U.S. Representative Demands Answers from ICE Officials
U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey visited the Dallas Immigration and Customs Enforcement office on Monday to demand a response to a lengthy list of complaints about alleged operation violations at the federal facility. Veasey, a Democrat from Fort Worth who represents the 33rd Congressional District, said outside the facility that he and his fellow congressional members have sent several legislative inquiries to ICE staffers that have gone unanswered for months.
The list includes allegations of sleep, water, and food deprivation for inmates as well as prolonged detention of immigrants. Veasey said they have yet to receive any answers or be given any opportunities to enact oversight of the facility.
Allegations of Human Rights Violations
In a letter from Congress members Veasey, Julie Johnson, Farmers Branch, and Jasmine Crockett, Dallas, the elected officials shared a detailed list of “credible reports” of inhumane treatment of detainees while at the Dallas ICE office. Addressed to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, the letter claimed “detainees’ basic human rights” were violated as they were held in detention for over a week, sometimes up to 11 days, without access to running water, air conditioning, or a proper place to sleep.
It’s alleged that the detained migrants were also kept in overcrowded rooms filled with 30 people in a single space during the Texas summer, according to the letter. The letter also referenced reports of a detainee who was not provided medication and mentioned a lack of representation for several others.
Response from ICE Officials
Veasey said he spoke with a supervisor while inside the facility who was unable to answer any questions due to the Dallas office not responding to inquiries on site. “It’s been well over 120 days — we haven’t received any sort of follow-up, any sort of response letting us know the answers to our questions,” Veasey said outside the facility.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Veasey said ICE officials are obligated to answer questions from congressional members regarding operations. The Dallas Morning News did not receive an immediate response to the allegations after contacting ICE officials.
Previous Incidents and Lack of Communication
Following the Sept. 24 shooting at the facility where two detained migrants were killed and the suspected shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, Veasey and Crockett demanded answers from the FBI. While at the agency’s national headquarters, they said they were unable to get anyone from the FBI to return calls or meet with them.
In another letter to Noem and Lyons, the congressional members requested that individuals not be penalized or “classified as no-shows” for not attending appointments when the ICE office closed after the shooting. On Monday, Veasey said they still have not had any communication about the concerns they raised.
Concerns and Next Steps
“They’re being secretive,” he said. “There’s a lot of subterfuge, and there are a lot of just blatant violations of the law that are happening.” Veasey said Congress members will continue to pursue the potential operation violations. If a response from ICE officials does not come soon, he said it may lead to courts stating the office is in violation of the Constitution by not answering the inquiries.
“We’re going to keep asking questions,” he said. “We’re going to keep going through the inquiry process. I know that there are lots of different lawsuits that are being filed, but we’re going to keep moving along.”
U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, speaks with media outside of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Facility on Monday, Oct. 20, 2025, in Dallas. The “congressional inquiries” folder contained letters from Veasy and other members of Congress.
Christine Vo / Staff Photographer
Related Issues
Mayor Eric Johnson has suggested a potential police-ICE partnership could strengthen city resources, but immigrant advocates and six council members have publicly warned that it would erode trust in local police.
Partnership under 287(g) is not the right fit.
