Skip to content

DOM-009 — Federal Law-Enforcement Surveillance Procurement and Deployment

Issue Snapshot

Problem: Opaque surveillance procurement expands enforcement power.
Repair: Require transparent, reviewable surveillance safeguards.
Vehicle: Pending development.

Institutional Anomaly

Federal law-enforcement agencies can acquire, fund, test, integrate, and deploy surveillance technologies through procurement, research, pilot programs, contractors, data brokers, and interagency systems faster than ordinary legal safeguards can assess privacy, civil-rights, records, procurement, and oversight consequences.

The issue is not limited to immigration policy. Immigration enforcement is the current manifestation, but the institutional risk is broader: executive law-enforcement capacity can be expanded through opaque technology markets and contractor systems without transparent congressional authorization, public reporting, warrant/legal-process rules, retention limits, civil-rights review, or auditability.

Manifestation of the Failure

Immigration-enforcement surveillance procurement

In June 2026, reporting on a Mijente, Just Futures Law, and Surveillance Resistance Lab analysis described rapidly expanding ICE and CBP contracts for surveillance technology. The reporting identified AI tools, data brokers, analytics software, social-media scraping, facial recognition, device-extraction tools, drones, sensors, and contractor-operated systems as part of the federal immigration-enforcement surveillance ecosystem. See The Guardian, 'We should be worried': report sheds light on ICE's booming arsenal of hi-tech surveillance tools (June 24, 2026), and the NoTechForICE source hub.

Geofence and location-data searches after Chatrie

In Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired location data from Google because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-phone location information. DOM-009 should treat Chatrie as an important constitutional baseline for geofence warrants, location-history databases, data-broker access, contractor-mediated location analytics, and procurement of tools that let law-enforcement agencies identify people by place, time, or movement pattern.

The decision strengthens the case that DOM-009 should not be framed only as procurement transparency. A serious remedy likely needs legal-process rules, minimization, retention limits, audit logs, and restrictions on indirect acquisition of location data through vendors or interagency systems.

Existing Overlap

This issue was admitted from HOR-002 as a distinct A-14 candidate rather than merged into existing issues.

  • CIV-009 concerns repurposed technical units exercising cross-agency operational control, especially DOGE/USDS-style internal government access. DOM-009 is different because it concerns federal law-enforcement procurement and deployment of surveillance tools.
  • DOM-007 concerns domestic military intelligence activity. DOM-009 concerns civilian federal law-enforcement surveillance procurement and contractor-mediated deployment.
  • REC-001 concerns preservation of websites, datasets, and digital records. DOM-009 may require records and audit-log safeguards, but records preservation is not the whole remedy.
  • FACT-001 concerns scientific, statistical, and technical data integrity. DOM-009 may use or generate government datasets, but the central issue is surveillance power and procurement governance.
  • PRESS-003 may become relevant if surveillance targets journalists, confidential sources, or newsgathering.

Source-Development Questions

The source trail requires deeper review before legislation is drafted. The next pass should obtain the underlying report, DHS procurement records, ICE and CBP contract records, DHS privacy impact assessments, Inspector General or GAO materials, congressional oversight records, and post-Chatrie lower-court and agency guidance on location-data acquisition.

  1. What statutes currently authorize ICE, CBP, DHS, DOJ, or other federal law-enforcement agencies to acquire or deploy the relevant technologies?
  2. Which tools require warrants, subpoenas, administrative process, consent, immigration-process authority, border-search authority, or no individualized process?
  3. Which contracts involve data brokers, contractor-operated analysis, biometric identification, social-media scraping, device extraction, drones, sensors, or automated risk scoring?
  4. What privacy impact assessments, system-of-records notices, procurement records, audit logs, retention rules, civil-rights reviews, and Inspector General or GAO reviews already exist?
  5. Which safeguards should apply to federal law-enforcement surveillance generally, and which should apply specifically to immigration enforcement, protests, sensitive locations, journalists, or U.S.-person data?
  6. After Chatrie, how should Congress define warrant, particularity, minimization, notice, suppression, and vendor-access rules for geofence searches, location-history queries, and data-broker acquisition of cell-phone location information?

Preliminary Remedy Direction

The least-complex adequate remedy may be a federal law-enforcement surveillance procurement and deployment statute rather than a narrow immigration-only bill. A later proposal should evaluate:

  1. mandatory public reporting for covered surveillance contracts and pilot programs;
  2. pre-deployment privacy, civil-rights, and constitutional-impact assessments;
  3. clear legal-process requirements for data acquisition, facial recognition, device extraction, data-broker queries, and biometric matching;
  4. retention, minimization, access-control, and audit-log requirements;
  5. restrictions on contractor-operated enforcement decision systems;
  6. congressional notice for high-risk or high-cost surveillance programs;
  7. independent Inspector General, GAO, and civil-rights review;
  8. remedies for unlawful acquisition, retention, sharing, or operational use; and
  9. special rules for journalists, confidential sources, protests, sensitive locations, and U.S.-person data.

Horizon Integration Note

HOR-002 was adjudicated on June 25, 2026. The decision was to admit the concern as DOM-009 rather than merge it into CIV-009, DOM-007, REC-001, FACT-001, or PRESS-003. The HOR-002 identifier remains static in the Horizon Scan Log integration log.

Chatrie v. United States was added on June 29, 2026 as a Supreme Court source-development update for location-data and geofence-search safeguards.

Budgetary Impact Statement

Not estimated pending proposal development.

Note: Preliminary ARRP assessment only; not a CBO, OMB, agency, or legislative-counsel score.

Proposal Scoring

Proposal Quality Score: 0 / 100 (Not Scored)
Adoption Friction: N/A
Required Electoral Environment: N/A
Development Priority: N/A

—

Internal Review Status: Pending development; no proposal-quality score assigned
Last Internal Review: Horizon integration decision
Scoring Standard: 2026-06-27.1; Scoring Basis: Current unscored status
Next Review: Source-development pass
Full Review History: DOM-009 review history