facilities lack special education teachers, therapists, and the infrastructure needed to implement IEPs. For autistic students or those with EBDs, the absence of trained professionals and appropriate accommodations can lead to severe educational and emotional regression. The frequent relocations typical of detention settings only compound these issues. When children are transferred between facilities, often without warning, educational continuity is disrupted, and critical IEP services are delayed or lost altogether. Records may not follow the child, leaving educators unaware of their needs and further hindering support.
This failure to uphold IDEA protections is not just a logistical oversight but a moral and legal abdication. The precedent set by DACA’s inconsistent enforcement casts a shadow over the likelihood of IDEA compliance, leaving detained children with disabilities at risk of profound harm. It is a stark reminder that the rights of vulnerable populations can be easily ignored when accountability is absent, and profit motives dominate.
Private Prisons on Federal Lands: The LEA Question
The question of who is responsible for ensuring the educational rights of students with disabilities detained in private facilities on federal land is a murky and deeply troubling issue. Under the IDEA, every child with a disability is entitled to a Free Appropriate Public Education. Yet, when children are held in detention centres operated by private companies on federal property, the responsibility for providing these services often becomes unclear. Take, for example, a hypothetical detention centre located on the sprawling Edwards Air Force Base near Mojave, California. Who would oversee compliance with IDEA in this situation? Would it fall to the Mojave Unified School District, the California Department of Education, or a federal agency? The ambiguity in jurisdiction leaves students vulnerable, as no entity may step forward to take responsibility.
Again, detention facilities on federal land occupy a legal grey zone. Typically, the LEA for a given area is responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities receive the services outlined in their IEPs. However, when these facilities are on federal property, particularly when operated by private, for-profit companies, local school districts may argue they lack jurisdiction. Federal agencies, meanwhile, may be slow to assign responsibility or provide oversight, leaving detained children caught in a bureaucratic limbo. This lack of clarity is compounded when private actors are involved, as they often operate with minimal transparency and accountability.
The gaps in oversight in these settings are stark. Private detention companies, driven by profit motives, have little incentive to prioritise the educational needs of detained children. Compliance with IDEA requires significant investment in qualified staff, including special education teachers, therapists, and other specialists, as well as infrastructure to support a range of disabilities. For-profit operators are unlikely to voluntarily bear these costs unless compelled by robust oversight, which is often lacking in such situations. Furthermore, the transient nature of detention complicates the implementation of educational services. Children are frequently moved between facilities without adequate notice, disrupting their education and severing any tenuous connections to their IEPs.
Conflicts between federal, state, and local education systems exacerbate the problem. Federal agencies overseeing the detention centres may defer to state or local education departments, while those entities may argue that the facilities are outside their purview due to their federal status. This jurisdictional finger-pointing leaves children in detention without consistent access to the educational services they are legally entitled to under IDEA.
The hypothetical example of a detention facility on Edwards Air Force Base illustrates the broader systemic issues at play. Without clear jurisdiction and accountability, children with disabilities risk falling through the cracks entirely. The IDEA-mandated protections that should shield them from educational neglect become meaningless in the face of profit-driven operators and fragmented oversight. This failure to define and enforce responsibilities underscores the urgent need for systemic reform to ensure that detained children receive the education and support they deserve, regardless of where they are held.
The Long-Term Impact on Students
The long-term impact of detaining children with disabilities in environments ill-equipped to meet their needs is devastating, both academically and emotionally. Detention facilities, particularly those operated by private entities, often fail to provide the appropriate educational and therapeutic services mandated under the IDEA. For students in such situations, these deficits can lead to profound learning loss. The lack of routine, qualified staff, and individualised support in such settings results in regression, with students losing skills and knowledge they may have worked for years to acquire. Academic progress stalls as detention centres prioritise confinement over education, leaving children with gaps in learning that can take years to overcome—if they ever do.
The specific challenges faced by autistic students in detention environments are especially concerning. These settings, typically characterised by sensory overload, unpredictability, and lack of accommodation, are antithetical to the structured, supportive environments that these students need. Behavioural meltdowns, shutdowns, and increased anxiety are common in such circumstances, further hindering any potential for academic or personal growth. For students with EBDs, the absence of therapeutic interventions exacerbates emotional dysregulation, often reinforcing negative behaviours rather than addressing the underlying causes. The longer these children remain in unsuitable conditions, the greater the risk that they will lose not only academic skills but also critical developmental milestones.
The consequences of this neglect extend far beyond the immediate experience of detention. The emotional and behavioural toll of being removed from their homes, communities, and schools leaves lasting scars. Children who endure trauma in detention often exhibit symptoms of post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression, which can persist long after their release. For autistic students and those with EBDs, this trauma compounds pre-existing challenges, making reintegration into traditional educational settings even more difficult. These children are at heightened risk of falling permanently behind their peers, both academically and socially, as they struggle to recover from the disruptions to their learning and well-being.
In the long term, the compounding effects of trauma and interrupted education limit opportunities for higher education, employment, and personal growth. The systemic failure to uphold IDEA protections for these students while in detention not only violates their legal rights but also undermines their potential to lead fulfilling lives. The consequences of these policies will be felt not only by the affected children but also by society as a whole, which bears the burden of their unmet needs. This tragic cycle underscores the urgent need to protect vulnerable students from the lasting harm of such environments.
Broader Implications and Advocacy
The detention of children with disabilities in facilities operated by private, profit-driven companies raises profound moral and ethical questions. Entrusting the care and education of society’s most vulnerable members to corporations whose primary motivation is profit, not well-being, reflects a troubling abdication of public responsibility. These companies often lack both the infrastructure and the incentive to provide the specialised services that children with disabilities require, leaving their legal and educational rights unfulfilled. The systemic inequities underpinning these failures are stark: children from immigrant families, many of whom already face significant barriers to accessing quality education, are further marginalised by policies that prioritise incarceration over support.
The far-right’s common refrain, “Don’t like it, don’t come,” falls apart when applied to migrant children. These children often did not choose to migrate; many were brought by their families in search of safety and opportunity. The law makes no distinction based on how a child arrived—they are entitled to the same protections under the IDEA as any other child within U.S. jurisdiction. Ignoring this reality, and by extension these rights, not only harms individual children but also undermines the principles of equity and justice that the education system is meant to uphold.
Addressing these issues requires both systemic change and public advocacy. First, there must be a clear designation of LEA responsibilities for detention facilities, particularly those on federal land. Jurisdictional ambiguity cannot be allowed to deprive children of their right to a FAPE. Policymakers must enforce IDEA compliance rigorously and establish robust oversight mechanisms to ensure that private operators meet their obligations. This includes mandating adequate staffing, training, and resources to address the needs of children with disabilities effectively.
Public awareness is equally critical. Advocates must shine a light on these injustices and demand accountability from both the government and private corporations involved. The rights of immigrant children with disabilities cannot be left to chance or profit motives; they require active protection and enforcement. By prioritising the well-being and education of these children, society affirms its commitment to equity and inclusion, ensuring that no child is forgotten or left behind.
Final thoughts …
Trump’s proposed mass deportation agenda starkly reveals the intersection of punitive immigration policies, private prison profiteering, and the systemic neglect of vulnerable children. By prioritising speed and scale over humanity and care, this approach risks profound harm to the very individuals society has a moral obligation to protect. The rush to detain and deport as many people as possible underscores a heavy-handed cruelty that falls hardest on the most vulnerable: children with disabilities. For migrant children, the trauma of detention and the loss of critical educational services are compounded by environments incapable of meeting their needs. Such actions, championed by the Christian right, stand in glaring contradiction to the principles of compassion and care they claim to espouse.
This is not merely a policy issue; it is a moral one. The human cost of these policies cannot be overstated. Behind every statistic is a child whose education, well-being, and future are jeopardised by a system that treats them as collateral damage. These are children who, by law, are entitled to protections under the IDEA. Yet in the pursuit of political expediency and profit-driven detention, their rights are too often ignored.
As a society, we cannot allow this to happen. It is imperative to demand accountability from policymakers and the private entities profiting from these policies. We must advocate for robust oversight to ensure that the educational and emotional needs of detained children with disabilities are met. Most importantly, we must stand against the systemic cruelty that reduces vulnerable lives to numbers on a balance sheet. The rights and dignity of every child—regardless of their immigration status—must be upheld. Inaction is complicity. Now is the time to raise our voices and fight for a just and humane system.