TWENTY-THREE DEAD: Inside the Torture, Neglect, and Silence of ICE Detention

An AllenAnalysis investigative report

There are numbers that a government can hide behind and numbers that break through the wall of official language. Twenty-three is the latter. Twenty-three people have died in immigration detention this year under the Trump administration, a total that eclipses previous years and forces a painful question into the national conversation. Who were these people, and what happened inside the walls of a system that operates with almost no public visibility?

Two names rise to the surface first because their stories refuse to stay buried. They belong to men who entered the custody of the United States alive and left it dead. The government has explanations for both deaths, but the details do not match the narratives offered. When the explanations collapse, what remains is a portrait of an institution that is failing at the most basic level. It is responsible for human lives and cannot explain how those lives ended.

The first name is Chaofeng Ge. He was sixty-one years old. He came to the United States from China seeking the same stability and opportunity that drew millions to this country. He died inside the Bergen County Jail in New Jersey while held under contract for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE told Congress that Ge died by suicide. They presented the explanation with the kind of bureaucratic certainty that often passes for truth in federal reporting. But the explanation began to unravel almost immediately.

Members of Congress reviewing Ge’s case discovered that he had been found with both his hands and both his feet tied behind his back. They were told that a man with his limbs bound in this way had somehow managed to kill himself. There was no plausible method for such an act. There was only the stark and deeply unsettling fact of a body positioned in a way no suicide victim could arrange. Representative Pramila Jayapal stated publicly that the circumstances simply did not add up. She accused ICE of lying to Congress about the cause of death and about the conditions in which Ge was found. Her accusation was not rhetorical. It was a judgment rooted in anatomical impossibility.

The second name is Randall Esquivel. He did not die inside an ICE facility. He died because ICE deported him while he was in a vegetative state. Esquivel became gravely ill in custody. Advocates say his medical decline was rapid and preventable. Instead of transferring him to a hospital equipped to care for him, ICE placed him on a deportation flight. He was unconscious for the journey. He arrived in his home country unable to speak, unable to move, unable to understand where he was. He died soon after.

This is not a story that can be softened by euphemism. A man who required intensive medical care was expelled from the United States while incapacitated. The government of the United States delivered a dying man across a border rather than take responsibility for the deterioration that happened under its watch. His death is not simply a tragedy. It is a case study in institutional abandonment.

Twenty-three deaths in a single year do not happen by accident. They happen because the system is structured in a way that allows suffering to accumulate without intervention. The detention network is sprawling, fragmented, and opaque. It relies heavily on county jails and private facilities where accountability is thin and oversight is inconsistent. ICE often supplies the narrative that frames each death. Medical evidence and autopsy reports are sometimes delayed or incomplete. Families are left in the dark. Advocacy groups spend months piecing together timelines that should have been transparent from the beginning.

Behind every case is a gap. A gap in medical attention. A gap in monitoring. A gap in truthful reporting. A gap where a human life was lost because no one with authority intervened.

In Ge’s case, the gaps begin long before his death. Internal logs show time periods in which he should have been checked but was not. Surveillance footage that should exist either has not been released or has never been acknowledged. The facility told Congress one story. The position of his body told another. When a man is discovered with his hands and feet tied behind him, the question is not how he died. The question is who placed him in that position and why.

In Esquivel’s case, the absence of justification is even more striking. Why was a man in a vegetative state deported at all? What policy would allow the removal of someone who could not consent, could not defend himself, and could not survive the journey? The deportation raises legal, ethical, and humanitarian questions that ICE has not answered. Deporting a conscious detainee is one thing. Deporting an unconscious one is something else entirely.

These two cases are not anomalies. They are emblematic. They illustrate the extreme ends of a spectrum of neglect. On one end lies abuse. On the other hand lies abandonment. The twenty-three deaths span the full range between those poles. Medical neglect is the most common pattern. Detainees report being denied insulin, heart medication, psychiatric care, and emergency treatment until their conditions become irreversible. Reports from oversight bodies detail suicides that occurred because checks were skipped. They describe detainees placed in solitary confinement without monitoring. They describe lapses in interpreter use that left people unable to communicate symptoms of distress.

ICE’s internal reviews often use language that obscures responsibility. Deaths are framed as unfortunate outcomes rather than systemic failures. Individual circumstances are highlighted while the structural failures that allowed the deaths to occur are minimized. Each case is treated as isolated, even when the patterns are identical.

The political landscape has exacerbated the crisis. The Trump administration’s approach to immigration has prioritized detention as a tool of deterrence. The logic is simple. If detention is harsh, fewer people will attempt to cross. This logic has produced facilities that struggle to manage the volume of detainees. Medical units are overwhelmed. Staffing levels fall behind. Oversight mechanisms crumble under the weight of volume. A system that barely functioned under smaller caseloads has not been able to absorb the increase.

The administration insists that deaths in custody are rare and that ICE provides high-quality medical care. The data contradicts this narrative. Twenty-three deaths in one year represent one of the highest totals in the agency’s recent history. Each death is a data point that reveals a deeper truth. The system is not designed to preserve life. It is designed to contain bodies. Once that purpose is fulfilled, the moral responsibility becomes secondary.

The deaths inside immigration detention do not occur in a vacuum. They take place inside facilities that operate behind layers of contractual distance. ICE runs very few of its own buildings. It relies on county jails and private detention centers, each with its own staff, medical team, surveillance system, and internal culture. The government contracts these facilities to hold people in federal custody, but the responsibility for care is transferred into environments that do not always follow federal standards, and in some cases do not understand them. This fragmented structure allows responsibility to diffuse until no one can be held accountable.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General has documented persistent deficiencies in detainee medical care for years. Reports have described expired medication in exam rooms, improper suicide prevention procedures, and cases in which detainees were not seen by medical staff for days while experiencing acute symptoms. The findings are not sensational. They are clinical, bureaucratic, and devastating. They show that the system has been signaling collapse long before the twenty-three deaths that mark this year. The difference now is scale. What was once described as a pattern has become a crisis.

In this crisis, families receive incomplete information. Advocates spend months requesting documents that should be surrendered immediately. Legal teams are left to reconstruct timelines from fragments. One of the most disturbing features of these cases is the lack of reliable surveillance footage. Many facilities claim that cameras were not positioned properly. Others say footage was erased as part of routine system cycling. These explanations might be plausible in isolation. They are not plausible when repeated across multiple cases over multiple years. When deaths occur inside government custody, transparency is not optional. It is the minimum standard for credibility.

The death of Chaofeng Ge is particularly instructive because the physical evidence contradicts the official claim so visibly. When an agency insists on a narrative that does not fit the facts, the question becomes why that narrative was chosen. Representative Jayapal accused ICE of lying about the circumstances of Ge’s death, and her allegation is supported by the internal inconsistencies she uncovered. In her public remarks, she said, “He was found with his hands and feet tied behind his back. That simply does not add up” (Jayapal, 2025). Her statement is not political rhetoric. It is a factual observation that ICE has not refuted.

The case of Randall Esquivel exposes a different failure. Deporting an unconscious man defies basic standards of medical ethics. The United Nations has defined the removal of individuals in medical crisis as a violation of international norms. ICE has not provided a full explanation for Esquivel’s deportation. They have not explained why medical care in the United States was deemed unnecessary. They have not explained who authorized the transport or what procedure allowed such a decision to be made. The silence around his case feels less like bureaucratic caution and more like an attempt to avoid public scrutiny.

As the number of deaths grows, a national conversation has begun to shift. Members of Congress are not only questioning ICE’s conduct. They are questioning the structure of the system itself. Hearings have focused on the use of solitary confinement, the lack of medical professionals on staff, and the absence of language access for detainees who cannot communicate their symptoms. Several lawmakers have called for a full audit of deaths in custody. They argue that the government has a constitutional obligation to safeguard those it detains, regardless of immigration status.

The constitutional point is not theoretical. The Supreme Court has consistently held that individuals in government custody have the right to adequate medical care. When those rights are violated, the government is responsible. The deaths of twenty-three people in one year raise the question of whether ICE is capable of meeting this constitutional standard. If the agency cannot protect the lives of people under its control, the government must confront the reality that the system is not only broken but is failing in ways that violate fundamental rights.

The human cost is the most difficult part of this story because it cannot be quantified. Each death leaves a family without answers. Each loss is a life cut short in a place where the government had full responsibility. The numbers tell one story, but the silence tells another. It is the silence of people who feared retaliation if they spoke. It is the silence of families who received official notices without explanations. It is the silence that accumulates in facilities where oversight has become a formality rather than a safeguard.

One of the most haunting aspects of these deaths is the sense that many were preventable. Medical neglect does not require malicious intent. It only requires inattention, understaffing, and a system that prioritizes detention over care. When care becomes secondary, deterioration becomes predictable. When deterioration becomes predictable, death becomes a matter of time.

The political dimension cannot be separated from the human one. Policies that expand detention directly increase the likelihood of medical failure. When more people are placed in facilities that are already strained, oversight diminishes. The rise in deaths is not coincidental. It is a function of scale. A system that struggled to maintain safe conditions under smaller caseloads cannot survive the pressures imposed by large-scale detention strategies.

The question facing the country is simple. It is not about immigration policy. It is about the boundaries of government responsibility. If the government chooses to detain, then it must protect. If it cannot protect, then detention becomes an exercise in cruelty rather than law. Twenty-three deaths force the question into the open. How many more before the system is reevaluated?

The stories of Chaofeng Ge and Randall Esquivel are not outliers. They are evidence. They show what happens when an institution loses control of its moral obligations. They show the collapse that occurs when transparency disappears. They show the cost of treating human beings as administrative burdens rather than lives.

The death count is a statistic. The conditions that produced it are a warning. These cases do not ask for attention. They demand it. The government cannot detain people and then claim surprise when neglect produces tragedy. The tragedies are built into the architecture of the system. Until the architecture changes, the outcomes will remain the same.

This year’s twenty-three deaths mark a threshold. They reveal a system that has crossed into crisis. They reveal an agency that cannot explain the most basic failures under its authority. They reveal a pattern that lawmakers, advocates, and experts now describe as a humanitarian emergency. The question is not whether the system is broken. The question is whether the country has the will to confront what the system has become.

---

If you believe in independent reporting that exposes the truth others overlook, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support sustains this work.

---

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (2024). Deaths in ICE Detention. https://www.aclu.org

Human Rights Watch. (2024). Code Red: Medical Neglect in Immigration Detention. https://www.hrw.org

Jayapal, P. (2025). Public statement on Chaofeng Ge’s death [Speech]. X.com.

Office of Inspector General. (2023). Concerns About ICE Detainee Care. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

WHAT TO READ: