Elizabeth Warren Grills Pentagon About “Toothless” Oversight of Military Prisons

Lawmakers have questions about the trade group auditing DOD facilities.

John Moore/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Congressional Democrats are calling on Defense Secretary Mark Esper to release details related to the operation of military prisons, including how many have been accredited and what standards the Pentagon uses to maintain “oversight and accountability” at these facilities.

In a letter publicly released Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) raised concerns about the American Correctional Association, a trade group for prisons that simultaneously acts as an official accreditor. The arrangement presents an obvious conflict of interest for the group, rendering “ACA’s standards toothless,” the lawmakers wrote. Documents provided to Warren’s office, they said, suggest that the ACA “has not denied accreditation to a single facility in the last six years.” A spokesperson for the ACA did not respond to a request for comment regarding that claim or other points brought up in the letter. 

Aside from Guantánamo Bay, not much is known about military prisons or other detention facilities run by the Defense Department across the globe, but the ACA apparently plays a key role in regulating them. Warren’s office found that several Army, Navy, and Marine Corps prisons rely on ACA accreditation, despite indications that the process is not truly independent. According to the lawmakers’ letter, “the ACA grants facilities three months’ advance notice of its audits; provides facilities with ‘technical assistance,’ including ‘standards checklists’ and an ‘audit readiness evaluation’ that help a facility know when to schedule its audit and what to expect; and, at a facility’s request, the ACA will first conduct a ‘mock audit’ to help the facility prepare for the real thing.”

The problem, as the lawmakers see it, lies in the ACA’s dual role as “accreditor and advocate.” Unlike most de facto regulatory bodies, the ACA makes millions of dollars each year from its annual conferences, which are sponsored by private prison giants such as CoreCivic, the GEO Group, and MTC. The ACA also makes money from accreditation contracts with prisons owned by these firms, potentially creating an incentive for auditors to ignore shoddy conditions, according to Warren and Gallego.

When Mother Jones’ Shane Bauer reported from a private prison in Louisiana run by the Corrections Corporation of America (now known as CoreCivic), he found that successive ACA audits gave the facility a near-perfect 99-percent score despite substantial problems, including staffing issues. Other private prisons have also suffered from major problems. The Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility in Mississippi, which is run by the GEO Group, was accredited despite being described by a federal judge as “a picture of such horror as should be unrealized anywhere in the civilized world.”

Warren and Gallego called on Esper to provide a list of “all Department facilities accredited by the ACA,” any contracts between the Pentagon and the ACA, and a full list of accreditation reports, as well as internal guidance the Pentagon uses to ensure “the health and safety of confinement and corrections facilities.” When asked about the letter, a DOD spokesperson said in an emailed statement, “As with all congressional correspondence, we will respond directly to the authors of the letter.”

The Defense secretary has frequently clashed with Warren, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, since his nomination to the Pentagon’s top job last year. During his confirmation hearing, Warren strongly criticized him for serving as a lobbyist for defense giant Raytheon before entering the Trump administration and asked him to adhere to a strict ethics pledge. Esper declined to adopt Warren’s ethics standards, which would have barred him from ever overseeing a Defense matter involving Raytheon, and he disputed the notion that “anybody that comes from the business or the corporate world is corrupt.”

In April Warren signed a letter from 10 Senate Democrats that criticized Esper for a “slow and disjointed response” to the coronavirus pandemic. In an unusually sharp rebuttal that was distributed publicly, Esper spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman said the letter “cherry-picked false and repeatedly debunked assertions that do not reflect reality.” 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate