FROM TAXES TO ICE DETENTION, Govs. Maura Healey and Kelly Ayotte are trading cross-border barbs and turning each other into convenient political foils in an election year.
The latest flare-up between the Massachusetts Democrat and New Hampshire Republican spans affordability, outmigration, taxes and a proposed 400-bed Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Merrimack, N.H., about 20 miles north of the Massachusetts border.
Appearing Sunday on WCVB’s “On the Record” program, Healey called for Ayotte to oppose the proposed detention facility in the Granite State.
When asked about the proposed ICE detention facility in Merrimack, Healey did not mince words: “Absolutely not. That’s crazy.”
The proposal is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s “Detention Reengineering Initiative,” a plan to expand immigrant detention capacity nationwide. Documents released last week by Ayotte’s office outline a network of new “large scale detention centers” and “processing sites” intended to “serve as ICE’s long-term detention solution” and to support mass deportations.
In Merrimack, ICE proposes retrofitting a roughly 325,000-square-foot vacant warehouse at 50 Robert Milligan Parkway into a regional processing center with 400 to 600 beds. The agency said it would spend $158 million on renovations and $146 million to operate the site for its first three years, according to the documents.
ICE has described the initiative as “a new detention model” that “aims to meet the growing demand for bedspace and streamline the detention and removal process.” The documents add: “These facilities will ensure the safe and humane civil detention of aliens in ICE custody, while helping ICE effectuate mass deportations.”
Healey, who grew up in New Hampshire, on Friday called the project “outrageous and absolutely the wrong move for New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and our entire region.” She added, “Governor Ayotte needs to stand up and oppose this and say, no.”
Ayotte told the New Hampshire Journal, “New England is in this position because Gov. Healey and Massachusetts created a billion-dollar illegal immigrant crisis in our region. Get your own house in order, Maura.”
In a subsequent statement, Healey said, “We should be opposing ICE’s tactics, not allowing them to expand … I oppose this in the strongest possible terms, and I am demanding that Governor Ayotte do everything in her power to block a new ICE facility in Southern New Hampshire.”
During Sunday’s appearance on “On the Record,” Healey also called for the federal government to defund ICE.
“ICE, right now, is not acting like a law enforcement agency. They’re out there with really rogue tactics,” she said, adding that “ICE right now has more funding than all state and local law enforcement around the country combined.”
She said the agency has “too much power, unbridled authority, no guardrails.”
Though she has gone up against Healey on immigration issues, Ayotte has not yet taken a public position on the Merrimack facility.
As that dispute plays out, Healey is also navigating a ballot fight at home over taxes and outmigration.
Hosts of “On the Record” asked Healey on Sunday about U.S. Census data showing a net loss of more than 30,000 Massachusetts residents to other states last year.
“Our population has actually grown by 125,000 over the last three years, and actually since I took office, we’ve actually slowed outmigration,” she countered. Still, she added, “I want to keep every 20 to 45 year old in the state … We’ve got a lot of assets and strength, but we’ve got to get a handle on costs.”
Asked to clarify the difference in numbers, the governor’s office pointed to the state’s overall population trends and its domestic outmigration numbers as two separate measures.
While Massachusetts recorded a net loss of 33,340 residents to other states between 2024 and 2025 — and larger losses of 47,954 in 2021–2022 and 35,360 in 2022–2023 — those figures reflect only the balance of people moving to other U.S. states. Total population change also includes births, deaths, and international migration. According to the governor’s office, Massachusetts’ population has increased by an estimated 128,619 residents over the last three years, even as some residents continued to leave for other states.
Those numbers are central to a high-stakes ballot fight over whether to lower Massachusetts’s 5 percent income tax to 4 percent — a change supporters say would improve competitiveness with states like New Hampshire, which levies no tax on wage and salary income.
In a February 16 Washington Post op-ed, leaders of the coalition pursuing the income tax ballot question wrote that “Massachusetts’s high taxes are shrinking its population.” They cited Census data showing that in 2024, “net out-migration was more than seven times larger than in 2010,” adding “the state is losing residents to more affordable states like New Hampshire and Florida.”
The coalition is arguing taxpayers would save an average $1,300 annually with the income tax reduction, and that the change would bolster long-term economic growth.
Healey on Sunday urged voters to reject it.
“Who doesn’t want to have their taxes cut, right? I mean, sign me up,” she said on “On the Record.”
But she warned that if the measure is approved, “that’s going to be a huge cut to our budget. You’re going to see 65 percent of all funding for education go away. You’re going to see all the funding that we give to cities and towns be significantly reduced. It’s going to be very, very harmful, and that’s why it doesn’t make any sense.”
She said the proposal “undercuts affordability,” adding, “All the free school meals, the free community college making financial aid larger for people in Massachusetts … all of these things are going away.”
Calling the tax cut “totally counterproductive,” Healey said, “I really want the public to understand how catastrophic this would be for Massachusetts.”
The Pioneer Institute, a conservative think tank which supports the tax cut, pushed back. Executive Director Jim Stergios said Healey’s claim it would “devastate the budget and gut education is a wild distortion.”
While Beacon Hill debates a 5 percent versus 4 percent income tax rate, Ayotte has highlighted New Hampshire’s tax policy which she says is better for businesses and residents.
In a February 10 press release Ayotte said, “Any business seeking freedom from higher taxes in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the nation is welcome in the Granite State.”
She added, “We’re proud to have one of the best business tax climates in America, and we’re going to keep showcasing all New Hampshire has to offer to companies in Massachusetts and beyond.”
Ayotte’s office has also pointed to six companies and 500 jobs relocating from Massachusetts last year.
With a tax-cut ballot question looming and a detention center proposal simmering near the border, the two governors have found in each other a politically useful contrast — 5 percent versus 0 percent, resistance versus recruitment — as each makes a case to voters while keeping an eye on the other side of the state line.