When Representatives Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano) and Sara Jacobs (D-San Diego) arrived for a surprise inspection of the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego on Monday, they expected to conduct a standard oversight visit. They were allowed through the gates, but the mission hit a wall the moment they asked to speak with the people being held inside.
Instead of introductions to detainees, local personnel handed the lawmakers a memo dated that same day. Signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, the document outlined a sweeping new policy: members of Congress must now seek advance approval to speak with detainees, identifying specific individuals by name at least two business days before a visit and providing a signed consent form from each person.
The policy shift represents the latest escalation in a protracted battle between the Trump administration and congressional critics over the transparency of the nation’s immigrant detention system. As the administration ramps up its mass deportation campaign, lawmakers argue that the ability to conduct unannounced visits is the only remaining check on facility conditions.
For Rep. Levin, the new restrictions effectively neutralize the utility of oversight. “I think it’s a deliberate effort to make sure we don’t hear from people in ICE custody,” he said, noting that the requirement for pre-approved names and consent forms eliminates the possibility of hearing from those who might be suffering in silence or facing retaliation.
The ‘Unsustainable Burden’ of Oversight
In the memo, acting Director Lyons framed the restrictions as a matter of operational necessity rather than political shielding. He argued that the sheer volume of congressional visits has become a “hindrance to ICE operations,” pulling staff away from primary law enforcement duties to facilitate legislative requests.
Lyons specifically pointed to requests for “open-ended” engagement—such as lawmakers asking to speak with any detainee held longer than 90 days—as a primary source of strain. He characterized these requests as a “separation of powers issue,” arguing that ICE is being unfairly tasked with performing the legislative duties of members of Congress.
Lauren Bis, acting assistant public affairs secretary at Homeland Security, echoed this sentiment in an email, suggesting that many of these visits are “just for a media act” rather than legitimate oversight. She claimed that without the new support structures, such visits could threaten the safety of personnel, detainees, and the lawmakers themselves.
Rep. Levin countered that the surge in visits is a direct result of the administration’s decision to dismantle internal watchdogs. He pointed to the gutting of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office of the Immigrant Detention Ombudsman as the primary drivers of external scrutiny.
“They gutted the internal oversight and then complained that the external oversight is too active, then issued a memo to restrict it,” Levin said. “All of that only makes sense if the goal is no oversight.”
A Legal Tug-of-War
The new memo arrives amidst a complex legal struggle. In July, Democratic House members sued the administration after being repeatedly denied access to facilities. Under federal law, funds cannot be used to prevent a member of Congress from inspecting a detention facility operated by or for Homeland Security.
The legal landscape has shifted rapidly in recent months:
- February: A federal judge blocked a previous administration policy that required lawmakers to provide seven days’ notice before visiting.
- Last Friday: An appellate court in Washington denied the government’s request to restore that seven-day notice requirement, ruling that the administration failed to prove the visits were harmful.
- The Caveat: Despite the immediate win for lawmakers, the appellate panel noted that the members of Congress may “have no standing to maintain this lawsuit,” suggesting the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal in the long run.
The discrepancy in visit frequency cited by ICE highlights the scale of the current political friction:
| Period | Average Annual Congressional Visits |
|---|---|
| Prior 10 Fiscal Years | Approx. 45 |
| Fiscal Year 2025 | 150+ |
| Current FY (as of May 11) | Approx. 200 |
The Human Cost of Closed Doors
The urgency behind these visits is underscored by a rising death toll. Eighteen people have died in immigrant detention facilities so far this year, putting 2026 on track to be the agency’s deadliest year in more than two decades. Last year, 32 people died in custody.
Reports from various centers have highlighted a pattern of overcrowding, insufficient medical care, and the widespread use of force. During Monday’s visit to Otay Mesa—which holds 1,008 detainees, including 864 men and 144 women—Levin was forced to rely on observation alone. He tested the facility’s water and sampled the food (chili, salad, corn, chips, and cake), describing the meal as “fine,” though not award-winning.
At one point, Levin attempted to ask a detainee how a provided tablet worked, only to be interjected by an employee reminding him of the new policy. Levin noted that while observation is necessary, the true state of a facility cannot be understood without unplanned, candid conversations with the people living there.
Disclaimer: This report covers ongoing legal disputes and government policy. For official legal guidance regarding congressional oversight and federal law, refer to the U.S. Code and official court filings.
The legality of the new memo is currently under review by lawyers representing Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), the lead plaintiff in the existing lawsuit over oversight access. Any further challenges to the policy are expected to be filed in the coming weeks as lawmakers determine if the “advance approval” requirement violates the spirit of the federal law protecting facility inspections.
Do you believe congressional oversight should be unannounced, or is ICE’s concern for operational security valid? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
