The controversial decision to house 30,000 immigrants at Guantánamo Bay, a site infamous for detention abuses, has prompted renewed calls for its permanent closure and accusations of inhumane treatment.
BY PC Bureau
Donald Trump’s executive order instructing the U.S. military to prepare housing for 30,000 immigrants at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has triggered widespread condemnation both domestically and internationally.
Guantánamo Bay, infamous for its history of indefinite detention and reports of torture during the “War on Terror,” has long been a flashpoint for human rights concerns. Established in 2002 under the George W. Bush administration, the facility was used to detain suspected terrorists, often without formal charges or trials. Calls to close the prison intensified over the years, but the facility remains operational despite Barack Obama’s unsuccessful efforts to shut it down.
Donald Trump says there are “30,000 beds in Guantanamo” and will sign an executive order to use it as a migrant detention center.
At its peak, the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp was designed to hold up to 780 detainees.
Clown. Show. pic.twitter.com/vIWheASVVi
— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) January 29, 2025
Trump’s directive to repurpose the facility as a migrant detention center has reignited fierce debate. Amnesty International condemned the move in a statement:
“Guantánamo Bay has been the site of torture, indefinite detention without charge or trial, and other unlawful practices by the U.S. government. President Trump should be using his authority to finally close the prison there, not re-purposing the facility for offshore immigration detention.”
Criticism also came from political figures across the spectrum. Representative Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, wrote:
“Guantánamo is a stain on our nation’s honor. For years, I have advocated for its closure, condemning the abuses and glaring lack of accountability that persist there. This massive expansion into a mass detention camp is morally indefensible and raises significant civil liberties concerns.”
ALSO READ: White House Confirms New Jersey Drones Were Federally Approved
Historians and analysts also drew comparisons to the facility’s origins. Andrés Pertierra, a historian of Cuba, highlighted a troubling parallel:
“This darkly harkens back to why Guantánamo was chosen to hold ‘War on Terror’ detainees in the first place. The U.S. sent Haitian refugees fleeing in the early 90s to Guantánamo because it existed in a legal grey area in international law, limiting their rights and U.S. obligations.”
The order has drawn international condemnation as well. Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, denounced the decision, stating:
“The U.S. government’s decision to imprison migrants at the Guantánamo naval base shows contempt towards the human condition and international law.”
https://t.co/del0Wprd3o “Guantánamo Bay has been the site of torture, indefinite detention without charge or trial, and other unlawful practices by the U.S. government.
— Mynameis…Miro (@zg4ever) January 30, 2025
Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez echoed this sentiment, calling the plan “an act of brutality.”
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib added to the criticism:
“We cannot allow this level of dehumanization to become normalized. We need to shut down Guantánamo once and for all.”
The decision even drew international political backlash, with former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt remarking:
“Hours after Holocaust Memorial Day, Trump opens a prison for immigrants at Guantánamo.”
Despite the widespread condemnation, the Trump administration defended the move as necessary to address what it described as a “border invasion” and to dismantle criminal cartels. The memo from the White House emphasized:
“This memorandum is issued in order to halt the border invasion, dismantle criminal cartels, and restore national sovereignty.”
Guantánamo Bay’s controversial history continues to fuel debates about human rights, civil liberties, and immigration policies in the United States. Trump’s order marks a new chapter in this contentious legacy, raising profound questions about America’s commitment to its values and international obligations
