ICE Denies Protester Database, Letter Reveals Tracking Details

In a previously unpublicized letter to Congress, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that the agency collects biographic, biometric, and situational information on individuals who interact with federal agents — including those never arrested — even as the Department of Homeland Security publicly denies maintaining a database of protesters, according to an NPR exclusive investigation.

The Letter and Its Implications

The April 21 letter, sent to Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and 11 other Democratic lawmakers, represents the clearest official acknowledgment yet that federal immigration officials may be routinely collecting and preserving information on protesters and observers who are not arrested. While Lyons wrote that “ICE does not maintain any kind of database of U.S. citizens protesting ICE activities,” he confirmed that information collected during encounters with individuals not arrested “is maintained consistent with applicable law… and is treated as an official government record.”

Lyons specified that at protests involving alleged criminal conduct, ICE has collected “information to identify individuals reasonably believed to be involved in, or directly supporting, potential violations of federal law and to address officer safety and facility security concerns.” This includes “essential biographic and biometric information and situational details.”

Civil liberties experts argue this is a distinction without a difference. JoAnna Suriani, a lawyer at Protect Democracy who represents Maine observers in a federal lawsuit, told NPR that the letter “is 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.”

Rep. Frost echoed those concerns, telling NPR: “That’s the concern, is that we have an agency that’s been tasked with immigration enforcement having a database relating to Americans exercising the First Amendment, which is wrong.”

A Pattern of Threats and Surveillance

The letter comes amid mounting evidence that federal agents have been tracking and intimidating Americans who lawfully observe ICE operations. In January, a masked ICE agent told observer Colleen Fagan in Maine: “We have a nice little database and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.” The Portland Press Herald reported that Fagan and another observer, Elinor Hilton, filed a federal lawsuit alleging their First Amendment rights were violated.

In a separate incident, Xenia Pantos, a pediatric occupational therapist in Maine, stopped to observe federal agents for a few minutes in January. Hours later, Pantos’ spouse received a call from someone identifying themselves as DHS, warning that Pantos could be added to a “domestic terrorist watch list.” When the couple attempted to re-enter the U.S. from Canada in March, a Customs and Border Protection officer pulled them aside for additional questioning, suggesting their data had been retained in a federal system.

The Watchlist Question

Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported in January that DHS and the FBI maintain secret watchlists with codenames including Bluekey, Grapevine, Hummingbird, Reaper, Sandcastle, Sienna, Slipstream, and Sparta — used to track anti-ICE and pro-Palestinian protesters. Lyons’ letter stated that “ICE does not maintain, add, or access information from the programs mentioned in your letter,” but Frost noted the response came only from ICE, not the broader DHS.

Scarlet Kim, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU, said the Trump administration “has set a precedent of characterizing lawful First Amendment activities as possible crimes.” She noted that DHS officials “have explicitly equated First Amendment-protected activities like video recording, gathering information about federal agents, and sharing that information publicly as essentially potential criminal acts.”

Legal Challenges Mount

Multiple legal fronts have opened in response to the alleged surveillance. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) sued DHS and ICE in May under FOIA for records on the protester database, challenging the agency’s failure to respond within the required 20-day window. The ACLU has filed lawsuits on behalf of observers in Memphis and Minneapolis, arguing that federal agents are unconstitutionally retaliating against people lawfully recording immigration enforcement operations.

Rep. Frost and Sen. Richard Blumenthal introduced the “Right to Record Act of 2026” on June 8, seeking to codify the right to record federal agents in public. The legislation comes as prosecutors have brought charges against activists for impeding or interfering with law enforcement, though many cases have been dismissed or resulted in acquittals.

Broader Surveillance Infrastructure

DHS has deployed a suite of advanced surveillance tools, including the facial recognition app Mobile Fortify, used more than 100,000 times by January 2026, and iris scanners. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin confirmed at a recent congressional hearing that facial recognition technology was used on people gathered outside a New Jersey immigration detention center that has seen intense clashes between protesters and federal agents.

Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, publicly advocated for creating a database of protesters, telling Fox News: “We’re going to create a database where those people that are arrested for interference, impeding and assault, we’re going to make them famous.” Multiple observers have also reported having their Global Entry status revoked after interacting with federal immigration officials.

What’s Next

Frost told NPR he plans to continue pressing the department on how collected information is used and shared across DHS agencies. With multiple lawsuits pending, FOIA litigation underway, and proposed legislation in Congress, the question of whether ICE’s data collection on protesters amounts to an unconstitutional database is far from settled. For observers like Pantos, the chilling effect is already real: “I feel really concerned about what has happened with my data and the data of so many other people.”