Newsom's 25% Detention Tax: The Truth About His War on ICE

Gavin Newsom can't ban federal immigration enforcement — so he's decided to tax it out of existence instead. That's not hyperbole. That's exactly what AB 1633 does, and anyone pretending otherwise is either confused or lying.

Earlier this week, Newsom signed a bill imposing a 25% tax on the gross income of private detention facilities in California — every single one of which happens to partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The governor even boasted about the intent in his own press release: "If we can't kick out private facilities, we'll go after their profits." He said the quiet part loud, and we should take him at his word.

This is not a nuanced policy debate about detention reform. This is a calculated effort by a sitting governor to financially strangle the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law within California's borders. And the mechanism is as cynical as it gets: rather than pass a law that would be immediately struck down in court as a direct interference with federal authority, Newsom is using the state's taxing power as a proxy weapon.

Eight Facilities. All Private. All at Risk.

Here's what makes this law so immediately dangerous: California is home to eight ICE detention facilities, and every single one of them is privately operated. The GEO Group — one of the largest corrections companies in the country — owns five of them. Imperial Valley Gateway Center LLC owns another. Two more, recently purchased by the Department of Homeland Security, are operated under contract by CoreCivic, with agreements running through 2027 and 2029.

Now imagine you're an executive at GEO Group or CoreCivic. AB 1633 hits your gross income — not your net, not your profits after expenses, but your gross income — with a 25% levy. That is an existential financial burden for facilities that already operate on government contract margins. The calculus for walking away from California operations becomes very simple, very fast.

And if those eight facilities go dark? ICE's total national detention capacity sits at roughly 66,000 beds. Losing all of California's privately operated infrastructure doesn't just shrink a number on a spreadsheet — it directly hampers the federal government's ability to detain individuals who have entered this country illegally and are awaiting legal proceedings. That's not a conservative talking point. That's arithmetic.

The "Due Process" Smokescreen

Newsom's team has framed the revenue generated by this tax as going to a so-called "Due Process for All Fund," earmarked for immigration-related legal services. Let's call this what it is: California will be taxing federal immigration enforcement operations and using the proceeds to fund legal resistance to those same operations. The state is essentially laundering hostility toward federal law through a nonprofit-sounding fund name.

We'd have more respect for the honesty of just saying, "We don't want ICE operating here." Instead, the bill wraps a sledgehammer in the language of civil rights. Don't be fooled by the branding.

The Federal Workaround — And Why It Won't Be Pretty

The federal government isn't without options, and that's precisely where this policy gets complicated for everyone — including California residents. When private contractors become too costly or too legally embattled to operate in the state, the government will be forced to look at converting existing federally owned properties — warehouses, office buildings, decommissioned facilities — into detention space.

Federal property is entirely outside the reach of California's taxing authority. Newsom cannot touch it. But those facilities won't be purpose-built detention centers. They'll be improvised, likely less equipped, and potentially less humane than the private facilities Newsom is so eager to destroy. If the governor genuinely cares about the treatment of detainees — and his rhetoric suggests he does — then his own law is about to make their conditions worse, not better.

We think it's worth asking: did Newsom think this through, or does he simply not care about the downstream consequences as long as he gets the headlines?

The Bigger Constitutional Question Nobody Is Asking Loudly Enough

AB 1633 doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2028 — conveniently timed for the final year of President Trump's second term. But the legal questions it raises are immediate and profound. The federal government's authority over immigration enforcement is not ambiguous. It is enumerated, settled, and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. A state using its taxing power to specifically and deliberately impair the federal government's exercise of that authority is constitutionally suspect, at minimum.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at a conservative-leaning think tank and an immigration enforcement expert, put it plainly: there is only one purpose to this tax increase, and that is to ensure no private contractor in California is willing to lease space to the federal government. That's not an aggressive interpretation — it's the governor's own stated goal.

The legal challenges, when they come, will be fierce. And they should be. A governor does not get to financially veto federal law simply because he disagrees with it. If that precedent stands, every blue state becomes a sanctuary from federal authority on any issue it dislikes, and every red state follows suit on issues they oppose. That's not federalism. That's the dissolution of a functioning national government.

AB 1633 is a test case, a provocation, and a political audition all at once — and Gavin Newsom knows it. The question is whether the federal government, the courts, and the American public are paying close enough attention to push back before this model spreads. Stay with us. This fight is only getting started.