The Trump administration’s expansion of surveillance technology for immigration enforcement is facing significant backlash from Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates.
The Trump administration’s increased reliance on advanced technology to bolster its large-scale deportation efforts and manage protests against immigration raids is drawing growing criticism from Democrats and civil liberties advocates.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has allocated funding from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act to acquire a wide range of surveillance tools designed to track both migrants and U.S. citizens.
Among the technologies being utilized are iris-scanning systems, facial recognition software, web and social media scraping platforms, and cellphone tracking tools. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which operates under DHS, has employed facial recognition applications such as Mobile Fortify to capture facial images, contactless fingerprints, and photos of identity documents for comparison with government databases. Additionally, DHS has acquired an iris-scanning app that can read biometric data from several inches away.
The agency has also procured WebLoc and Tangles—products from Pen-Link—to monitor geolocation data and collect online information, raising further concerns among privacy advocates.
In response to these developments, Democratic lawmakers have introduced several bills aimed at curbing ICE’s authority. They argue that the agency may be overstepping legal boundaries and infringing on civil liberties. Senator Ed Markey has expressed concern that facial recognition technology is “at the center of a digital dragnet,” describing the expansion of surveillance capabilities as deeply troubling. He has joined Senators Jeff Merkley and Pramila Jayapal in proposing legislation that would prohibit ICE and Customs and Border Protection from using facial recognition and other biometric tools, while also mandating the deletion of collected data.
In a separate effort, Representative Bennie Thompson has introduced a bill that would restrict DHS from utilizing Mobile Fortify and similar applications outside of ports of entry, and require the destruction of images and fingerprints obtained through such systems.
Privacy advocates have raised alarms about the documented accuracy issues associated with facial recognition technology, particularly its challenges in accurately identifying women and people of color, which increases the risk of wrongful identification. Civil rights groups have also voiced concerns regarding how the data collected is stored, shared, and protected.
The administration has already encountered legal challenges related to data-sharing agreements. A plan that would have allowed the Treasury Department to share IRS information with DHS was struck down in court, while a judge permitted the Department of Health and Human Services to share certain Medicaid data with ICE under limited conditions.
Other lawmakers, including Nellie Pou and LaMonica McIver, have questioned whether DHS is operating within its legal authority and suggested that stronger legislative or judicial action may be necessary.
DHS has denied any allegations of misuse of technology, asserting that its software complies with applicable legal standards and that it addresses congressional concerns through official channels. Companies associated with the technology acquisitions have not publicly commented on the matter.
Despite the proposed measures from Democrats to limit DHS’s surveillance capabilities, the legislation has stalled in the Republican-controlled Congress. GOP lawmakers have largely supported the president’s immigration enforcement agenda, approving $170 billion in enforcement funding as part of last year’s tax and spending package.
Representative Michael McCaul acknowledged the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures but suggested that enforcement operations would be more effectively conducted closer to the border rather than in major urban areas.
Meanwhile, negotiations over DHS funding remain at an impasse. Funding for the agency briefly lapsed earlier this month after lawmakers failed to reach a long-term agreement, although a temporary stopgap measure was enacted to keep operations running.
As the debate over the expansion of surveillance technology continues, the implications for civil liberties and privacy rights remain a significant concern for many advocates and lawmakers alike, according to GlobalNetNews.