Google Is Censoring Reviews of ICE Detention Centers

Google has been systematically removing user-generated reviews of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers from its Google Maps platform, according to research conducted by Muira McCammon, a professor at Tulane University's Department of Communication. These reviews, which provide firsthand accounts of the conditions within ICE facilities, have been increasingly shared by individuals affected by the detention process, including family members and former detainees. However, many of these reviews have now disappeared from the platform, raising concerns about transparency and access to critical information about the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers. McCammon began collecting and analyzing reviews from ICE detention sites in early 2025, initially finding over 1,600 posts from 26 facilities where reviews were still permitted. By late 2025, nearly all of these reviews had been removed. Additionally, she found that 91 other ICE detention centers listed on Google Maps had no reviews at all, indicating that the removals had occurred before her initial collection period. Only four facilities currently allow users to submit reviews, according to McCammon. The removal of these reviews has happened without public explanation or notification. In 2023, Google stated in a corporate blog post that it reserves the right to remove reviews deemed “unhelpful, harmful, or off-topic.” It cited examples such as police stations and prisons, where people might not have a choice about visiting. However, the criteria for determining what constitutes “unhelpful” remain vague, particularly given the nature of the content being removed. According to Genevieve Park, a Google spokesperson, the company does not display reviews for certain types of locations, including those where people go without choice. She emphasized that reviews are meant to assist users in making informed decisions about where to go, but did not elaborate further on how the policy applies specifically to ICE detention centers. This pattern of censorship is not new for Google. In 2025, the company blocked Android users from downloading ICEBlock, an application designed to alert users to the presence of ICE agents through crowdsourced reports. When asked whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had contacted Google regarding the removal of reviews, Park stated that the action was unrelated to any external request and was solely based on internal policy enforcement. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security denied that ICE had sought the removal of reviews. Instead, they claimed that being in detention is a voluntary choice, referencing a program aimed at encouraging self-deportation via an app-based system. This response has drawn criticism from advocates and researchers who argue that the reality of detention is far more complex and coercive than suggested by official statements. The reviews that have been collected and analyzed by McCammon offer a glimpse into the harsh realities faced by those held in ICE facilities. Many describe deplorable living conditions, including overcrowding, lack of medical care, and inadequate food. One review noted that detainees could barely hear their loved ones during phone calls, while another questioned the legality of holding someone beyond their court-specified release date. A Spanish-language review highlighted the difficulty of communication with detainees, emphasizing the emotional toll on families. These testimonials are crucial for both legal advocacy and public awareness, yet their disappearance from Google Maps raises serious questions about the accessibility of such information. Advocacy groups and human rights organizations rely heavily on platforms like Google Maps to document and disseminate information about detention practices. The absence of these reviews may hinder efforts to hold authorities accountable and inform potential victims about the risks associated with detention. As the debate continues, the implications of Google’s actions extend beyond the technicalities of map reviews. They touch on broader issues of free expression, government transparency, and the role of technology companies in shaping public discourse. With only a handful of facilities allowing reviews, the landscape of publicly available information about ICE detention centers is becoming increasingly limited.