Bureau Of Prisons Announces Multiple Facility Closings Citing Budget

Inmate Population Over The Years

For more than three decades, the Federal Bureau of Prisons experienced nearly uninterrupted growth. Fueled by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the War on Drugs, and the abolition of federal parole, the federal prison population increased from just 24,640 inmates in 1980 to an all time high of 219,298 inmates in 2013, an almost ninefold increase. Federal prisons became severely overcrowded, with many institutions operating well above their rated capacity, forcing the Bureau to expand existing facilities, construct new prisons, and rely on contract institutions to house inmates.

That trajectory changed in 2013 when Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department’s Smart on Crime Initiative, a policy designed to reserve the harshest federal penalties for the most serious offenders while reducing the prosecution of certain low level, nonviolent drug cases. Holder predicted that the federal prison population would begin to decline for the first time in more than three decades, a forecast that proved accurate. Between 2013 and 2025, the BOP population fell by more than 64,000 inmates, reaching approximately 155,000 by the end of fiscal year 2025. Even with a modest rebound after the pandemic, the BOP today houses roughly 154,000 inmates, nearly 30 percent fewer than at its 2013 peak.

Reshuffling Institutions

The previous BOP Director Colette Peters also attempted to close some facilities toward the end of her tenure, but some of those were either delayed or postponed. One of those was FCI Dublin, a female facility known for its troubled past of sexual crimes against inmates.

However, Director Marshall has been forced to make sweeping changes to the BOP in a short period of time. First, the BOP cancelled its collective bargaining agreement with the union in 2025, setting the stage for changes across the troubled agency.

Director Marshall closed FPC Pensacola earlier this year, one of the oldest prison camps in the BOP but decided to reverse some of those closures, including FCI Morgantown and FPC Duluth. He also is transitioning FCI Aliceville from a female facility to male facility and moving the female inmates to FCI Estill, a prison closed due to a tornado in early 2020.

Closings Announced

Director Marshall closed FCI Terminal Island earlier this year and the current announcement includes the following facilities:

• FCI Beaumont Low (Texas) – 1,651 inmates
• FCI Big Spring Low (Texas) – 617 inmates
• FCI La Tuna Low and Satellite Camp (Texas) – 712 inmates
• FCI Lexington Satellite Camp (Kentucky, women’s prison camp) – 232 inmates
• FCI Petersburg Low (Virginia) – 459 inmates
• FCI Taft (California, and has not been operational since 2020)

In making the announcement, the BOP released a statement from Director Marshall stating, “We are a Bureau that acts. These actions are necessary to address longstanding infrastructure and staffing challenges while ensuring the Bureau remains focused on its core mission of operating safe, secure, and efficient correctional facilities. We will support our workforce throughout this transition and responsibly position the agency for the future.”

In the same announcement, the BOP announced that two stand-alone prison camps, Morgantown (West Virginia) and Duluth (Minnesota) will change missions to higher security (Low Security) prisons.

Human Toll

The decision to close a prison is not simply a budgetary exercise. It has profound consequences for the employees who work there and the inmates who call those institutions home.

Federal prisons are often among the largest employers in the communities they serve. Director Marshall has emphasized that some affected employees will have opportunities to transfer to other Bureau of Prisons facilities on the same prison complex or at nearby institutions. That may be feasible in locations with multiple federal prisons, but closures at facilities such as FCI Big Sandy in Kentucky and FCI La Tuna in Texas present a far different reality. Both institutions are located in relatively remote areas where comparable federal employment opportunities are limited. Many employees will face difficult choices between relocating their families, finding entirely new careers, or enduring long commutes to remain with the Bureau.

For inmates, the disruption can be just as significant. Although prison life is highly structured, inmates establish routines, relationships with staff and other inmates, institutional jobs, educational programs, and family visitation schedules. The closure of these facilities will require the transfer of nearly 4,000 inmates to institutions across the federal system. For many, that could mean being housed hundreds or even thousands of miles farther from home, making family visits more difficult and expensive. Decades of correctional research have consistently shown that maintaining family connections is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry and lower rates of recidivism.

The transfer process itself is rarely quick or easy. Inmates are typically transported by bus or through the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, often referred to as “Con Air.” Rather than moving directly to their new institution, many spend days or weeks passing through federal transfer centers and local detention facilities before reaching their final destination. During that time, communication with family is often limited, personal property may be delayed, and inmates face the uncertainty of adapting to an entirely new institution. For thousands of inmates and their families, a prison closure is not just a change in address. It is a significant disruption to the stability they have worked to build while incarcerated.

The local economies of where these closures will take place will certainly be affected. Grocery stores, convenient stores, restaurants, and those who supply goods to the prisons will all see significant changes to their businesses.

As one former BOP union representative who did not wish to be identified and is no longer allowed to speak to the press told me, “This is going to be completely devastating.”

Tough Decisions Among Poor Morale

Director Marshall has yet to testify before Congress, a notable departure from previous Bureau of Prisons directors who routinely appeared before congressional committees to defend the agency’s budget, staffing, and operations. When that hearing occurs, prison closures will almost certainly be among the most contentious topics. Members of Congress are understandably protective of jobs in their districts, particularly in rural communities where a federal prison may be one of the largest employers and a critical source of economic stability. While lawmakers are likely to press Marshall on the rationale for these closures, the reality is that they reflect difficult decisions driven by changing population trends rather than simple cost cutting.

Those decisions also come at a difficult time for the Bureau itself. The agency continues to struggle with chronic staffing shortages, declining employee morale, and the recent dissolution of its union relationship. Recruitment and retention remain persistent challenges, making correctional officer positions among the federal government’s hardest jobs to fill. For the employees assigned to institutions slated for closure, the uncertainty surrounding transfers, relocations, or the loss of local employment only adds to those challenges.

At the same time, the BOP must adapt to a much different correctional landscape than it faced a decade ago. The First Step Act of 2018 has accelerated that trend by creating incentives for eligible inmates, particularly those housed in minimum and low security institutions, to earn time credits that allow earlier placement in residential reentry centers or home confinement. As more inmates transition into the community before completing their full prison terms, demand for traditional prison beds will continue to decline while demand for community-based programs will increase. The closure of prison facilities is not simply a response to today’s inmate population but a recognition that the federal correctional system is evolving toward greater use of halfway houses, home confinement, and other forms of community supervision.