ProPublica Exposes McKinsey's ICE Work Through FOIA Lawsuit: 1,500 Pages Reveal Detention Cost-Cutting Proposals

ProPublica publishes a bombshell investigation co-published with The New York Times revealing the full extent of McKinsey’s controversial work with ICE, based on 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The documents expose that McKinsey proposed cuts in spending on food for migrants, medical care, and supervision of detainees—recommendations so harsh that even career ICE staff viewed them as too extreme.

The investigation reveals that McKinsey consultants became so driven to save money that they sometimes ignored and even complained to agency managers about ICE staffers who objected that cost-cutting proposals risked jeopardizing the health and safety of migrants. Internal emails show ‘heated meetings’ where agency staff questioned whether saving pennies on food and medical care justified the potential human cost. The documents directly contradict McKinsey’s 2018 claims that the firm ’never focused on developing, advising or implementing immigration policies.’

ProPublica’s FOIA litigation represents aggressive accountability journalism, forcing the government to disclose documents that McKinsey and ICE wanted to keep secret. The investigation uncovers the March 30, 2017 internal ICE email stating McKinsey was ’looking for ways to cut or reduce standards because they are too costly,’ and the October 2017 contracting document crediting McKinsey with ‘increased total removals and reductions in time to remove a detainee.’

After publication, McKinsey posts an 800-word statement on its website criticizing the article and pays to have the statement treated as a Google advertisement appearing above the original article in search results—an aggressive public relations counter-attack. However, McKinsey neither challenges the authenticity of the documents ProPublica cites nor provides evidence contradicting them. When ProPublica sends McKinsey copies of 15 documents totaling 297 pages cited in the article, the firm does not dispute any of them.