Los Angeles, CA – In a significant clash over congressional oversight, several members of Congress, including Rep. Norma Torres (D-Pomona) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), have been repeatedly denied entry to an immigrant detention facility at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office in downtown Los Angeles. These members, attempting unannounced inspections, were barred entry as part of what experts describe as an unlawful shift in policy by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The incident began the day after immigration raids commenced in Los Angeles, when Rep. Torres and three other congress members were prevented from entering the Roybal Federal Building’s detention facility. ICE officials justified the denial citing safety concerns due to protests, although Torres described the protests as small and peaceful. She was hospitalized for respiratory treatment following exposure to chemical agents used during the protest dispersion.
This denial of access marks a departure from the established tradition allowing members of Congress to conduct oversight through unannounced visits to facilities. Jim Townsend, director of the Carl Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy, criticized the move as an infringement on the checks and balances system integral to U.S. governance. “Denying members of Congress access is a direct assault on our oversight system,” he said.
Despite subsequent attempts by Rep. Gomez, Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), and others to access the facility, they were consistently turned away. This ongoing refusal stands in contrast to federal statutes, which mandate that lawmakers must not be barred from entering detention facilities operated by the Department of Homeland Security. The law further specifies that members of Congress do not need to provide prior notice for visits intended for oversight.
ICE’s recent guidelines require a 72-hour notice for visits by lawmakers, although this stipulation does not align with the legal provisions for congressional access. ICE has defended its position by differentiating between detention facilities and field offices, claiming the oversight law does not apply to the latter, despite signage at the location identifying it as a “Metropolitan Detention Center.”
Gomez, visibly frustrated, questioned the validity of the ICE distinction, highlighting the poor conditions reported within these centers. Reports suggest detainees endure inadequate living conditions, including insufficient food and lack of access to legal counsel.
Some lawmakers, like Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), have succeeded in visiting other facilities, such as the Adelanto ICE Processing Facility, underscoring the inconsistency in ICE’s access policy. However, the overall trend of blocking access persists, drawing sharp rebuke from various Congress members.
The ICE guidelines have also faced criticism for allegedly serving as a pretext to limit oversight. Homeland Security officials, including Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, argue that the guidelines are necessary to ensure safety amid rising disruptions and assaults.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), a key figure on the House Homeland Security Committee, condemned the policy as a smokescreen to obstruct oversight. He emphasized that the facilities in question are subject to inspection and oversight, despite DHS’s contrary assertions.
The issue has garnered historical context, with experts pointing to long-standing practices where congressional oversight involved unannounced visits, dating back to President Harry Truman’s tenure as a senator.
The controversy has political ramifications, with some lawmakers speculating that the Trump administration seeks to obscure facility conditions from public scrutiny. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) recounted being forcibly removed and handcuffed during an attempt to confront Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, highlighting the contentious nature of the oversight battle.
As tensions escalate, there are calls among lawmakers for punitive measures against federal officials who deny access, and discussions are underway to explore legal actions to enforce compliance with oversight laws.
