Category: Ethics

A group of congressional Democrats is demanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explain how they are using Palantir-developed technology and other surveillance tools in immigration enforcement.

The lawmakers argue that the systems may be helping power a broader “mass surveillance ecosystem” and are demanding answers about the “ongoing use of Palantir-developed technologies to collect Americans’ personal data to fuel a mass surveillance ecosystem.”

In a letter sent last week to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Todd M. Lyons – who announced he is resigning – the lawmakers said public reporting has raised serious questions about Palantir software being used to compile, aggregate, and analyze large volumes of personal data for immigration enforcement operations.

The lawmakers said DHS also appears to be using surveillance products from other contractors, including facial recognition tools from Clearview AI, social media monitoring software from PenLink, stingray technology from suppliers such as L3Harris, and cellphone surveillance technology built by Paragon Solutions.

“These data-compiling systems reportedly allow DHS personnel to link individual profiles to addresses, phone numbers, devices, and other identifying information across multiple datasets in order to generate leads and identify potential locations of persons sought for immigration enforcement actions,” the lawmakers said in the letter.

“The combination of facial recognition tools, social media surveillance, and large-scale data aggregation systems, and applications raise serious concerns about the operational use of personally identifiable information that belongs to individuals who are not suspected of any wrongdoing,” the lawmakers told Mullin.

“Specifically, these technologies are seemingly being weaponized against citizens, journalists, and individuals engaged in constitutionally protected activities, which include lawful assembly and protest,” wrote the lawmakers.

The push is being led by Reps. Dan Goldman and Nydia Velázquez, and Sen. Ron Wyden.

The letter points to reporting that Palantir-linked tools allow DHS personnel to connect individual profiles to addresses, phone numbers, devices and other identifiers across multiple datasets to generate leads and identify locations of people sought for immigration enforcement.

It also cites reporting and court testimony about an ICE application called Elite, which an agent described under oath as functioning “kind of like Google Maps” by showing neighborhoods or areas where a person might be located, while also acknowledging the tool could be wrong even when it expressed high confidence.

The lawmakers also highlighted what they described as a contradiction between those reports and recent public testimony by DHS and ICE officials. In the letter, they noted that Lyons said at February House and Senate oversight hearings that DHS does not have a database that tracks U.S. citizens.

They also pointed out that that then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem similarly told the House Committee on the Judiciary in March that the department was not creating a database of protesters.

The lawmakers said Congress has a responsibility to determine whether contractor-developed systems are being used in ways that comply with federal law and constitutional protections.

Their letter sets out 11 detailed requests for information and documents, with a response deadline of April 24.

Among other things, they want DHS to identify every database, analytics program, and application used by DHS, ICE and Customs and Border Protection to support immigration enforcement, and to specify whether each one was developed or maintained by Palantir or another private contractor.

They also requested a complete list of active and prior DHS-Palantir contracts since January 1, 2020, including contract values, performance periods, and the specific systems or functions supported under each agreement.

The letter further asks what government and commercial datasets feed into Palantir-developed systems; whether any DHS analytics tools collect or retain personally identifiable information belonging to U.S. citizens; what legal authorities DHS relies on to collect and keep that information; and what safeguards exist to limit retention and protect privacy.

The lawmakers are also seeking specific details about the use of facial recognition during immigration enforcement, including contracts with vendors, data retention practices, and any false positives or mistaken identifications.

The further want DHS to say whether it has collected or processed information about people peacefully observing, documenting or protesting immigration operations, and to provide a “comprehensive report” on the Elite application, including what categories of data it uses and how many DHS personnel are authorized to use it.

They also asked for a list of all private contractors providing surveillance or analytics technologies to DHS, as well as any internal guidance, memos, policies, or assessments governing those systems.

The congressional scrutiny comes amid broader attention on Palantir’s role in immigration enforcement central to the administration’s immigration crackdown and operating with insufficient transparency.

Separate federal procurement notices show ICE has pursued sole-source contracting actions tied to Palantir for Investigative Case Management and ImmigrationOS-related work.

“Congress has a clear and important role in exercising its oversight responsibility to ensure that use of contractor-developed data technologies complies with all relevant federal law while respecting applicable constitutional protections,” the lawmakers informed Mullins.

A controversial former plumber and short-lived Mixed Martial Arts wrestler from Oklahoma who auditioned for the role of DHS secretary, Mullins is expected to try stonewalling his former fellow lawmakers, setting himself up for what could be his first major clash with congressional Democrats.

In pressing for answers, the lawmakers are framing the issue not simply as a contract oversight matter but as a test of whether DHS’s expanding use of commercial surveillance and data fusion technology is outpacing privacy rules, transparency requirements, and constitutional guardrails meant to constrain it.