Kansas tribe ends nearly $30 million ICE contract

The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation said Wednesday night it has pulled out of a nearly $30 million federal contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to develop preliminary designs for immigrant detention facilities.

The decision follows a wave of online criticism and the firing last week of the economic development leaders who brokered the deal. Tribal officials said they will now focus on ensuring that economic interests do not clash with tribal values, and they signaled a broader review of how future contracts with federal agencies are pursued.

The contract had been awarded in October for $19 million to conduct due diligence and concept designs for processing centers and detention facilities across the United States, with the ceiling later raised to $29.9 million. Federal contracting rules generally require competition for contracts above $30 million, but officials characterized the award as a sole-source engagement, leaving questions about why the work was not competitively bid.

In a separate development, a tribal offshoot, KPB Services LLC, was created in Holton, Kansas, in April to pursue federal contracts. Ernest C. Woodward Jr., a former naval officer who markets himself as a consulting adviser for tribes and affiliated companies seeking federal work, helped establish the entity and has been listed as a key figure in related efforts. Woodward also served as chief operating officer of the Florida branch of Prairie Band Construction Inc., a separate tribal enterprise registered in September. Attempts to contact Woodward were unsuccessful, and a spokesperson for Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation said he is no longer with the LLC, though she declined to comment on whether he was terminated.

A spokesperson said the tribe divested from KPB, and while the contract with ICE remains technically active through that entity, the tribe itself no longer has a stake. The spokesperson said Woodward is no longer part of the tribe’s limited liability company.

The contract was controversial from the start. Supporters argued it was a due-diligence effort to understand what detention-site designs might look like, while critics questioned the appropriateness of a tribal government contributing to mass detention policies under the Trump administration. Some Native American observers and activists framed the agreement as a troubling alignment with deportation efforts that historically have targeted Indigenous and other minority communities.

Tribal Chairman Joseph “Zeke” Rupnick acknowledged the historical sensitivities around Indian policy last week in a video address that framed reservations as a historic form of detention. On Wednesday, he announced that the nation has exited all third-party interests affiliated with ICE, and he said the tribe would meet in January to discuss how to ensure that economic initiatives do not come into conflict with its values.

The timing of the withdrawal comes as questions linger over why the federal government selected a single private firm for such a large, multi-district concept-design contract without competitive bidding and whether the tribal council had full visibility into who stood to benefit from the arrangement. DHS and the tribal leadership have not provided detailed answers to questions about the selection process or the scope of the tribe’s involvement.

Analysts note that the ICE contract captured attention partly because several Native nations have youthfully active development offices and are increasingly participating in federal procurement efforts. Critics argued the arrangement could set a precedent for future tribal involvement in immigration policy, a topic that has risen to national prominence amid ongoing debates over detention and reform.

The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation has a diversified portfolio of health care management, staffing, contracting and design services, and officials stressed that decisions about future contracts will be guided by the tribe’s core values. The January meeting is expected to outline a framework for governance and procurement to safeguard against conflicts of interest while pursuing economic development opportunities.

As this develops, federal officials have not publicly commented on the decision beyond noting that the contract was awarded and that modifications were made in the fall. DHS representatives did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding the rationale for the sole-source approach or the review process following the withdrawal.

The case underscores the ongoing tension in U.S. politics between pursuing economic development within tribal economies and navigating the broader, highly contested immigration policy environment. It also highlights how public scrutiny and internal governance concerns can influence contracts that straddle tribal sovereignty and federal policy.