As residents protest, town leaders plead, and a massive federal detention facility moves forward in their backyard, New Hampshire’s governor has declined to say whether she supports or opposes it. That silence is itself a decision—and Granite Staters are taking notice.
By Granite State Report
There is a question hanging over the Governor’s office in Concord that Kelly Ayotte has refused to answer. It is not a complicated question. It does not require a law degree or a policy brief. Residents of Merrimack, elected officials on both sides of the aisle, neighboring governors, and journalists have all asked it in one form or another: Does the Governor of New Hampshire support or oppose the construction of a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in the town of Merrimack?
As of this writing, Governor Ayotte has not provided a clear answer. She has called for “transparency.” She has insisted that local officials deserve “a seat at the table.” She has blamed a state agency for failing to communicate with her office. She has sparred with Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey. She has fired a commissioner. What she has not done is tell the people of New Hampshire—the people she was elected to serve—where she stands.
That silence has become the story.
What Exactly Is Being Proposed in Merrimack
The facility at the center of this controversy sits at 50 Robert Milligan Parkway in Merrimack, a 324,395-square-foot warehouse on a 43-acre parcel of land. The property is currently owned by a holding company headquartered in Texas and Delaware. It is visible from the F.E. Everett Turnpike, located in an area zoned for industry and technology, near the defense contractor BAE Systems and the Nashua Airport.
According to documents released by Governor Ayotte’s own office on February 13, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security intends to convert this warehouse into an ICE “processing site” under a program called the “Detention Reengineering Initiative.” The facility would hold between 400 and 600 detainees at a time for an average stay of three to seven days before they are transferred to larger detention centers or deported. DHS has projected a cost of $158 million for the conversion. The target date for the facility to become operational is November 30, 2026.
This is not speculation. These are the federal government’s own documents.
The Merrimack site is one of 16 so-called processing sites planned across the country as part of a broader $38.3 billion expansion of ICE’s detention capacity, funded through President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” The initiative also envisions eight “large-scale detention centers” or “mega-centers,” each designed to hold between 7,000 and 10,000 people for up to 60 days. ICE’s total target bed capacity under this plan exceeds 92,000, alongside plans to hire 12,000 new agents. ICE is now the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country, authorized to spend approximately $80 billion in fiscal year 2026.
A Timeline of Confusion, Denials, and Contradictions
The saga began in late December 2025, when The Washington Post first reported that the Trump administration was planning to convert warehouses across the country into ICE detention centers, identifying Merrimack as a potential site for a facility that could hold up to 1,500 detainees. Local officials were caught completely off guard. Merrimack Town Manager Paul Micali told reporters he first learned about the plan from the Post’s reporting.
On January 7, 2026, Governor Ayotte declined to take a position on the proposed facility, calling the situation “speculative” and saying the federal government had not contacted her about it.
On January 8, hundreds of residents gathered outside Merrimack Town Hall in protest. Inside, more than a dozen residents urged the Town Council to resist the plan. State Representative Nancy Murphy, a Democrat who also serves on the Town Council, said she was morally opposed to housing people in warehouses. “I don’t believe this is who we are,” she said.
On January 23, the Merrimack Town Council sent a formal letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Governor Ayotte, and other state and federal officials, officially opposing the facility. The letter cited a projected $529,000 decrease in tax revenue if the federal government purchased the property, as well as the cost of additional police and fire services that protests and civil disruption would require. Council Chairman Finlay Rothhaus signed the letter.
Throughout January, Ayotte maintained that her office had received no information from the federal government. She said she had reached out to the White House and DHS but received no confirmation.
Then, on February 3, everything changed. The ACLU of New Hampshire published documents obtained through a public records request that confirmed ICE’s plans. Those documents showed that DHS had been in contact with the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources—a division within the state’s Department of Natural and Cultural Resources—since at least January 9, 2026. ICE had sent detailed plans and site assessments to the state agency, initiating a consultation on whether the warehouse conversion would impact historical resources.
The governor’s office claimed it had never been informed of these communications by the department. Ayotte called the failure “unacceptable” and demanded the resignation of the department’s commissioner, Sarah Stewart. Stewart, who had served since June 2018, submitted her resignation effective February 10. She took responsibility for the lapse in communication, but emphasized there was no intent to withhold information or coordinate with the ACLU.
But the contradictions were only beginning.
The ICE Director’s Testimony and the Governor’s Denial
On February 12, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Under questioning from New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan, Lyons stated that DHS officials had “worked with” Governor Ayotte and provided her office with an economic impact summary related to the Merrimack facility. He said these communications had occurred “within the past weeks.”
Governor Ayotte immediately denied it. Her office released a statement calling Lyons’ claims “simply not true” and asserting that DHS had provided “zero details” about their plans.
Then, that same evening, Ayotte’s office released two DHS documents it said it had received after the Senate hearing. One was an economic impact analysis for the Merrimack facility. The other detailed the broader Detention Reengineering Initiative. The governor said her office had inquired about the economic impact study following Lyons’ testimony, and DHS had “for the first time” provided the document.
The credibility problems multiplied from there. Republican State Senator Tim McGough, who represents the district where the facility would be built, reviewed the economic impact report and found glaring errors. The opening paragraph referred to the project’s impact on the “Oklahoma economy.” The document cited sales tax and income tax revenue—neither of which exist in New Hampshire. It also referenced county government; a structure New Hampshire does not use in the way described. McGough called the report “clearly a cut-and-paste job.”
On Friday, February 14, Ayotte released an updated set of documents from DHS with the Oklahoma references removed, but the references to sales and income tax remained unchanged. DHS acknowledged the Oklahoma mention was a “single typo.”
For many residents and local officials, the damage was done.
Eroding Trust: What Merrimack Residents Are Saying
The contradictions between the governor’s public statements and the ICE director’s testimony have left Merrimack residents deeply skeptical.
Luann Benjamin, a retired postal worker who has lived in Merrimack for 25 years, told NHPR she was no longer sure she could believe the governor. “My feeling is that she knew about it, and she’s just using somebody as a fall person,” Benjamin said.
Democratic State Representative Wendy Thomas was blunter. She told reporters she does not believe “for one second” that Ayotte was uninformed about the facility plans.
State Representative Rosemarie Rung, also a Democrat, said learning that ICE officials had been speaking with the governor made her feel like she “was punched in the stomach.” Rung called on Ayotte to be “more assertive in opposing this ICE center.”
Merrimack Town Manager Paul Micali said he was “blindsided” by Lyons’ claims during the Senate hearing and immediately reached out to the governor’s office. Despite weeks of effort, Merrimack’s town government has still not received direct confirmation from federal officials about the facility—despite it apparently being well into the planning stages.
The frustration transcends party lines. Republican Senator McGough has publicly opposed the facility and questioned the validity of the DHS economic analysis. The Merrimack Town Council’s opposition letter was signed by its Republican chairman. Local residents who spoke at the January town meeting included people who identified as politically conservative but morally opposed to the warehousing of human beings in their community.
The Question She Won’t Answer
Here is the central problem: Governor Kelly Ayotte has not said publicly whether she supports or opposes the ICE detention facility in Merrimack.
When asked directly, she has deflected. She has called for the town to be able to share its opinion. She has called for transparency from federal officials. She has said she will “continue to advocate for the Town of Merrimack and for New Hampshire.” She has not said the word “oppose.”
This is a deliberate choice. Governor Ayotte is a former U.S. Senator and former state Attorney General. She is a skilled attorney and experienced politician. She knows the difference between advocating for process and taking a position on substance. She has chosen process.
The likely reason is political. Ayotte signed legislation in 2025 banning sanctuary city policies in New Hampshire, a move that aligned her with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda. She is the only New England governor who has been publicly supportive of ICE and the broader deportation campaign. Opposing the Merrimack facility would put her at odds with the White House and with the base of her own party that supports aggressive immigration enforcement. Supporting it would put her at odds with the bipartisan opposition in Merrimack and risk becoming the face of a deeply unpopular federal project in a swing state.
So she has chosen silence. But silence is not neutrality. When a 324,000-square-foot federal detention facility is being planned in your state, declining to oppose it is functionally the same as allowing it to proceed. The federal government is not asking for the governor’s permission. It is moving forward. The only question is whether the governor will use the weight of her office to resist—or stand aside while it happens.
Ayotte’s posture has drawn criticism not just from Democrats but from residents and officials in her own party. The opposition in Merrimack is not about immigration policy in the abstract. It is about a specific facility, in a specific town, with specific fiscal, safety, and quality-of-life consequences that local officials have documented and communicated clearly.
The Healey Factor: Pressure From Across the Border
On February 14, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey escalated the pressure. In a public statement, Healey called the planned ICE facility “outrageous and absolutely the wrong move for New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and our entire region.” She demanded that Ayotte “do everything in her power to block” the detention center, which would be located approximately 11 miles from the Massachusetts border.
Ayotte fired back. “New England is in this position because Governor Healey and Massachusetts created a billion-dollar illegal immigrant crisis in our region. Get your own house in order, Maura,” Ayotte said. “I will continue to advocate for the Town of Merrimack and for New Hampshire.”
The exchange made for dramatic headlines but obscured the core issue. Whether or not Massachusetts bears responsibility for regional immigration pressures, the question before Ayotte is not about Massachusetts. It is about whether a 400- to 600-bed immigrant detention center should be built in Merrimack, New Hampshire. Healey answered that question. Ayotte still has not.
New Hampshire’s GOP-controlled legislature rallied to Ayotte’s defense against Healey’s demands. House Majority Leader Jason Osborne dismissed Healey’s intervention as political grandstanding. But notably, even some Republican legislators have found the courage to oppose the facility itself—something the governor has not done.
What Is at Stake for Merrimack—and New Hampshire
The concerns raised by Merrimack’s town government are not abstract. The Town Council documented specific fiscal impacts: a $529,000 annual loss in property tax revenue if the federal government takes the warehouse off the tax rolls. Additional costs for police and fire services to handle protests, security concerns, and public safety obligations. Potential decreases in surrounding property values. Strain on local infrastructure never designed to support a federal detention operation.
Beyond the fiscal impacts, there are humanitarian concerns. Existing ICE detention centers across the country have been plagued by allegations of inhumane treatment. According to the ACLU, six people died in ICE custody in just the first six weeks of 2026. Bringing a detention facility to Merrimack would introduce incarceration into a community zoned for technology and industry, fundamentally altering its character.
Residents have also raised practical concerns about safety and security. The facility would require significant law enforcement presence. Protests—which have already drawn hundreds to Merrimack Town Hall—would likely intensify and become sustained. Schools in the area reportedly canceled after-school activities in anticipation of the January 8 protests. Families worry about what it means to raise children in a community that has become a flashpoint in the national immigration debate.
For a state whose motto is “Live Free or Die,” the idea of the federal government imposing a large-scale detention operation over the objections of local officials strikes at the heart of New Hampshire’s identity. Local control is not a talking point in this state. It is a governing philosophy. The Town Council opposed the facility. Residents have spoken overwhelmingly against it. And yet the federal government continues to move forward without meaningful engagement.
What Could the Governor Actually Do?
Critics of the governor’s silence often point out that a governor cannot unilaterally block a federal project. That is true. But it is also beside the point. The governor of New Hampshire wields significant influence—moral, political, and in some cases legal.
A clear public statement of opposition from the governor would signal to the federal government that New Hampshire is not a willing partner in this project. It would embolden local officials and give them political cover to pursue every available legal and regulatory avenue to slow or stop the facility. It would unify the state’s response and present a coherent front to DHS and the White House.
Governors in other states have done exactly this. In Oklahoma, where a similar ICE facility was planned, the project stalled after local opposition intensified and the property owner stopped negotiating with federal authorities. The political will of state and local leaders can matter enormously in these situations, even when the legal authority is limited.
Ayotte could also direct the state’s Attorney General to investigate whether the federal government has complied with all applicable zoning, environmental, and permitting requirements. She could work with the state’s congressional delegation—including Republican members—to advocate directly with DHS. She could use the bully pulpit of the governor’s office to rally public support for Merrimack’s position.
Instead, she has called for “transparency” and “local input” while declining to state her own view. It is the political equivalent of holding the door open while insisting you are not responsible for who walks through it.
The Political Calculus—and Its Cost
Governor Ayotte faces a genuine political dilemma, and it is worth acknowledging that. She governs a state that Trump narrowly lost in 2024. She signed the anti-sanctuary-city bill. She has aligned herself with the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. Opposing the Merrimack facility would mean breaking with the White House on a high-profile issue at a moment when the President’s allies are watching closely.
At the same time, Ayotte is up for re-election. Her approval rating sits at 56 percent, according to Morning Consult. Portsmouth Mayor Deaglan McEachern, a Democrat, is reportedly considering a challenge. The ICE facility controversy has handed potential opponents a ready-made narrative: that Ayotte is unwilling to stand up for New Hampshire communities when it means crossing the Trump administration.
McEachern seized on the contradiction between Ayotte’s public statements and the ICE director’s testimony. “First, we were told she was not informed. Now we learn she had been speaking with DHS for weeks. Both cannot be true. Leadership requires transparency, especially when it comes to federal involvement in our state,” he said.
The political calculus may explain the silence. It does not excuse it. Granite Staters did not elect a governor to manage contradictions. They elected someone to lead. And on the defining local issue of early 2026, Kelly Ayotte has chosen not to.
A Silence That Speaks
The people of Merrimack have spoken. Their Town Council has spoken. Their state representatives have spoken. Their Republican senator has spoken. Hundreds of residents have stood in the January cold outside their Town Hall to make their voices heard. They have written letters, attended meetings, filed public records requests, and pleaded with every level of government to listen.
The governor has heard them. She has acknowledged their concerns. She has released documents. She has fired a commissioner. She has traded barbs with Maura Healey.
She has done everything except answer the question.
In politics, silence is not the absence of a position. It is the most calculated position of all. It allows the silent party to avoid accountability while events proceed. It lets the federal government interpret silence as consent. It lets political allies assume support while critics lack a definitive statement to challenge.
But the people of Merrimack are not parsing political strategy. They are watching a 324,000-square-foot warehouse potentially being converted into a detention center capable of holding 600 people, and they are watching their governor decline to tell them whether she thinks that should happen.
New Hampshire deserves better. Merrimack deserves an answer. And Governor Ayotte’s refusal to provide one is, in the end, an answer in itself.
