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

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep Reading Show less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep Reading Show less
The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections
Rawpixel/Getty

The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections

The Trump administration has expended significant resources trying to meddle in elections ahead of the midterms. This coordinated campaign includes attempts to limit who can vote, wrestle away states’ authority over elections, and undermine public confidence in election outcomes. So far, virtually everything the administration has tried has been blocked by courts, failed in Congress, or simply fizzled out.

Currently, the administration is 0–21 in its court cases seeking to amass state voter data. In dozens of states, election officials from both parties have refused to turn over their complete voter rolls, which contain confidential personal information, to the Justice Department. Federal courts from Arizona to Maine have thrown out the department’s lawsuits, ruling that the federal government lacks the power to force states to hand over this data on a mass scale.

Keep Reading Show less
The Erosion of Judicial Integrity
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

The Erosion of Judicial Integrity

The partisanship of the Roberts Supreme Court Republicans violates the neutrality central to the rule of law's legitimacy. Moreover, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, viewed avaricious oligarchs and seditious demagogues as the two gravest threats to democracy. They would doubtlessly view the Roberts Republicans – with rulings institutionalizing oligarchic pay-to-play while embracing Trump’s authoritarianism - as another grave threat.

The Rule of Law Survived One Judicial Coup

Keep Reading Show less