'We Have a Nice Little Database'
DHS Is Scanning the Faces of People Who Film Immigration Agents
Kristi Noem is out. This should be a moment to celebrate. Noem, after all, has been the face of much of the awfulness that ICE and DHS have been committing. But we shouldn’t get too excited and mistake a change of personnel for a change in policy. I have little doubt that DHS will continue to engage in illegal, unconstitutional, and other horrifying actions.
Earlier, I wrote about the right to film police, a right that nearly every federal appeals court in the country has recognized as protected by the First Amendment. I’ve also written about what happens when surveillance technology operates without adequate oversight: it gets abused. But it’s not merely bad actors abusing surveillance tools available to them. DHS and the Trump administration clearly have policies that threaten people’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, that chill their free speech, and put them at risk of being arrested for conduct that is not only legal but protected by the US Constitution.
It used to be harder to define the chilling effect of government surveillance. It often wasn’t clear what negative things would happen to you. However, under the Trump Administration, the risk is real and serious. People engaging in legal, constitutionally protected activities, such as observing ICE agents or protesting the Trump Administration, have been beaten, arrested, or even killed.
There have been at least two federal cases filed against DHS in Maine and Minnesota, over federal agents using facial recognition and license plate readers to scan and identify them while they were legally observing immigration enforcement operations in public. This kind of overt surveillance of activists and protesters has the clear purpose and effect of trying to chill people’s free speech rights.
As alleged in these two cases, dozens of people who were doing nothing more than watching their government in action, in public, have been called domestic terrorists, had their faces scanned and entered into a federal database, and received late-night warnings that agents knew where they lived.
First, on February 23, 2026, two Portland, Maine, residents filed a federal class action lawsuit (Hilton v. Noem) against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and several DHS subagencies. In this lawsuit, they claim that federal agents used facial recognition and license plate readers to scan and identify them while they were legally observing immigration enforcement operations in public, then threatened them with domestic terrorist watchlists and told them agents would come to their homes.
One plaintiff, Colleen Fagan, captured a now-viral video of a masked agent scanning her face and telling her: ‘Cause we have a nice little database. And now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.’ The other plaintiff, Elinor Hilton, was told: ‘I hope you know that if you keep coming to things like this, you are going to be on a domestic terrorist watchlist. Then we’re going to come to your house later tonight.’
The lawsuit, filed by Protect Democracy, seeks a temporary restraining order to halt DHS data collection and prevent further retaliatory threats. It argues the government’s conduct violates the First Amendment right to observe and record government agents in public.
A second major lawsuit, Tincher v. Noem, covering nearly identical conduct was filed in Minnesota by the ACLU of Minnesota on behalf of Twin Cities observers. It includes sworn declarations from more than 30 people describing the same pattern: agents photographing faces and license plates, calling observers by name, and leading them home to demonstrate surveillance capability.
The Intercept reported on March 5 that former Minnesota state Sen. Matt Little was lawfully observing ICE agents when their vehicles led him on a 20-minute drive that ended at his own house. Two SUVs were waiting in his driveway when he arrived. Agents blocked his car and claimed he had impeded their investigation. No charges were filed. ‘The intent was clearly to intimidate us,’ Little said.
Another sworn declaration, from Edina resident Emily Beltz, also reported by The Intercept on March 5, describes a female agent leaning out of an SUV window while shouting Beltz’s name and home address: ‘Emily, Emily, we’re going to take you home.’ Beltz wrote in her declaration: ‘The agents had told me, in effect, that they knew where I lived and could come and get me and my family at any time.’
NPR had a terrific story (“ICE has spun a massive surveillance web”) that highlights what DHS is doing, especially the tools they are using to identify individuals, including those who are engaged in legal, First Amendment-protected activities like observing and protesting. These tools include:
Mobile Fortify: a facial recognition smartphone app that likely pulls biometric information from government databases
License plate data pipeline: pulling data from Department of Motor Vehicles databases
Thomson Reuters CLEAR: This commercial investigative database aggregates cellphone numbers, addresses, and license plate reader data from cameras across the country
Medicaid data: A data-sharing agreement between DHS and Health and Human Services now gives ICE the names, dates of birth, and home addresses of immigrants in Medicaid data
Regarding ICE’s use of the Thomson Reuters CLEAR database, the Star Tribune reported on March 3 that approximately 180 Thomson Reuters employees, mostly at the company’s Eagan, Minnesota campus, signed a letter to company leadership expressing alarm over ICE’s use of CLEAR. As the ACLU’s Jay Stanley was quoted as saying, “If you are using license plate data not because of wrongdoing, but to intimidate people from exercising free speech, that is not a legitimate law enforcement purpose.”
The chilling effect is documented, not theoretical: Hilton parks blocks from her home. Fagan quit observing. Emily Beltz stopped her legal observer work. A school board member no longer follows ICE vehicles. These are not mere anecdotes; they are sworn declarations in federal court.
In both Hilton v. Noem and Tincher v. Noem, the ACLU in Minnesota and Protect Democracy in Maine argue that DHS has adopted a policy of using surveillance to intimidate First Amendment-protected activity. The Trump Administration isn’t just turning a blind eye to a few bad apples. Replacing Kristi Noem with Markwayne Mullin won’t make it any better because the Trump policy won’t change.