Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Face Is in a Federal Database and ICE Put It There

Opinion

ICE agents wearing gear that reads, "POLICE ICE." Their faces are covered, they are wearing helmets, and one of them is holding a weapon.

ICE agents stand guard in front of protesters outside the federal immigration center at Delaney Hall in Newark, where ICE is housing detained immigrants on May 26, 2026 in Newark, New Jersey.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Last week, while the world watched JD Vance fly to Switzerland to negotiate an Iran deal, a quieter document surfaced from inside the Department of Homeland Security that may matter more to the daily lives of Americans than anything that happened at Lake Lucerne. A DHS Privacy Threshold Analysis, obtained and reported by NPR, outlines plans to give approximately 1,300 local police forces access to the same facial recognition technology that federal ICE agents currently use in the field. The app is called the ICE Task Force Module. It allows an officer to photograph any person they stop, run the image against federal databases, and receive an identity match in seconds. Every photograph taken is stored in a DHS system for fifteen years. The document states plainly that this surveillance will sweep up American citizens. The DHS knows this. It is proceeding anyway.

This is not an immigration story. It is a surveillance infrastructure story, and the distinction is the most important thing to understand about what is being built.


The ICE Task Force Module is already in partial operation. Community members in Minnesota and Maine have reported that federal immigration officers photographed their faces and license plates during enforcement operations, and that officers appeared to already know their names and addresses before approaching them. That is what real-time facial recognition plus a fifteen-year database looks like in practice: it means that attending a public event, standing on a sidewalk near an ICE operation, or legally observing an enforcement action can result in a photograph entering a federal file that persists for over a decade.

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin acknowledged to Congress that the agency has already used facial recognition on protesters, including identifying people who attended protests in Oregon and cross-referencing them with individuals present at protests in Newark. That is not an incidental use of immigration technology. That is the surveillance of political activity, conducted by a federal immigration agency, stored in a database for fifteen years.

The DHS's own document provides the clearest evidence of what the program will do to people who are not its stated targets. The text reads: "It is conceivable that a photo taken by an ICE non-federal law enforcement officer using the TFM mobile application could be that of someone other than a removable individual, including U.S. citizens." The use of the word "conceivable" is the bureaucratic tell. The document is not describing an edge case. It is describing the standard operating reality of any biometric surveillance system deployed on public streets. Facial recognition software makes errors. It makes more errors with darker skin tones. The people most likely to be wrongly identified and detained are the people who were already most exposed to aggressive enforcement.

Patrick Eddington of the Cato Institute put it directly: giving 1,300 police agencies this capability makes face surveillance "ubiquitous on American streets." This is no longer a speculative concern about future technology. It is a description of a program being rolled out now, through a network of local police forces who were never elected to run a federal surveillance operation and who have no independent oversight mechanism for how the photographs they collect are used.

The most important thing about what is being built is that it will not end with this administration. Surveillance infrastructure, once constructed and normalized, almost never contracts. The fifteen-year retention window for photographs taken today means that a database assembled under a deportation mandate in 2026 will still exist, fully searchable, in 2041. A different administration with different priorities will inherit a tool capable of identifying, locating, and tracking millions of Americans whose faces were captured during immigration operations they had nothing to do with.

Congress has the authority to require that biometric data collected in the course of immigration enforcement be purged after a defined period, that its use be restricted to the stated purpose of that enforcement, and that any secondary use, including tracking protest attendance, require a warrant. None of those safeguards currently exist. None appear to be under serious consideration. The database grows, photograph by photograph, fifteen-year retention by fifteen-year retention, while the debate remains focused on Switzerland.

Consider what this looks like on the ground. On March 27, 2026, ICE agents in Huntington Beach surrounded a man next to his vehicle, failed to establish his identity through conventional means, and then attempted to scan his face using facial recognition technology. The man was not suspected of any crime. No warrant had been issued. He was a United States citizen. On December 10, 2025, in Cedar-Riverside, Minneapolis, a 20-year-old American citizen named Mubashir Khalif Hussen was stopped by masked ICE agents walking to lunch. He repeated, "I'm a citizen, I'm a citizen." The agents refused to look at his ID. He was shackled and driven to a federal building before being released. His face is now in a federal database. It will remain there until 2041.

These are not isolated incidents. Facial recognition systems have already misidentified individuals, leading to wrongful arrests and months of detention for people with no connection to any alleged activity. Fifteen known people in the United States have been wrongfully arrested due to facial recognition errors; virtually all of them were Black. The system that generated those errors is now being scaled to 1,300 local police forces and integrated into a fifteen-year federal database.

The political will to stop this exists, but it is not being applied. The technology is being deployed in the noise of a news cycle saturated with Iran, Switzerland, and British politics. By the time the public focuses on what has been built, most of the building will already be done. That is, of course, precisely the point.


Imran Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst, and freelance writer.


Read More

Illustration of a man and woman arguing

Arguments or debates, disputes or conflicts, verbal clashes. Angry men and women roar at each other

Getty Images

What If Polarization Is the Wrong Diagnosis?

I just listened to political scientist Lilliana Mason challenge one of the most familiar explanations of what is wrong with American politics.

We are constantly told that America suffers from polarization. Republicans and Democrats have moved too far apart. They distrust each other, increasingly regard one another as enemies, and have lost the ability to compromise. The prescribed remedies are familiar: more civility, more dialogue, less hostility, and a return to the political center.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Vintage Computer with AI Text on Screen and Neon Lighting, figures of people standing around it.

Calling AI “super” makes it sound omniscient. A faith leader coalition explains why the word “artificial” matters and what to do instead.

Royalty-free/Getty Images

Reject the Sand God. Call AI by Its True Name

President Trump recently signed an executive order telling federal agencies to replace the term "artificial intelligence" with "Super Intelligence." He said the word "artificial" makes the technology sound fake.

Many Americans already treat AI as a “super intelligence” that knows better and that they should confide in. Many already assign it the role of spiritual counsel, close confidante, or even romantic partner. In a Common Sense Media survey, one-third of teenagers claimed they had discussed serious personal matters with an AI instead of a person, and 31 percent said talking with an AI companion was as satisfying as talking with friends, or even more so. Bible Chat, an app that offers scripture-based advice and prayers, has been downloaded more than 30 million times.

Keep ReadingShow less
news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.

Oscar Wong/Getty Images

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.

The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?

Keep ReadingShow less