Guantanamo Migrants Gain Limited Phone Access to Attorneys Amid Legal Push

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

On February 20, 2025, Guantanamo Bay detainees gained court-ordered phone access to attorneys, but in-person visits remain denied.
Nearly 180 Venezuelan immigrants are held at the facility under final deportation orders; policies allegedly limit their legal rights.
The Trump administration plans to expand Guantanamo’s migrant detention capacity, raising concerns over access to legal resources and transparency.

On February 20, 2025, a court filing revealed that migrants detained at the U.S. naval station in Guantanamo Bay 🇨🇺 are now allowed to contact their attorneys through phone calls. This move comes after ongoing legal and political debates surrounding the Trump administration’s earlier decision to transfer undocumented migrants to the facility. Amid these changes, several challenges and questions remain about the treatment and rights of the detainees.

The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., directed officials to provide detainees at Guantanamo Bay with phone access to their legal counsel. Responding to this order, the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Defense confirmed compliance in the same court filing. However, the federal agencies opposed allowing detainees in-person meetings with their attorneys or any form of communication with family members. As of now, only phone calls are allowed, with no clarity on whether the policies may be expanded in the future.

Guantanamo Migrants Gain Limited Phone Access to Attorneys Amid Legal Push

Currently, nearly 180 Venezuelan immigrants are being held at the facility. Among these, 51 are housed in low-security tents, while 127 are confined in high-security areas. All the detainees are under final deportation orders to Venezuela 🇻🇪, which the United States government argues limits their legal rights under current immigration laws. The detainees were transported to Guantanamo Bay in February 2025 following President Donald Trump’s January decision to expand the naval station’s detention capacity to accommodate up to 30,000 migrants. Currently, the low-security portion of the facility can hold around 2,500 individuals.

The transfer of these migrants began on February 4, 2025, with regular flights from a U.S. Army base in West Texas to the naval site in Cuba 🇨🇺. Migrant rights groups and legal advocates have criticized this process, arguing that it isolates individuals in a remote location far from legal representation or oversight. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a leading legal and advocacy organization, has been vocal in its opposition to these measures.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on February 12, 2025, on behalf of detainees’ relatives and legal organizations seeking better access to individuals held at Guantanamo. The lawsuit asserts that detainees have constitutional and federal rights to consult with attorneys, including in-person meetings. Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney representing the ACLU in this case, described the administration’s policies as “shocking” and warned that they could set a dangerous example for future actions if upheld. The ACLU demanded not just virtual access via phone but immediate in-person contact between attorneys and detainees as well.

Adding to the public debate are statements from senior administration officials that attempt to characterize the detainees as severe threats. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem reportedly referred to the migrants detained at Guantanamo as “the worst of the worst,” claiming they include gang members and individuals with records of serious crimes, such as murder and rape. However, government documents reveal that the population also includes law-abiding migrants deemed nonviolent. This has led to accusations that the administration is broadly labeling all detainees as high-risk to justify their transfer to a facility shrouded in controversy.

Advocacy groups have strongly pushed back against this rhetoric. Many accuse the administration of holding detainees in a “legal black box,” thereby preventing transparency and accountability. Critics argue that this strategy isolates detainees from lawyers and their families without due process to challenge the seriousness of alleged criminal links or legal standing to remain in the United States. Attempts to learn more about the detainees’ backgrounds or individual circumstances have been largely thwarted, as U.S. officials have declined to share personal details publicly about those transported to Guantanamo.

A separate legal effort is also underway to obtain greater rights for detainees. Three migrants held at Guantanamo have filed a lawsuit calling for more extensive communication rights. This includes unmonitored phone calls and in-person access to legal counsel. The lawsuit further requests advanced notification for detainees prior to any transfers or potential deportations to ensure adequate preparation and legal support. Until now, detainees have not been granted in-person meetings with their attorneys. In its defense, the Trump administration has cited logistical challenges, claiming it is difficult to facilitate such visits at the naval base. Officials also argue that phone access alternatives prevent the need for in-person meetings, given the relatively short stays of migrants at Guantanamo before deportation.

The developments surrounding Guantanamo Bay have led to widespread condemnation from immigrant rights organizations. Critics highlight the problematic nature of using a facility historically linked with controversial detention practices as part of U.S. immigration policy. Jennifer Babaie, who serves as the director of advocacy and legal services for Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, said, “Guantanamo is a breeding ground for violence, abuse, and neglect.” She further accused officials of targeting Venezuelan immigrants with the aim of advancing political goals instead of addressing the actual needs or circumstances of the individuals. Babaie and others see the decision to send migrants to an offshore site as a form of “political theater.”

Another organization, the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), has also criticized the ongoing situation. Deepa Alagesan, a senior attorney with IRAP, stated that transferring individuals without guaranteeing legal access was both “illegal” and morally wrong. She recalled previous battles for refugee clients detained at Guantanamo, including long waits for any meaningful legal contact. Alagesan emphasized the broader consequences such a policy could have on future immigration cases.

The Trump administration has outlined its long-term plans to send tens of thousands more migrants to Guantanamo. This has alarmed civil rights organizations, which argue that the growing use of offshore detention facilities risks establishing a troubling precedent. Advocacy groups fear a scenario where the U.S. government systematically isolates immigrants from access to adequate legal resources. They argue that this approach contradicts core principles of America’s immigration system, which is meant to guarantee rational oversight and basic protections for all individuals.

Despite this latest court ruling that permits phone contact with attorneys, the issue remains far from resolved. Questions persist about how reliably these phone calls will work and whether they will be monitored. Immigrant rights advocates also question whether limited access to resources will be enough for detainees to effectively explore options to contest removal or address other legal challenges. In addition, the government’s continued resistance to providing in-person visits or access to families suggests future legal battles are likely.

The use of Guantanamo Bay as an immigrant detention center signals a significant turning point in U.S. immigration enforcement and policy. Examining its broader implications, many worry about how such actions will influence the rights of migrants, especially those seeking refuge or asylum. Meanwhile, legal actions, including the ACLU lawsuit and others, aim to heighten scrutiny and demand transparency.

As these cases unfold, the stakes remain high for the detainees, their families, and the legal teams involved. Though the court’s decision to allow phone access is seen as a critical first step, many believe more needs to be done to ensure fairness in how these detainees are treated. For accurate updates on related immigration policies, visit the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website. Analysis from VisaVerge.com emphasizes that the coming months will be key in determining whether offshore detentions, like those at Guantanamo, become normalized within the broader U.S. immigration system.

Learn Today

Guantanamo Bay → U.S. naval base in Cuba historically used for detention, now housing migrants under controversial immigration policies.
Undocumented Migrants → Individuals living or traveling without official immigration documentation or legal authorization in a given country.
Deportation Orders → Legal directives requiring an individual to leave a country, often issued for immigration law violations.
Advocacy Organizations → Groups focused on promoting or defending specific rights, policies, or interests, like those of migrants or detainees.
Offshore Detention → Holding individuals in facilities outside the mainland, often limiting access to legal representation and public oversight.

This Article in a Nutshell

Guantanamo Bay, long a symbol of controversial detention, now houses migrants under deportation orders. Recent court rulings grant detainees phone access to attorneys, but in-person meetings remain barred. Advocacy groups argue this isolates vulnerable individuals, denying due process. As legal battles intensify, Guantanamo’s role in U.S. immigration policy sparks deep ethical concerns.
— By VisaVerge.com