In a previously unpublicized letter to Congress, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acknowledged that the agency collects and maintains information on individuals who are not arrested, including protesters and observers, even as officials continue to deny the existence of a dedicated protester database.
The letter, dated April 21 and sent by then-acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, was obtained by NPR and sheds new light on the agency's surveillance practices during immigration enforcement operations.
The letter was sent in response to inquiries from Representative Maxwell Frost and 11 other Democratic members of Congress, who had asked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about data collection on protesters. In it, Lyons denied that ICE maintains a database of protesters or that DHS operates a "separate, standalone database" for individuals encountered but not arrested.
However, he stated that at protests involving alleged criminal conduct, ICE collects "essential biographic and biometric information and situational details" on individuals "reasonably believed to be involved in, or directly supporting, potential violations of federal law."
The acknowledgment comes amid numerous reports of federal agents photographing and recording protesters and observers, and in some cases threatening to add them to a domestic terrorism watchlist. One such incident involved Xenia Pantos, a pediatric occupational therapist in Portland, Maine, who stopped to observe federal agents during an immigration crackdown in January.
Pantos' spouse, Carly Williams, later received a call from someone claiming to be from DHS, who warned that Pantos could be added to a domestic terrorist watchlist for observing the operation. DHS declined to comment on the couple's account.
Civil liberties experts say the letter is the clearest official admission yet that ICE may be routinely preserving records on individuals who have not been charged with any crime. JoAnna Suriani, a lawyer with Protect Democracy, called the letter "evidence of the fact that ICE is knowingly collecting and maintaining official government records on any protestor or lawful observer that its agents claim is potentially interfering with them or threatening agent safety." Suriani represents Pantos, Williams, and other observers in a federal lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations.
The letter also addressed concerns about specific surveillance programs, including those with code names such as Bluekey, Grapevine, Hummingbird, Reaper, Sandcastle, Sienna, Slipstream, and Sparta. Lyons stated that ICE does not maintain, add, or access information from those programs.
However, the response came only from ICE, not from DHS as a whole, leaving questions about data collection by other agencies within the department, such as Customs and Border Protection.
Scarlet Kim, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted that the Trump administration has characterized lawful First Amendment activities, such as recording federal agents, as potential crimes. She argued that the letter "strongly suggests" that even without a standalone database, information on protesters is likely being stored in existing data systems.
The ACLU is representing observers in Memphis and Minneapolis in separate federal lawsuits.
The controversy has also led to legal action by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is suing DHS and ICE for records on whether a protester database exists. Meanwhile, observers in several states have reported having their Global Entry status revoked after interacting with federal immigration officials, and some have faced criminal charges that were later dismissed or resulted in acquittals.
At a congressional hearing last week, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the use of facial recognition technology on people gathered outside an immigration detention center in New Jersey, stating, "If you verbally assault our officers, you go after our vehicles, you assault our property, you assault one of our officers, we will find you, we will arrest you." The letter from Lyons, however, underscores the tension between the administration's stated respect for lawful protests and its broad interpretation of what constitutes interference with federal operations.