IMMIGRATION WATCH:
HAGERSTOWN WAREHOUSE INTO ICE FACILITY
SALT BOX NEWS
Scroll down to see older articles. See all the work of Project Salt Box at Project Salt Box | Substack
added 4/13 - Project Salt Box reports "Maryland Orders Washington County to Freeze Sewer Expansion for Planned ICE Detention Center"
added 3/19 - Project Salt Box reports "Breaking: Judge Extends Block on Maryland ICE Detention Facility, Setting Stage for April Showdown"
added 3/18 - Project Salt Box reports "$381 Million. That's What a Maryland County Wanted for Supporting an ICE Warehouse."
added 3/17 - Project Salt Box reports "As A Maryland County Debates Who Pays for a Warehouse It Never Approved, a Community Leader Is Removed From the Podium"
added 3/14 - Project Salt Box reports "ICYMI: A Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks an ICE Detention Warehouse in Maryland" (a must-see 30-minute interview with Michael Wriston of Project Salt Box)
added 3/14 - Project Salt Box reports "After a DHS Warehouse Deal, a Fundrise Investor Asked Why"
added 3/12 - Project Salt Box reports "At a Warehouse With No Water Plan, Six Toilet Trailers Just Appeared"
added 3/12 - Project Salt Box reports "Federal Judge Halts Construction of Maryland ICE Detention Facility"
added 3/11 - Project Salt Box reports "How a Maryland Farm Became a Federal Detention Warehouse"
added 3/8 - Project Salt Box reports "A "Humanitarian Response" Firm With No Federal Contract History Is Staffing Planned Immigration Detention Center in Maryland"
added 2/28 - Project Salt Box reports "ICE Moves Minneapolis Fleet to Williamsport Detention Warehouse"
added 2/28 - Project Salt Box reports "A 1,500-bed detention facility is coming to rural Maryland. We’re calling on ICE to account for what that means — and asking you to do the same." See the "DHS Notice of Activity..." referred to in the article.
added 2/27 - Project Salt Box reports "Maryland House Passes Trio of Immigration Bills in Response to Federal Detention Push"
added 2/23 - Project Salt Box reports "Maryland Sues to Stop ICE Detention Center, Escalating Fight Over Secretive Federal Purchase"
added 2/21 - Project Salt Box reports "Maryland Had No Say When the Federal Government Bought a Warehouse to Detain Immigrants. Lawmakers Are Trying to Change That."
added 2/16 - Project Salt Box reports "An open letter from the team at Project Salt Box in support of MD House Bill 630"
added 2/11 - Project Salt Box reports "Maryland Reopens Review of Hagerstown Detention Center After Residents Flag Road Project"
added 2/11 - Project Salt Box reports "Washington County Backs ICE Detention Facility, Then Cuts Meeting Short Amid Protests"
added 2/9/26
|
Washington County Commissioners to Pledge Cooperation With ICE on Facility They Say Bypassed Them |
Resolution commits commissioners to support federal operations one month after warehouse purchase
Michael Wriston
Feb 09, 2026
Washington County commissioners will vote Tuesday on a resolution expressing support for federal immigration enforcement — including a detention facility they say they were never consulted about before the government purchased a warehouse in their jurisdiction last month.
The resolution commits elected officials to “not use their positions as elected office holders to oppose or hinder” the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement in carrying out their duties.
The language represents a reversal from the county’s initial response. When the $102.4 million purchase of the warehouse at 16220 Wright Road became public in January, officials said they had not been notified and were powerless to intervene because of federal authority.
Now they are preparing to formalize that position into policy.
Feb. 10, 2026 Open Agenda Packet Revised
430KB ∙ PDF file
Download
From Powerless to Pledging Support
The resolution declares the commissioners’ “unwavering support and commitment” to DHS and ICE, and encourages cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies.
It does not mention the detention facility specifically, instead framing the vote as general support for border security and law enforcement.
The timing — one month after the warehouse purchase became public and amid ongoing local opposition — raises questions about whether the resolution is connected to the facility and the resistance it has generated.
Washington County Indivisible has organized multiple protests. A procedural challenge has been filed alleging the government used an incorrect address during historic preservation review, potentially invalidating the approval process. Representative April McClain Delaney, a Maryland Democrat, has called the project a “cloak of darkness” operation carried out without transparency or community input.
The commissioners will vote at a meeting where public comment remains suspended — a policy the county implemented after disruptive behavior by a local resident during public meetings.
A Costly Conversion
The resolution emphasizes public safety and the rule of law but makes no reference to the facility’s cost or economic impact.
Last year, the warehouse generated more than $300,000 in combined state and local property tax revenue as a privately owned commercial logistics warehouse.
The conversion to federal use would eliminate that revenue. Federal facilities are generally exempt from local property taxes.
An investigation by Project Salt Box found that operating costs for detention facilities of this scale can be substantial. Industry experts estimate that even bare-minimum temporary facilities cost approximately $200 per person per day. For the planned 1,500-bed facility in Hagerstown, that would total $300,000 daily, or about $110 million annually.
The warehouse was allocated only six Equivalent Dwelling Units for water — suitable for a logistics operation but far short of what would be required for 1,500 people.
The Timeline
In a statement last month, Washington County’s Board of Commissioners said they did not receive DHS’s consultation letter until Jan. 14 — two days after ICE had documented the county’s lack of response in internal reports. The deed was recorded Jan. 16, nearly a week before the county formally acknowledged the project.
By the time officials and residents learned about the facility, the required federal consultation process had been completed.
The legal challenge filed with the Maryland Historical Trust contends that DHS used 10900 Hopewell Road in its review, while the deed listed the property as 16220 Wright Road — different parcels with different historic designations. The objection argues that the address discrepancy invalidated the review and circumvented the public consultation process federal law requires.
Rather than joining or supporting that challenge, commissioners are preparing to pledge they will not oppose the agency that some residents say bypassed them.
What the Resolution Requires
The resolution commits commissioners to express full support for DHS, ICE and local law enforcement, and to encourage cooperation between federal and local agencies in enforcing immigration law.
It states that all people will be treated “with dignity and compassion” within the county’s jurisdiction, though it does not explain how commissioners will ensure that standard at a facility over which they say they have no authority.
The resolution takes effect immediately upon adoption and will be sent to DHS, ICE and local law enforcement agencies.
All five commissioners — President John F. Barr, Vice President Jeffrey A. Cline, and Commissioners Derek Harvey, Randal A. Leatherman and Randall E. Wagner — are listed as sponsors.
None responded to requests for comment.
Limited Avenues for Input
The meeting begins at 10 a.m. [CORRECTION FROM WCI: The meeting begins at 9:00am] Tuesday at the County Administration Building. Public comment remains suspended.
“They’re just throwing up their hands,” Dave Williams, one of the lead members of Washington County Indivisible, said in an interview last month. “It’s what I call ‘obeying in advance’ — they aren’t even trying to make an effort.”
The vote Tuesday would formalize that approach.
Michael Wriston
Feb 09, 2026
Washington County commissioners will vote Tuesday on a resolution expressing support for federal immigration enforcement — including a detention facility they say they were never consulted about before the government purchased a warehouse in their jurisdiction last month.
The resolution commits elected officials to “not use their positions as elected office holders to oppose or hinder” the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement in carrying out their duties.
The language represents a reversal from the county’s initial response. When the $102.4 million purchase of the warehouse at 16220 Wright Road became public in January, officials said they had not been notified and were powerless to intervene because of federal authority.
Now they are preparing to formalize that position into policy.
Feb. 10, 2026 Open Agenda Packet Revised
430KB ∙ PDF file
Download
From Powerless to Pledging Support
The resolution declares the commissioners’ “unwavering support and commitment” to DHS and ICE, and encourages cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies.
It does not mention the detention facility specifically, instead framing the vote as general support for border security and law enforcement.
The timing — one month after the warehouse purchase became public and amid ongoing local opposition — raises questions about whether the resolution is connected to the facility and the resistance it has generated.
Washington County Indivisible has organized multiple protests. A procedural challenge has been filed alleging the government used an incorrect address during historic preservation review, potentially invalidating the approval process. Representative April McClain Delaney, a Maryland Democrat, has called the project a “cloak of darkness” operation carried out without transparency or community input.
The commissioners will vote at a meeting where public comment remains suspended — a policy the county implemented after disruptive behavior by a local resident during public meetings.
A Costly Conversion
The resolution emphasizes public safety and the rule of law but makes no reference to the facility’s cost or economic impact.
Last year, the warehouse generated more than $300,000 in combined state and local property tax revenue as a privately owned commercial logistics warehouse.
The conversion to federal use would eliminate that revenue. Federal facilities are generally exempt from local property taxes.
An investigation by Project Salt Box found that operating costs for detention facilities of this scale can be substantial. Industry experts estimate that even bare-minimum temporary facilities cost approximately $200 per person per day. For the planned 1,500-bed facility in Hagerstown, that would total $300,000 daily, or about $110 million annually.
The warehouse was allocated only six Equivalent Dwelling Units for water — suitable for a logistics operation but far short of what would be required for 1,500 people.
The Timeline
In a statement last month, Washington County’s Board of Commissioners said they did not receive DHS’s consultation letter until Jan. 14 — two days after ICE had documented the county’s lack of response in internal reports. The deed was recorded Jan. 16, nearly a week before the county formally acknowledged the project.
By the time officials and residents learned about the facility, the required federal consultation process had been completed.
The legal challenge filed with the Maryland Historical Trust contends that DHS used 10900 Hopewell Road in its review, while the deed listed the property as 16220 Wright Road — different parcels with different historic designations. The objection argues that the address discrepancy invalidated the review and circumvented the public consultation process federal law requires.
Rather than joining or supporting that challenge, commissioners are preparing to pledge they will not oppose the agency that some residents say bypassed them.
What the Resolution Requires
The resolution commits commissioners to express full support for DHS, ICE and local law enforcement, and to encourage cooperation between federal and local agencies in enforcing immigration law.
It states that all people will be treated “with dignity and compassion” within the county’s jurisdiction, though it does not explain how commissioners will ensure that standard at a facility over which they say they have no authority.
The resolution takes effect immediately upon adoption and will be sent to DHS, ICE and local law enforcement agencies.
All five commissioners — President John F. Barr, Vice President Jeffrey A. Cline, and Commissioners Derek Harvey, Randal A. Leatherman and Randall E. Wagner — are listed as sponsors.
None responded to requests for comment.
Limited Avenues for Input
The meeting begins at 10 a.m. [CORRECTION FROM WCI: The meeting begins at 9:00am] Tuesday at the County Administration Building. Public comment remains suspended.
“They’re just throwing up their hands,” Dave Williams, one of the lead members of Washington County Indivisible, said in an interview last month. “It’s what I call ‘obeying in advance’ — they aren’t even trying to make an effort.”
The vote Tuesday would formalize that approach.
added 2/5/26
|
Local Resident Challenges Hagerstown ICE Facility Over Misleading Address in Federal Review |
Objection alleges DHS used incorrect property address to bypass historic preservation scrutiny and avoid state public notice laws
A Hagerstown resident has filed a formal challenge to a planned federal immigration detention facility, alleging the government used the wrong address during its review — a discrepancy the objector says exposed how the facility was established without the public consultation process federal law requires.
The Feb. 3 objection, obtained anonymously by Project Salt Box, was filed with the Maryland Historical Trust by a local resident whose name was redacted. More than disputing a clerical error, the filing highlights what the objector describes as a fundamental breakdown in how federal projects are supposed to engage with affected communities.
What Federal Law Requires
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, federal agencies planning projects that could affect historic properties are required to follow specific steps designed to ensure transparency and community input.
According to the law, agencies must accurately identify the project site and assess potential impacts on historic properties. They must publicly announce their plans with accurate information, giving the community time to review what is being proposed.
The law then requires a consultation phase: agencies must provide time for public comment and formally respond to those comments. Throughout the process, community members have the right to request “consulting party” status — which the law allows to give them a formal role in the review rather than limiting them to passive comment periods.
What the Objector Says Happened
According to the objection, nearly every step of this process appears to have been bypassed or mishandled in Hagerstown.
On Jan. 12, the Department of Homeland Security sent a consultation letter to the Maryland Historical Trust identifying the planned facility as 10900 Hopewell Road. Four days later, the department purchased the property — but the deed listed it as 16220 Wright Road, which the objector says is a different legal parcel with different historic designations and deed restrictions.
The objector alleges that by using the Hopewell Road address, the department issued a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” and closed the review without public announcement, consultation or opportunity for residents to request consulting party status or raise concerns.
Project Salt Box broke the story that the warehouse had been purchased by DHS on Jan. 27. The facility was not publicly disclosed until Jan. 28 — after the property was purchased and the review was complete. By the time the community learned about the facility, the objector argues, the required consultation process had already been declared finished.
A Timeline of Preparations
The objection also points to infrastructure preparations that began months before the facility was disclosed, raising questions about when planning began and why the community was not informed.
In May 2025, Washington County approved land acquisitions for the Wright Road Relocation, a road project that would serve the warehouse corridor. That same month, the county’s Transit Development Plan identified the warehouse address as a site expected to generate high volumes of vehicle traffic — a designation typically reserved for major industrial operations.
In August 2025, as Project Salt Box previously reported, the warehouse owner refinanced the property and extracted $15.9 million in cash — a common move when sellers anticipate a buyer.
In December 2025, the county awarded a $7.73 million contract for tactical village expansion at the Public Safety Training Center. While the training facility is connected to the warehouse by the Wright Road corridor, the center has been in development since 2019 as part of a separate, long-term county project.
The objection notes that all of this activity occurred before the public knew a federal detention facility was planned — and before the community had any opportunity to participate in the review process that federal law is designed to guarantee.
How Federal Ownership Sidestepped State Law
The timeline matters in part because Maryland has its own protections designed to ensure community input on detention facilities.
Under Maryland’s Dignity Not Detention Act, enacted in 2021, local jurisdictions are prohibited from entering into new contracts with ICE or private companies to house federal detainees. The law also requires 180 days’ notice and public meetings before detention facilities can open.
But the law governs agreements and contracts, not ownership. By purchasing the property outright rather than leasing it or contracting with the county, the department created what amounts to a sovereign enclave, allowing it to claim immunity from local zoning and notice requirements that would apply to private facilities.
County officials have said they were not consulted about the facility’s conversion.
An Opening for Community Voice
If the Maryland Historical Trust determines that the address error invalidated the initial review, federal regulations would allow it to require a new consultation process — one that would mandate public engagement and give local residents, advocacy groups and elected officials an opportunity to raise concerns about the facility’s impact on the community and historic landscape.
While this would not subject the facility to Maryland’s specific 180-day notice requirement — which applies to private detention facilities seeking local permits, not federal property — federal preservation law would require structured community input. Courts have ruled that executive orders cannot waive these requirements — agencies must follow the consultation process Congress established, regardless of project priorities or claims of sovereign immunity.
Under federal regulations, when agencies do not follow required procedures, community members have the right to object and request that the process be conducted properly. The objection letter argues that is exactly what needs to happen in Hagerstown.
The filing also opens the door for other residents to submit similar objections or request consulting party status under federal law, potentially amplifying pressure on the Maryland Historical Trust to conduct a more comprehensive review.
A Hagerstown resident has filed a formal challenge to a planned federal immigration detention facility, alleging the government used the wrong address during its review — a discrepancy the objector says exposed how the facility was established without the public consultation process federal law requires.
The Feb. 3 objection, obtained anonymously by Project Salt Box, was filed with the Maryland Historical Trust by a local resident whose name was redacted. More than disputing a clerical error, the filing highlights what the objector describes as a fundamental breakdown in how federal projects are supposed to engage with affected communities.
What Federal Law Requires
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, federal agencies planning projects that could affect historic properties are required to follow specific steps designed to ensure transparency and community input.
According to the law, agencies must accurately identify the project site and assess potential impacts on historic properties. They must publicly announce their plans with accurate information, giving the community time to review what is being proposed.
The law then requires a consultation phase: agencies must provide time for public comment and formally respond to those comments. Throughout the process, community members have the right to request “consulting party” status — which the law allows to give them a formal role in the review rather than limiting them to passive comment periods.
What the Objector Says Happened
According to the objection, nearly every step of this process appears to have been bypassed or mishandled in Hagerstown.
On Jan. 12, the Department of Homeland Security sent a consultation letter to the Maryland Historical Trust identifying the planned facility as 10900 Hopewell Road. Four days later, the department purchased the property — but the deed listed it as 16220 Wright Road, which the objector says is a different legal parcel with different historic designations and deed restrictions.
The objector alleges that by using the Hopewell Road address, the department issued a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” and closed the review without public announcement, consultation or opportunity for residents to request consulting party status or raise concerns.
Project Salt Box broke the story that the warehouse had been purchased by DHS on Jan. 27. The facility was not publicly disclosed until Jan. 28 — after the property was purchased and the review was complete. By the time the community learned about the facility, the objector argues, the required consultation process had already been declared finished.
A Timeline of Preparations
The objection also points to infrastructure preparations that began months before the facility was disclosed, raising questions about when planning began and why the community was not informed.
In May 2025, Washington County approved land acquisitions for the Wright Road Relocation, a road project that would serve the warehouse corridor. That same month, the county’s Transit Development Plan identified the warehouse address as a site expected to generate high volumes of vehicle traffic — a designation typically reserved for major industrial operations.
In August 2025, as Project Salt Box previously reported, the warehouse owner refinanced the property and extracted $15.9 million in cash — a common move when sellers anticipate a buyer.
In December 2025, the county awarded a $7.73 million contract for tactical village expansion at the Public Safety Training Center. While the training facility is connected to the warehouse by the Wright Road corridor, the center has been in development since 2019 as part of a separate, long-term county project.
The objection notes that all of this activity occurred before the public knew a federal detention facility was planned — and before the community had any opportunity to participate in the review process that federal law is designed to guarantee.
How Federal Ownership Sidestepped State Law
The timeline matters in part because Maryland has its own protections designed to ensure community input on detention facilities.
Under Maryland’s Dignity Not Detention Act, enacted in 2021, local jurisdictions are prohibited from entering into new contracts with ICE or private companies to house federal detainees. The law also requires 180 days’ notice and public meetings before detention facilities can open.
But the law governs agreements and contracts, not ownership. By purchasing the property outright rather than leasing it or contracting with the county, the department created what amounts to a sovereign enclave, allowing it to claim immunity from local zoning and notice requirements that would apply to private facilities.
County officials have said they were not consulted about the facility’s conversion.
An Opening for Community Voice
If the Maryland Historical Trust determines that the address error invalidated the initial review, federal regulations would allow it to require a new consultation process — one that would mandate public engagement and give local residents, advocacy groups and elected officials an opportunity to raise concerns about the facility’s impact on the community and historic landscape.
While this would not subject the facility to Maryland’s specific 180-day notice requirement — which applies to private detention facilities seeking local permits, not federal property — federal preservation law would require structured community input. Courts have ruled that executive orders cannot waive these requirements — agencies must follow the consultation process Congress established, regardless of project priorities or claims of sovereign immunity.
Under federal regulations, when agencies do not follow required procedures, community members have the right to object and request that the process be conducted properly. The objection letter argues that is exactly what needs to happen in Hagerstown.
The filing also opens the door for other residents to submit similar objections or request consulting party status under federal law, potentially amplifying pressure on the Maryland Historical Trust to conduct a more comprehensive review.
added 2/1/26
|
Washington County Cited Federal Limits on ICE Facility. It Didn't Mention Its Federal Rights. |
County officials say they're powerless to block the detention center. Federal law gives them a formal consultative role they haven't publicly discussed.
Michael Wriston
Jan 31, 2026
Days after Washington County, Md., officials told residents they were powerless to stop a federal immigration detention facility, a review of the regulations and documents they cited reveals a different picture. The county has a mandatory consultative role in the approval process that it has not publicly acknowledged.
The internal Department of Homeland Security letter that prompted the county’s statement — a three-page document dated Jan. 12 — was not a final order. It was what the agency called an “initiation of consultation.”
"In accordance with 36 CFR 800.3, ICE has invited the Hagerstown Planning Department and the Washington County Historic Preservation Commission, both certified local governments, to participate in consultation for this undertaking," the letter states. It goes on to request "any comments on the undertaking and ICE's finding within 30 calendar days."
The ICE letter also invited two federally recognized tribes to participate in consultation: the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, and the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. A county spokeswoman said the tribes have not coordinated with the county council or planning office on a response.
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, federal agencies must follow a four-step consultation process before undertaking projects that may affect historic properties. The county, as a “certified local government,” is explicitly named as a required consulting party in federal regulations.
The process requires federal agencies to identify historic properties, assess potential effects and “resolve adverse effects by developing and evaluating alternatives that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate” impacts on historic resources.
While the county cannot veto the federal finding of “no historic properties affected,” it can participate in developing binding agreements that would govern how the project proceeds — none of which appeared in the county’s public statement.
The department’s letter noted it had received “no comments” from the county commission as of mid-January and set a 30-day deadline for a response. County officials said they did not receive the letter until Jan. 14 — two days after the agency had documented the county’s silence in its internal reports. The department has given the county until mid-February to respond.
A Washington County spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the public statement.
Other Omitted Options
The county’s statement also omitted several other procedural avenues that could delay or complicate the project.
The proposed rehabilitation of the warehouse, which federal documents show will include holding cells, cafeterias and health care spaces, typically requires an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. That process usually includes a public comment period in which the county could challenge the facility’s impact on local infrastructure, water supply and emergency services.
Local officials have not publicly detailed whether they intend to ask the state historic preservation officer to formally object to the federal findings — a move that would trigger a more intensive federal review.
In its own report, the department acknowledged it “withheld commenting” on a stone springhouse on an adjacent historic farm because of a “lack of information.” The agency conceded the structure could be historically significant. The county’s statement did not mention this potential opening to request further study.
A representative of the Washington County Historical Society declined to comment.
Warehouse Deals Abandoned Elsewhere
Washington County’s approach stands in contrast not only to other jurisdictions that have mounted formal opposition, but also to private property owners who have canceled sales under public pressure.
On Friday, a development company owned by Canadian billionaire Jimmy Pattison said it would not move forward with the sale of a Virginia warehouse that the department planned to convert into an ICE detention center. The decision came after pushback in Hanover County, Va., and a planned protest in Vancouver, where the company is based.
The company said it had initially agreed to sell the facility to a government contractor and only later became aware of “the ultimate owner and intended use of the building.” The leader of British Columbia’s Green Party had urged consumers to boycott other Pattison businesses, which include grocers and automotive dealers.
Pattison’s company is now the third to abandon a sale to the department. The facilities under consideration are in 23 municipalities around the country, many of them warehouses originally designed for e-commerce distribution.
When Oklahoma City received a similar notice from the department in December, city officials outlined concrete next steps, including preparing a formal response, requesting the agency pursue a special permit and sending letters to congressional representatives “requesting their support of a local public approval process.”
Washington County’s statement borrowed heavily from Oklahoma City’s language — including nearly word-for-word passages about local control and constitutional limits — but removed all provisions for resistance or formal response.
Background on the Facility
On Tuesday, the Washington County Board of Commissioners issued a statement describing federal plans to convert an 825,000-square-foot warehouse into a “new ICE Baltimore Processing Facility.” The statement emphasized constitutional limits on local authority, noting the county “is not able to legally restrict the federal government’s ability to proceed.”
Property records show the department completed a $102.4 million purchase on Jan. 16, making it the first confirmed acquisition in what federal documents describe as a network of up to 23 processing centers nationwide.
The political environment has been complicated by the suspension of public comment periods at county commission meetings. Dave Williams of Washington County Indivisible said, “The commissioners are just throwing up their hands. They aren’t even trying to make an effort.”
Representative April McClain Delaney, a Maryland Democrat, called the acquisition a “cloak of darkness” operation and vowed to challenge it alongside Gov. Wes Moore. The facility’s design work has also hit complications after a tribal contractor terminated its $29.9 million contract.
For more on this and other DHS stories, subscribe to Project Salt Box. It’s free.
Michael Wriston
Jan 31, 2026
Days after Washington County, Md., officials told residents they were powerless to stop a federal immigration detention facility, a review of the regulations and documents they cited reveals a different picture. The county has a mandatory consultative role in the approval process that it has not publicly acknowledged.
The internal Department of Homeland Security letter that prompted the county’s statement — a three-page document dated Jan. 12 — was not a final order. It was what the agency called an “initiation of consultation.”
"In accordance with 36 CFR 800.3, ICE has invited the Hagerstown Planning Department and the Washington County Historic Preservation Commission, both certified local governments, to participate in consultation for this undertaking," the letter states. It goes on to request "any comments on the undertaking and ICE's finding within 30 calendar days."
The ICE letter also invited two federally recognized tribes to participate in consultation: the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, and the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. A county spokeswoman said the tribes have not coordinated with the county council or planning office on a response.
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, federal agencies must follow a four-step consultation process before undertaking projects that may affect historic properties. The county, as a “certified local government,” is explicitly named as a required consulting party in federal regulations.
The process requires federal agencies to identify historic properties, assess potential effects and “resolve adverse effects by developing and evaluating alternatives that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate” impacts on historic resources.
While the county cannot veto the federal finding of “no historic properties affected,” it can participate in developing binding agreements that would govern how the project proceeds — none of which appeared in the county’s public statement.
The department’s letter noted it had received “no comments” from the county commission as of mid-January and set a 30-day deadline for a response. County officials said they did not receive the letter until Jan. 14 — two days after the agency had documented the county’s silence in its internal reports. The department has given the county until mid-February to respond.
A Washington County spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the public statement.
Other Omitted Options
The county’s statement also omitted several other procedural avenues that could delay or complicate the project.
The proposed rehabilitation of the warehouse, which federal documents show will include holding cells, cafeterias and health care spaces, typically requires an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. That process usually includes a public comment period in which the county could challenge the facility’s impact on local infrastructure, water supply and emergency services.
Local officials have not publicly detailed whether they intend to ask the state historic preservation officer to formally object to the federal findings — a move that would trigger a more intensive federal review.
In its own report, the department acknowledged it “withheld commenting” on a stone springhouse on an adjacent historic farm because of a “lack of information.” The agency conceded the structure could be historically significant. The county’s statement did not mention this potential opening to request further study.
A representative of the Washington County Historical Society declined to comment.
Warehouse Deals Abandoned Elsewhere
Washington County’s approach stands in contrast not only to other jurisdictions that have mounted formal opposition, but also to private property owners who have canceled sales under public pressure.
On Friday, a development company owned by Canadian billionaire Jimmy Pattison said it would not move forward with the sale of a Virginia warehouse that the department planned to convert into an ICE detention center. The decision came after pushback in Hanover County, Va., and a planned protest in Vancouver, where the company is based.
The company said it had initially agreed to sell the facility to a government contractor and only later became aware of “the ultimate owner and intended use of the building.” The leader of British Columbia’s Green Party had urged consumers to boycott other Pattison businesses, which include grocers and automotive dealers.
Pattison’s company is now the third to abandon a sale to the department. The facilities under consideration are in 23 municipalities around the country, many of them warehouses originally designed for e-commerce distribution.
When Oklahoma City received a similar notice from the department in December, city officials outlined concrete next steps, including preparing a formal response, requesting the agency pursue a special permit and sending letters to congressional representatives “requesting their support of a local public approval process.”
Washington County’s statement borrowed heavily from Oklahoma City’s language — including nearly word-for-word passages about local control and constitutional limits — but removed all provisions for resistance or formal response.
Background on the Facility
On Tuesday, the Washington County Board of Commissioners issued a statement describing federal plans to convert an 825,000-square-foot warehouse into a “new ICE Baltimore Processing Facility.” The statement emphasized constitutional limits on local authority, noting the county “is not able to legally restrict the federal government’s ability to proceed.”
Property records show the department completed a $102.4 million purchase on Jan. 16, making it the first confirmed acquisition in what federal documents describe as a network of up to 23 processing centers nationwide.
The political environment has been complicated by the suspension of public comment periods at county commission meetings. Dave Williams of Washington County Indivisible said, “The commissioners are just throwing up their hands. They aren’t even trying to make an effort.”
Representative April McClain Delaney, a Maryland Democrat, called the acquisition a “cloak of darkness” operation and vowed to challenge it alongside Gov. Wes Moore. The facility’s design work has also hit complications after a tribal contractor terminated its $29.9 million contract.
For more on this and other DHS stories, subscribe to Project Salt Box. It’s free.
added 1/29/26
|
|
ICE Now Owns a Hagerstown Warehouse. A Plan to Design It Is in Shambles. |
The first confirmed site in a proposed immigration detention network has been purchased near Hagerstown, even as the Native American nation tied to its design work says it has exited the contract
Michael Wriston
Jan 29, 2026
The 825,000-square-foot warehouse purchased by the federal government near Hagerstown this month has become the first physical beachhead for a sprawling new immigration detention network. But even as the deed was recorded in Washington County, a $29.9 million contract intended to design the facility — and facilities like it — was already beginning to collapse.
The property, located at 16220 Wright Road, is the first of 23 sites purchased by the federal government, and part of a short list of sites across the country identified in documents leaked to The Washington Post in December. These facilities — classified as “Processing Centers” for 1,500 people or “Mega Centers” for up to 9,500 — represent a massive escalation in detention capacity.
A review of property records in eight jurisdictions by Project Salt Box found no evidence of completed sales at any other site, making the Maryland warehouse the first confirmed purchase in the network. However, the connection between the facility and the firm hired to design it, KPB Services LLC, has sparked a backlash reaching from the Maryland panhandle to the plains of Kansas.
Tribal opposition and contract termination
The contract was awarded to KPB Services LLC, a subsidiary of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, a tribe whose ancestors were forcibly removed from the Great Lakes region by the U.S. government in the 1830s. After the deal became public, the tribe’s leadership took the extraordinary step of firing the economic development officials who negotiated it.
The contract award, which began on Nov. 29, 2025, was initially valued at $19 million before being modified to raise the ceiling to $29.9 million. This figure sits just under the $30 million threshold that would have triggered more stringent federal reporting and justification requirements.
Notably, the deal was marked as “not available for competition” and was authorized as a sole-source award under FAR 6.302-5(a)(2)(i), a federal rule that allows agencies to bypass full and open competition when a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the acquisition be made through a specific source —often used for tribal or minority-owned business programs.
In a Dec. 2025 address to the Nation, Tribal Chairman Joseph “Zeke” Rupnick framed the work as a violation of historical memory. “We know our Indian reservations were the government’s first attempts at detention centers,” Mr. Rupnick said. “We were placed here because we were prisoners of war. So we must ask ourselves why we would ever participate in something that mirrors the harm and the trauma once done to our people.”
The Nation has since announced it has successfully exited the contract award, leaving the design and “due diligence” of the Hagerstown site in legal and administrative limbo.
Local Friction in Washington County
While the tribe fights to distance itself from the project in Kansas, residents in Maryland are finding themselves silenced by a breakdown in local governance. The Washington County Board of Commissioners has stated it is powerless to stop the facility, citing the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution, which generally exempts federal projects from local zoning.
“The reaction has been mixed,” said Dave Williams, a member of the core leadership group for Washington County Indivisible. “You have people appalled and concerned, and then you have others saying, ‘More power to them.’ But the commissioners are just throwing up their hands. It’s what I call ‘obeying in advance’—they aren’t even trying to make an effort.”
The political climate has been further poisoned by the actions of Shaun Porter, a local provocateur whose disruptive behavior — including mooning and cursing at officials during public meetings — has fundamentally altered how the county conducts business. In a move that Mr. Williams says has co-opted the public process, the commission recently moved its meetings to the county administrative building downtown to strictly control physical access and has suspended public comment periods entirely.
“They’ve tried several different avenues to cut this guy off in a manner that’s legal, and since they aren’t required by law to have public comment, they’ve just stopped it altogether,” Mr. Williams said. “There is now no avenue to speak to them face-to-face. We’re going in with signs and questions just to have some kind of input.”
Washington County Indivisible has organized two silent protests for Tuesday, Feb. 3, at the County Administration Building. Demonstrators will gather at 9 a.m. for the 10 a.m. business meeting and again at 5 p.m. for the 6 p.m. municipal session. Bound by a 12-by-24-inch size limit on signs, participants intend to use the visual protest to bypass the commission's current suspension of public comment.
Infrastructure and “Processing Center” Concerns
The lack of public input has left critical questions about the site’s infrastructure and basic human needs unanswered. Originally designed as a shipping warehouse near the intersection of Interstates 70 and 81, the property was allotted only six Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) for water — a baseline utility load intended for a logistics hub, not a 1,500-person residential facility.
“If you’re going to put 1,500 people in there, you need significantly more water than that,” Mr. Williams noted. He pointed out that while the city of Hagerstown controls water allocations and has indicated it lacks the capacity for such a project, federal officials may attempt to bypass local systems entirely. “One of the commissioners suggested they can always drill wells on the property or truck water in. But trucking water for a facility of that size would be quite a task.”
Beyond water, the conversion raises questions about building codes and safety standards. While federal properties are often exempt from local zoning, government buildings are generally expected to adhere to high national standards, particularly for penal or detention institutions.
“Will they have to comply with the codes that apply to penal institutions, and who gets to inspect them to see that they are?” Mr. Williams asked. “Or do we just accept that it’s happening?”
Ice New Baltimore Processing Center Hagerstown Md Washinton Co Hist District Comm
3.41MB ∙ PDF file
Download
Internal Homeland Security documents dated Jan. 12, 2026 obtained through a FOIA request provide a rare look at the planned transformation of the site. The agency intends to “rehabilitate” the 53-acre parcel into a “New ICE Baltimore Processing Facility” featuring specialized holding and processing areas, on-site medical spaces, and cafeteria amenities.
External work will include new security fencing, cameras, site lighting, and modular guard shacks. The plans even include the addition of outdoor recreation courts, a clear indicator of the building’s “residential” purpose.
While the government has declared a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected,” the project borders a site with ties to the influential Van Lear family dating back to the late 18th century. Despite the massive scale of the new facility, federal officials maintain it will not impact the historical integrity of a neighboring 19th-century springhouse.
A representative with the Washington County Historical Society declined to comment.
Washington County officials stated yesterday that they did not even receive the DHS letter until Jan. 14 — two days after ICE had already documented the County’s lack of comment in its internal reports. Washington County officials could not be reached for comment on whether this two-day gap allowed federal officials to move forward.
While the County’s public statement yesterday maintained that DHS “has not notified Washington County that a purchase has taken place,” the reality had already shifted. Public land records show the $102.4 million deed was recorded on Jan. 16, nearly a week before the County’s formal acknowledgement of the project’s “potential.”
Congressional Opposition
The lack of transparency has drawn sharp condemnation from Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), who represents the district. Following the confirmation of the warehouse purchase this week, McClain Delaney released a statement calling the acquisition a “cloak of darkness” operation.
“ICE’s covert acquisition of a warehouse in historic Williamsport—carried out without transparency, community input, or accountability—is unacceptable,” McClain Delaney said. “Let me be clear: planning a detention facility behind closed doors is not governance—it is intimidation.”
The Congresswoman, who recently joined a rally of hundreds of residents to oppose the facility, vowed to challenge the project alongside Governor Wes Moore and the Maryland delegation. “Our communities will not be steamrolled,” she said. “We will organize. We will show up. We will speak out. We will sue.”
A broader network for detention
The Hagerstown facility is intended to be part of a network that includes seven “Mega Centers” with a combined capacity for more than 80,000 people. One notable site on the list is in Chester, N.Y., where the warehouse is owned by a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises — founded by former Trump adviser Carl Icahn.
The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to questions regarding who will complete the design work now that the Potawatomi Nation has exited the contract, or whether the Maryland facility’s opening will be delayed.
Michael Wriston
Jan 29, 2026
The 825,000-square-foot warehouse purchased by the federal government near Hagerstown this month has become the first physical beachhead for a sprawling new immigration detention network. But even as the deed was recorded in Washington County, a $29.9 million contract intended to design the facility — and facilities like it — was already beginning to collapse.
The property, located at 16220 Wright Road, is the first of 23 sites purchased by the federal government, and part of a short list of sites across the country identified in documents leaked to The Washington Post in December. These facilities — classified as “Processing Centers” for 1,500 people or “Mega Centers” for up to 9,500 — represent a massive escalation in detention capacity.
A review of property records in eight jurisdictions by Project Salt Box found no evidence of completed sales at any other site, making the Maryland warehouse the first confirmed purchase in the network. However, the connection between the facility and the firm hired to design it, KPB Services LLC, has sparked a backlash reaching from the Maryland panhandle to the plains of Kansas.
Tribal opposition and contract termination
The contract was awarded to KPB Services LLC, a subsidiary of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, a tribe whose ancestors were forcibly removed from the Great Lakes region by the U.S. government in the 1830s. After the deal became public, the tribe’s leadership took the extraordinary step of firing the economic development officials who negotiated it.
The contract award, which began on Nov. 29, 2025, was initially valued at $19 million before being modified to raise the ceiling to $29.9 million. This figure sits just under the $30 million threshold that would have triggered more stringent federal reporting and justification requirements.
Notably, the deal was marked as “not available for competition” and was authorized as a sole-source award under FAR 6.302-5(a)(2)(i), a federal rule that allows agencies to bypass full and open competition when a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the acquisition be made through a specific source —often used for tribal or minority-owned business programs.
In a Dec. 2025 address to the Nation, Tribal Chairman Joseph “Zeke” Rupnick framed the work as a violation of historical memory. “We know our Indian reservations were the government’s first attempts at detention centers,” Mr. Rupnick said. “We were placed here because we were prisoners of war. So we must ask ourselves why we would ever participate in something that mirrors the harm and the trauma once done to our people.”
The Nation has since announced it has successfully exited the contract award, leaving the design and “due diligence” of the Hagerstown site in legal and administrative limbo.
Local Friction in Washington County
While the tribe fights to distance itself from the project in Kansas, residents in Maryland are finding themselves silenced by a breakdown in local governance. The Washington County Board of Commissioners has stated it is powerless to stop the facility, citing the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution, which generally exempts federal projects from local zoning.
“The reaction has been mixed,” said Dave Williams, a member of the core leadership group for Washington County Indivisible. “You have people appalled and concerned, and then you have others saying, ‘More power to them.’ But the commissioners are just throwing up their hands. It’s what I call ‘obeying in advance’—they aren’t even trying to make an effort.”
The political climate has been further poisoned by the actions of Shaun Porter, a local provocateur whose disruptive behavior — including mooning and cursing at officials during public meetings — has fundamentally altered how the county conducts business. In a move that Mr. Williams says has co-opted the public process, the commission recently moved its meetings to the county administrative building downtown to strictly control physical access and has suspended public comment periods entirely.
“They’ve tried several different avenues to cut this guy off in a manner that’s legal, and since they aren’t required by law to have public comment, they’ve just stopped it altogether,” Mr. Williams said. “There is now no avenue to speak to them face-to-face. We’re going in with signs and questions just to have some kind of input.”
Washington County Indivisible has organized two silent protests for Tuesday, Feb. 3, at the County Administration Building. Demonstrators will gather at 9 a.m. for the 10 a.m. business meeting and again at 5 p.m. for the 6 p.m. municipal session. Bound by a 12-by-24-inch size limit on signs, participants intend to use the visual protest to bypass the commission's current suspension of public comment.
Infrastructure and “Processing Center” Concerns
The lack of public input has left critical questions about the site’s infrastructure and basic human needs unanswered. Originally designed as a shipping warehouse near the intersection of Interstates 70 and 81, the property was allotted only six Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) for water — a baseline utility load intended for a logistics hub, not a 1,500-person residential facility.
“If you’re going to put 1,500 people in there, you need significantly more water than that,” Mr. Williams noted. He pointed out that while the city of Hagerstown controls water allocations and has indicated it lacks the capacity for such a project, federal officials may attempt to bypass local systems entirely. “One of the commissioners suggested they can always drill wells on the property or truck water in. But trucking water for a facility of that size would be quite a task.”
Beyond water, the conversion raises questions about building codes and safety standards. While federal properties are often exempt from local zoning, government buildings are generally expected to adhere to high national standards, particularly for penal or detention institutions.
“Will they have to comply with the codes that apply to penal institutions, and who gets to inspect them to see that they are?” Mr. Williams asked. “Or do we just accept that it’s happening?”
Ice New Baltimore Processing Center Hagerstown Md Washinton Co Hist District Comm
3.41MB ∙ PDF file
Download
Internal Homeland Security documents dated Jan. 12, 2026 obtained through a FOIA request provide a rare look at the planned transformation of the site. The agency intends to “rehabilitate” the 53-acre parcel into a “New ICE Baltimore Processing Facility” featuring specialized holding and processing areas, on-site medical spaces, and cafeteria amenities.
External work will include new security fencing, cameras, site lighting, and modular guard shacks. The plans even include the addition of outdoor recreation courts, a clear indicator of the building’s “residential” purpose.
While the government has declared a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected,” the project borders a site with ties to the influential Van Lear family dating back to the late 18th century. Despite the massive scale of the new facility, federal officials maintain it will not impact the historical integrity of a neighboring 19th-century springhouse.
A representative with the Washington County Historical Society declined to comment.
Washington County officials stated yesterday that they did not even receive the DHS letter until Jan. 14 — two days after ICE had already documented the County’s lack of comment in its internal reports. Washington County officials could not be reached for comment on whether this two-day gap allowed federal officials to move forward.
While the County’s public statement yesterday maintained that DHS “has not notified Washington County that a purchase has taken place,” the reality had already shifted. Public land records show the $102.4 million deed was recorded on Jan. 16, nearly a week before the County’s formal acknowledgement of the project’s “potential.”
Congressional Opposition
The lack of transparency has drawn sharp condemnation from Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), who represents the district. Following the confirmation of the warehouse purchase this week, McClain Delaney released a statement calling the acquisition a “cloak of darkness” operation.
“ICE’s covert acquisition of a warehouse in historic Williamsport—carried out without transparency, community input, or accountability—is unacceptable,” McClain Delaney said. “Let me be clear: planning a detention facility behind closed doors is not governance—it is intimidation.”
The Congresswoman, who recently joined a rally of hundreds of residents to oppose the facility, vowed to challenge the project alongside Governor Wes Moore and the Maryland delegation. “Our communities will not be steamrolled,” she said. “We will organize. We will show up. We will speak out. We will sue.”
A broader network for detention
The Hagerstown facility is intended to be part of a network that includes seven “Mega Centers” with a combined capacity for more than 80,000 people. One notable site on the list is in Chester, N.Y., where the warehouse is owned by a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises — founded by former Trump adviser Carl Icahn.
The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to questions regarding who will complete the design work now that the Potawatomi Nation has exited the contract, or whether the Maryland facility’s opening will be delayed.
added 1/27/26
|
|
BREAKING: DHS Purchases Hagerstown Warehouse for $102.4 Million |
By purchasing the property outright, DHS avoids state limits on immigration detention facilities while expanding ICE’s presence in Maryland.
Michael Wriston
Jan 27, 2026
Read the article with illustrations and link to the purchase document at Project Salt Box
The Department of Homeland Security has purchased the Hagerstown-area warehouse previously identified as a potential ICE site, according to property records recorded this week in Washington County, Maryland.
A general warranty deed recorded on January 22, 2026, shows the property was sold by FRIND-Hopewell, LLC to the United States of America, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement listed as the acquiring federal agency. The purchase price was $102.4 million, and the transfer conveys fee simple ownership, the strongest form of property title under Maryland law.
The warehouse occupies 825,620 square feet in Washington County, where federal records show strategic access to major interstates and proximity to regional air transport.
The Hagerstown property previously appeared on a leaked list of warehouses nationwide that ICE was evaluating for potential detainee holding operations.
The transaction is significant in the context of Maryland’s Dignity Not Detention Act, which bars the state from entering into new contracts that allow local or state facilities to be used for civil immigration detention. The law does not prohibit the federal government from operating facilities it owns directly. By purchasing the site outright—rather than leasing or contracting for space—DHS appears to have structured the acquisition in a way that remains within the bounds of state law while still allowing ICE to expand its physical presence in Maryland.
The deed does not specify how the facility will be used. DHS has not publicly detailed the site’s intended function, a timeline for operations, or whether the property will be used for detention, processing, or other enforcement-related purposes.
This is a developing story.
Don't stand back and stand by. This is the time to stand up and speak out.
WASHINGTON COUNTY Indivisible / Washington County, Maryland