Key facts
- The Trump administration's ICE sought court orders to force-feed at least 10 hunger strikers.
- Involuntary medical procedures, including force-feeding, were confirmed for at least three individuals.
- Detainees often lacked legal representation during court proceedings for these procedures.
- Force-feeding is considered torture by human rights groups and medical ethicists.
- ICE planned to spend over $168,000 in FY2026 on hunger strike equipment and supplies.
Homeland security officials under the Trump administration attempted to subject at least 10 hunger strikers in US immigrant detention to involuntary medical procedures, including force-feeding, according to a Guardian investigation.
Officials performed these procedures on at least three detained immigrants and likely subjected two more to forced treatment, which human rights groups widely consider torture. The other five individuals ended their hunger strikes just before the procedures were to begin. The government has not publicly acknowledged this practice, even as the number of people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increases.
The investigation, based on court records and interviews, reveals the federal government's response to hunger strikes in ICE facilities. Involuntary procedures included force-feeding via a nasal tube, intravenous hydration, involuntary blood draws, and urine sample collection. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested court permission for detention center guards to physically restrain hunger strikers for these procedures.
Specific cases detailed include a Kurdish asylum seeker force-fed for nearly eight months at the Port Isabel facility in Texas before deportation, and another hunger striker at the same facility subjected to forced procedures for nearly six months. A detainee at the Krome facility in Miami faced forced medical procedures for nearly three months, starting shortly before Trump's second inauguration. Filings also suggest likely forced procedures on hunger strikers in Washington state and near Houston, Texas.
In at least five instances, hunger strikers in Texas, Arizona, and Florida ceased their strikes just before forced medical procedures were initiated. The procedures were carried out within the detention centers. Notably, in six reviewed cases, detained immigrants did not have legal representation during the court proceedings that authorized these involuntary medical interventions.
While DHS and ICE have conducted these procedures across administrations, the return of Trump to the White House and a surge in immigration arrests have raised concerns among experts and advocates. Eunice Cho, an immigrant rights attorney, called the administration's actions a 'stark example of the brutality it has unleashed against immigrants.'
The US attorney's office for the western district of Washington confirmed one ICE forced medical procedure case in its jurisdiction since January 1, 2025, involving a Canadian man. A spokesperson stated they work with the court to ensure judges have relevant health information, and that federal district court judges ultimately determine the steps to protect a detainee's life and health.
GEO Group, the private prison company operating two facilities where procedures may have occurred, referred questions to ICE. An ICE document confirmed one involuntary medical procedure in late 2025 and indicated the agency forecasted spending over $168,000 in fiscal year 2026 for hunger strike-related equipment and supplies.
The secretive nature and quick legal processes surrounding these proceedings make the full scope of forced medical procedures unclear. When a hunger striker refuses to eat, DHS, ICE, and federal prosecutors can submit emergency requests to a federal judge, who may quickly grant a court order allowing forced procedures before the detainee can object. Detained immigrants are often not guaranteed legal representation, and may be weak and suffering significant weight loss by the time DHS requests an order.
Medical ethicists emphasize that forcing treatment on someone who is refusing it, even if they are not suicidal but protesting confinement conditions, is unethical and violates bodily autonomy.