Senator Markey and Representative Frost Sound Alarm After Trump Admin. Evades Questions on Database of Protesters

Letter Text (PDF) | Response from DHS Washington (July 1, 2026) - Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Representative Maxwell Frost (FL-10) today sent a letter to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Markwayne Mullin and David Venturella, Senior Official Performing Duties of the Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), renewing their calls for a clear answer on whether ICE has created a database to track protesters. In responses to separate letters that Senator Markey and Representative Frost sent to DHS and ICE in February, the agency evaded the lawmakers’ questions about whether ICE maintains a database of protesters. In response to Senator Markey’s letter, ICE ignored his question and instead stated that it does not “approve adding individuals or entities to the U.S. government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset.” By contrast, in response to Representative Frost’s letter, ICE stated that it “does not maintain any kind of database of U.S. citizens protesting ICE activities.” This denial, however, has a significant exception: the agency also said it 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,” suggesting that ICE may have relabeled a protester database as a database of individuals who pose a “risk” to officers. In their new oversight letter, Senator Markey and Representative Frost demand that DHS and ICE reconcile their different responses and be transparent with the American people on whether their civil liberties are being violated. The letter also requests additional information about whether DHS is investigating an ICE officer who threatened to add the personal information of a woman in Portland, Maine, to “a nice little database.” In ICE’s response to Senator Markey’s letter, which he is releasing today, DHS alluded to — but failed to confirm — that it was investigating the officer involved in that incident. In the latest letter, Senator Markey and Representative Frost wrote , “Over the past few months, ICE has taken confusing positions on the existence of a domestic terrorist database. After President Donald Trump’s appointed ‘Border Czar’ stated that he was ‘pushing for’ a database of individuals arrested at protests and the ICE officer in Portland, suggested he would add a protester to a database, ICE denied the existence of such a database in testimony before congressional oversight committees earlier this year. Similarly, in response to Representative Frost’s oversight letter, the former Acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, stated that ICE ‘does not maintain any kind of database of U.S. citizens protesting ICE activities.’ By contrast, in response to Senator Markey’s oversight letter, ICE answered that it does not ‘approve adding individuals or entities to the U.S. government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS),’ noted that the TSDS is maintained by multiple agencies, and explained that all nominations to TSDS are subject to an established review process — effectively sidestepping the question. ICE’s shifting and carefully worded responses prevent Congress and the public from determining the extent of ICE’s surveillance activities.” They continued , “Moreover, even ICE’s denial of a ‘domestic terrorists’ database to Representative Frost leaves the agency with significant room to track Americans. Notably, in its response to Representative Frost’s letter, ICE stated that during ICE protests, ‘ICE 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.’ In other words, if an ICE officer ‘reasonably believed’ that a protester created a risk to officer safety or an ICE facility, they could collect information on the individual. Given the Trump administration’s history of referring to nonviolent protesters as criminals and labeling protests as threats to ICE officers, this practice grants significant discretion for DHS and ICE to develop a database of protesters under the guise of tracking threats against federal immigration officers.” Senator Markey and Representative Frost requested the following information by July 15, 2026 : Has DHS, ICE, or any component agency of DHS created, or are any of those entities maintaining their own database, list, or record of individuals engaged in protest activity, outside of the TSDS or other lists administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other federal entity? What oversight has been conducted on the database, list, or record of individuals? What mechanisms exist to ensure individuals are appropriately added and removed from the database, list, or record of individuals? Does DHS, ICE, or any component agency maintain any database, list, or record of individuals identified as threats to officer or facility safety, including those who have not been accused of any crime? Please provide a copy of the internal January 2026 memo circulated to ICE personnel, as well as any related directives instructing agents to collect personal information about protesters, bystanders, or individuals filming ICE activity. Please provide a status update on OPR’s investigation, if any, into the Portland, Maine, incident. Senator Markey is leading efforts to hold ICE and DHS accountable for their violations of Americans’ First Amendment rights, including their weaponization of surveillance technologies against peaceful protestors, immigrants, and American citizens. In May , Senator Markey and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) led their colleagues in a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding the agency abandon its dangerous proposal, included in DHS’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027, to develop “smart glasses” for its immigration officers. In February , Senator Markey, along with Senator Merkley, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), introduced the ICE Out of Our Faces Act , bicameral legislation that would ban ICE and CBP from acquiring and using facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric identification systems. Also in February , Senator Markey wrote to ICE’s Acting Director Todd Lyons demanding that Lyons immediately confirm or deny reports that the agency is maintaining a so-called “domestic terrorists” database to track individuals protesting ICE activities. In November 2025 , Senator Markey wrote to CBP Commissioner Rodney S. Scott, urging the agency to immediately cease using a system of license plate readers (LPRs) and predictive algorithms to monitor the movements of individual Americans. CBP is reportedly using the system to “identify and detain people whose travel patterns it deems suspicious.” Also in November , Senator Markey led his colleagues in requesting that ICE cease the use of their biometric phone application known as Mobile Fortify following a previous unanswered request. In September 2025, Senators Markey and Merkley wrote to ICE’s Acting Director Todd Lyons, demanding that ICE cease use of Mobile Fortify and requesting detailed information about its policies and practices surrounding the use of biometric technology. In July 2025, Senator Markey, along with Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Schiff (D-Calif.), sent a letter to then-Secretary of DHS Kristi Noem on the DHS’s usage of Predator drones and aerial surveillance against peaceful protesters in Los Angeles. In the letter, the senators raised concerns about the threat to the protesters’ privacy and their constitutional rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment. In June 2025, Senators Markey and Wyden wrote two letters to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary Noem about the government’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies to determine whether an individual poses a national security risk. ###