Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has attempted to subject detained hunger strikers to involuntary medical procedures, including force-feeding, in at least 10 separate cases since Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, according to an investigation by the Guardian. Human rights organizations have widely condemned force-feeding as torture, while immigrant rights advocates and medical experts warn that expanded detentions could subject more individuals to these invasive procedures.
The Mechanics of ICE Force-Feeding Operations
The process to authorize and execute involuntary force-feeding inside immigration detention facilities is quick and heavily restricted from public view. After a detainee refuses food for a designated period, ICE routinely requests emergency court orders from federal judges to bypass standard consent protocols, according to court documents reviewed by the Guardian. In six of the identified cases, detained immigrants lacked legal representation during these legal proceedings, and most associated court records remain sealed.
When a federal judge grants an order, detention facility guards physically restrain the hunger striker while medical personnel insert a nasogastric tube through the nose and down the throat to pump nutritional liquid into the body. Washington DC-based family practice doctor Kate Sugarman, who is active with Doctors for Camp Closure, described the intervention to the Guardian as a painful, traumatizing, and potentially harmful procedure that is rarely justified outside of critical hospital emergencies.
Did you know? According to medical experts cited in the reporting, nasogastric tube feeding performed under physical restraint carries severe risks of esophageal and stomach trauma, making it an extraordinary measure that is rarely utilized for prolonged periods in standard clinical settings.
Case Studies: Prolonged Tube Feeding and Mental Health Interventions
Tracked cases across private and state-run immigration facilities highlight distinct scenarios behind ICE detention walls. In the first major case, an Afghan man detained at the El Valle facility and later transferred to the Port Isabel processing center in south Texas was force-fed daily for nearly six months, beginning in September 2025 and lasting through March 2026, according to federal court filings. Federal judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. ordered the force-feeding without a hearing eight days after the strike began, appointing legal counsel roughly a month later. Dr. Shauna Kincheloe submitted declarations stating the procedure was medically necessary twice a day as the man grew frail and required a wheelchair, before the case was dismissed in March 2026 after he broke his hunger strike.
In a contrasting case highlighting the impact of legal representation, 46-year-old Ukrainian detainee Andriy Shepitsen launched a 68-day hunger strike at the Krome Service processing center in Miami after being denied medication for severe bipolar disorder, according to his attorney, Katie Blankenship. Forty-four days into the strike, ICE sought a force-feeding order backed by a declaration from Dr. Manuel E. Lopez Diaz, who asserted the procedure was necessary. Blankenship intervened on the day the request was filed, leading a federal court to order an independent medical and psychological evaluation at a hospital, where Shepitsen eventually resumed eating before facing removal to Poland.
A third case involved an unrepresented Saudi Arabian woman detained at facilities in Louisiana and Texas who launched a hunger strike in June 2025 to protest her detention. After hospital visits for severe malnutrition and dehydration, ICE sought an emergency force-feeding order backed by Dr. Alisha Wren, clinical director of the Houston facility. Federal judge Alfred H. Bennett scheduled a hearing, but the government moved to dismiss the case on July 8 after the woman broke her strike. She remains in ICE detention in California more than a year later.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is ICE’s policy on hunger strikes?
ICE guidelines monitor detained individuals who refuse food, and when officials deem health risks critical, the agency petitions federal courts for emergency orders to authorize involuntary medical intervention, including nasogastric tube feeding.
Do detained immigrants have access to lawyers during force-feeding requests?
In many documented instances, detained hunger strikers face federal court proceedings without legal representation. Out of 10 reviewed cases, six individuals had no attorney to advocate for them during the emergency court orders.
How do medical professionals view force-feeding in detention?
Human rights groups and independent medical professionals, such as members of Doctors for Camp Closure, have widely condemned the practice, characterizing it as a form of torture rather than routine healthcare.
Stay Informed on Immigration Policy
Sign up for our newsletter to receive investigative updates and reporting on detention facility conditions directly in your inbox.
Related reading