Migrants Launch Hunger Strike to Protest Conditions at Florida’s Everglades Detention Camp

A new detention facility built deep in the Florida Everglades has drawn growing concern from immigrant rights advocates who describe deteriorating conditions and a lack of transparency surrounding its operations. Known informally as “Alligator Alcatraz,” the tented compound was opened in early July through an agreement between state authorities, local agencies, and federal immigration officials under the 287(g) program. While federal officials deny that a hunger strike is underway, advocates monitoring the site say at least twelve detainees have refused food for nearly two weeks in protest.

The site has quickly become a point of contention, not only because of its remote location but also due to the severe restrictions placed on access by attorneys, journalists, and civil society observers. From the moment of its launch, which included appearances by national and state leaders, the camp has faced legal scrutiny and mounting accusations from human rights organizations.

Hunger Strike Due to Unsanitary Conditions and Legal Isolation

Advocates claim the facility’s conditions have deteriorated rapidly. According to reports relayed through brief phone calls between detainees and family members, complaints range from insufficient food and a lack of clean water to unsanitary toilets and physical mistreatment by guards. Detainees also describe leaking tents during rainfall and limited access to legal counsel.

As per NBC News, these advocates say they receive updates from detainees during once-daily phone calls, and these accounts are then shared with organizations monitoring the situation. They add that many detainees remain effectively untraceable because the camp’s jurisdiction has yet to be clearly defined. Individuals held there reportedly do not appear on the online locator maintained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, creating complications for both families and attorneys trying to track their whereabouts.

Federal officials, however, insist no hunger strike exists and maintain that all detainees are being offered three meals per day along with sufficient drinking water. They call the accusations false and accuse critics of spreading misleading information that undermines the work of federal agents.

Legal Oversight Complicated by Jurisdictional Ambiguity

A federal judge presiding over a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other legal groups recently acknowledged ongoing confusion over who precisely governs the facility. Although Florida officials have stated that the center is operated in partnership with ICE, the legal structure remains murky. This ambiguity has become central to the case, as attorneys argue that the uncertainty impedes access to legal representation and due process.

The judge has not yet issued a final ruling, though the legal proceedings are expected to continue into the coming weeks. The case remains one of the most closely watched legal battles surrounding immigration enforcement in Florida.

Isolation and Control Raise Civil Rights Concerns

Since its opening, “Alligator Alcatraz” has drawn criticism from immigrant advocates who say the facility operates in a near-opaque fashion. The lack of access for legal advocates and journalists has made independent verification difficult. At the same time, the physical and administrative isolation of the camp, situated far from urban centers, contributes to concerns that rights are being eroded behind closed flaps of canvas and rows of fencing.

The camp’s rapid construction and secretive framework have raised broader questions about the legal standards applied to temporary detention centers in the United States. With immigration policy shifting toward increasingly restrictive measures, legal experts argue that unchecked expansion of detention facilities threatens civil liberties.

As the court deliberates and access remains limited, families of detainees continue to rely on secondhand updates and sporadic communication. Meanwhile, the facility has come to symbolize the divide between public reassurance and private suffering in a landscape shaped by legal uncertainty and isolation.