Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

New bill seeks to limit TSA data sharing with ICE

News

United States Customs and Border Protection sign

Signage over the headquarter entrance of the United States Customs and Border Protection building in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images

A newly proposed bill in Congress would restrict the Department of Homeland Security from using airline passenger information for immigration enforcement, following growing scrutiny over a previously undisclosed data-sharing agreement between the Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The “No TSA Data for ICE Act,” introduced earlier this month by U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit), comes amid concerns over how information collected from passengers for air travel is being used by federal immigration authorities.


The legislation would prohibit the Homeland Security secretary from accessing or using information obtained from TSA to carry out functions of ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The restriction would apply whether the information is accessed directly or indirectly, including through Mobile Fortify or a similar application.
The bill would also prohibit the use of personally identifiable information about airline passengers obtained from private-sector data brokers for those purposes.

Tlaib introduced the legislation after the disclosure of a May 2025 memorandum of agreement between TSA and ICE that established a formal framework for the agencies to coordinate the sharing, storage and management of information.

The agreement was obtained by American Oversight, a nonprofit government watchdog organization, after it sued TSA and ICE under the Freedom of Information Act seeking records about the agencies’ cooperation.

The agreement cites the Secure Flight Final Rule, the federal regulation governing the collection and use of passenger information for aviation security, as the legal basis for TSA’s participation in the arrangement.

Tlaib’s office said TSA has shared passenger names, birth dates and other information with ICE, and linked the practice to an increase in immigration arrests at airports across the country. Her office said those targeted have included immigrants in the process of changing their status, including people awaiting visa extensions, those with employment authorization documents and people who recently married U.S. citizens.

“TSA is complicit in ICE expanding its chaos and cruelty to target our communities in our airports and has been openly lying about it,” Tlaib said in a statement announcing the legislation.

“Through an information-sharing agreement signed in 2025, TSA is readily offering up our immigrant residents to suffer at the hands of ICE agents so they can fulfill their daily arrest quota. One source from ICE even said it makes for ‘easy targets’ at airports—a disgusting exploitation of immigrants in status limbo. Immigrants should be able to safely fly in this country without the fear of arrest or deportation.”

The legislation has also drawn opposition from TSA.

In a statement provided to Fox News, a TSA spokesperson argued the proposed restrictions could weaken information sharing within DHS and make the United States more vulnerable to national security threats.

The spokesperson invoked the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in criticizing the proposal, arguing that DHS was established in part to prevent federal agencies from operating with information gaps that could prevent them from identifying threats.

“DHS was established to prevent information silos that could create blind spots against threats. Does Rep. Tlaib want our enemies to be empowered to attack the U.S. again?” the TSA spokesperson told Fox News.

The legislation would also extend beyond the use of passenger information for immigration enforcement.

Under the bill, DHS would be prohibited from denying, suspending or prematurely terminating a person’s enrollment in certain trusted traveler programs because of the person’s participation in an activity protected by the First Amendment.

“When people fly, they should be able to trust that TSA won’t divulge their sensitive information or use it for political retaliation,” said Tlaib in the press release.

“TSA has broken that trust in a gross violation of people’s First Amendment rights. This data sharing should terrify all of us. It does nothing to make us safer, but rather endangers the basic rights of all Americans and worsens our mass surveillance crisis.”

Tlaib’s office said the legislation has also been endorsed by 66 organizations, including the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, National Immigration Law Center, Amnesty International USA, United We Dream Network and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

New bill seeks to limit TSA data sharing with ICE was first published by Michigan Latino News and is republished with permission.

Angeles Ponpa is the Managing Editor of Latino News Network Midwest, overseeing Illinois Latino News, Wisconsin Latino News, and Michigan Latino News. She is based in Illinois.


Read More

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less
American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

Getty Images

Lawyers Must Reaffirm Their Oath to Defend the Constitution

Every lawyer admitted to practice in the United States takes a formal oath to support the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of the profession. In recent years, bar associations and courts around the country have held voluntary oath reaffirmation ceremonies, inviting lawyers to publicly renew their commitments and reaffirm the profession's responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

Between us, we have taken the oath eight times - having been admitted to practice law in six jurisdictions, across five states, and both having organized oath reaffirmation ceremonies in our respective Virginia hometowns.

Keep ReadingShow less