HAGERSTOWN, Md. – Advocates opposing a proposed ICE detention center in Washington County believe the project remains active despite recent statements from the Department of Homeland Security suggesting they have no immediate plans to retrofit a warehouse for detention use.
They say ongoing construction and site work indicate the project has not been canceled or even paused.
In a recent court filing tied to litigation brought by the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, DHS told a federal judge it would not “imminently” pursue retrofitting the facility. Advocates said that language has been widely misinterpreted as a halt to the project.
They said that interpretation is not supported by details in the same filing. The documents indicate that substantial work at the property is still underway.
According to court records, ongoing work includes roof repairs, HVAC upgrades, perimeter fencing and installation of security camera infrastructure. Plans also include construction of administrative office space for ICE personnel.
“This is not a cancellation. It is a litigation tactic,” said Ethan Wechtaluk, a member of Hagerstown Rapid Response and a Democratic congressional candidate. He said the public should not confuse legal language with a policy change and that the site continues to be developed.
Wechtaluk said the group believes the federal government is attempting to reduce political and legal pressure while maintaining flexibility to proceed. He said the language is “designed to cool the temperature in the courtroom and in the headlines. But the physical work continues.”
Advocates also raised concerns about a revised detainee capacity figure of 542 cited in recent environmental review materials. That number is significantly lower than the previously discussed 1,500-person capacity.
They said the lower figure has not been accompanied by a formal public explanation or binding commitment. Without such assurances, they said, the facility could still expand.
The group cited ICE’s recent record in Maryland as a reason for skepticism. At a Baltimore holding facility designed for 56 people, detainee numbers reportedly exceeded double that capacity multiple times in 2025.
On one day, the facility held 123 people, according to a federal judge’s findings. Nearly 900 individuals were reportedly held beyond ICE’s 72-hour limit.
Patrick Dattilio, founder of Hagerstown Rapid Response, said the current moment is critical for public engagement. He warned that reduced attention could allow the project to advance with less scrutiny.
“The danger right now is complacency,” Dattilio said. He said institutions can outlast opposition by waiting for public attention to fade.
Dattilio said the group plans to continue applying pressure through public meetings, legal action and media outreach. He said the organization will not scale back its efforts.
“This is the moment to increase pressure, not reduce it,” he said. He called for continued protests, public records requests and engagement with officials.
Advocates also pointed to a March 27 Federal Register notice in which DHS adopted five new categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act. They said the changes could reduce environmental oversight and public participation.
One exclusion could allow excavation, grading and road construction to proceed without a full environmental review. Advocates said that could enable major site work without an environmental impact statement.
“DHS is telling the public one thing while quietly expanding its ability to avoid review,” said Heather Tapley, an organizer with Hagerstown Rapid Response. She said residents deserve transparency and a role in decisions affecting the community.
Wechtaluk said the timing of the policy changes is concerning given the ongoing lawsuit. He said DHS appears to be creating tools to bypass review while the case is still active.
County Administrator Michelle Gordon has repeatedly said publicly that Washington County did not initiate or control the proposed ICE project and that the county’s involvement began when it received a Jan. 14 DHS notice about the Wright Road property, which federal officials said they were evaluating for holding and processing space, offices and related amenities.
In subsequent Board of County Commissioners meetings, Gordon said the county’s role remains limited because the site is under federal jurisdiction and local officials face legal constraints on what action they can take, while also relaying after a meeting with DHS that the facility was being described to county leaders as a short-term processing or booking center where detainees would typically stay three to seven days before being transferred elsewhere.
Organizers said they will continue coordinating weekly protests outside Washington County Commissioners meetings. They also plan to pursue additional public records requests and maintain legal and media pressure.
“We are not treating softened language as a win,” Wechtaluk said. He said the effort will continue until the project is formally canceled in writing.
