US Intelligence Agencies Monitor Citizen ICE Trackers and 'No Kings' Protests Amidst Escalating Immigration Enforcement
As protests continue to swell across the United States in response to aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, civilians are turning to homebrew digital tools to track ICE arrests and raids in real time. These tools, often simple interactive maps populated by user reports, represent a form of citizen-led transparency, aiming to provide communities with information about potential enforcement activities in their areas. However, restricted government documents, obtained by the nonprofit watchdog Property of the People, show that US intelligence agencies are now eyeing the same tools as potential threats. A law enforcement investigation involving the maps is also apparently underway.
This development underscores a growing tension between the government's efforts to monitor potential threats and citizens' rights to gather and share information, particularly in the context of contentious issues like immigration enforcement. The monitoring extends beyond digital tools to include physical protest movements, such as the nationwide "No Kings" demonstrations.
Intelligence Agencies Flag Citizen Tracking Tools as Potential Threats
Details about Saturday’s “No Kings” protest—specifically those in California—are also under watch by domestic intelligence centers, where analysts regularly distribute speculative threat assessments among federal, state, and local agencies, according to an internal alert obtained exclusively by WIRED.
A late-February bulletin distributed by a Vermont-based regional fusion center highlights several websites hosting interactive maps that allow users to drop “pins” indicating encounters with ICE agents. These maps, often shared via platforms like Reddit and collaborative tools like Padlet, serve as community-driven early warning systems. Users report sightings of ICE vehicles, agents, or known raid locations, allowing others in the community to be aware and potentially avoid those areas.
The bulletin is based on information initially shared by a US Army threat monitoring center known as ARTIC. While it acknowledges that most of the users appear to be civilians working to avoid contact with federal agents, it nevertheless raises the specter of “malicious actors” potentially relying on such open-source transparency tools to physically target law enforcement.
ARTIC, which operates under the umbrella of the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command, could not be immediately reached for comment. The focus on potential misuse by "malicious actors," even while recognizing the primary civilian use, highlights a common pattern in intelligence assessments where potential worst-case scenarios are prioritized, sometimes leading to the monitoring of otherwise lawful activities.
Property of the People, a nonprofit focused on transparency and national security, attempted to obtain additional details about the maps using public records laws. The group was informed by the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) that all relevant information is “associated with active law enforcement investigations.” This response suggests that the monitoring of these civilian tools has escalated beyond simple intelligence gathering into formal law enforcement inquiries, the scope and nature of which remain undisclosed due to their active status.
The NCRIC did not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.
“Law enforcement is sounding the alarm over implausible, hypothetical risks allegedly posed by these ICE raid tracking platforms,” Ryan Shapiro, executive director of Property of the People, tells WIRED. “But transparency is not terrorism, and the real security threat is militarized secret police invading our communities and abducting our neighbors.” Shapiro's statement articulates the perspective of civil liberties advocates who view these monitoring efforts as an overreach, potentially chilling free expression and the right to information.
The Role of Fusion Centers in Domestic Intelligence
The documents reveal the involvement of multiple regional fusion centers (Vermont, Northern California, Wisconsin, Central California) and the Army's ARTIC in monitoring these activities. Fusion centers were established after 9/11 to improve information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Their mandate is broad, encompassing all-hazards threat assessment, but critics have long raised concerns about their potential to engage in surveillance of domestic political activity, particularly when it involves First Amendment-protected rights like protest and assembly.
An “OPSEC” (Operations Security) warning concerning the maps was separately issued in February by the Wisconsin Statewide Intelligence Center (WSIC). That report indicates the sites are being treated as a “strategic threat” and are under monitoring by a special operations division. The classification of civilian transparency tools as a "strategic threat" underscores the level of concern within these agencies, even if the basis for that threat assessment is rooted in hypothetical scenarios.
WSIC, which could not be immediately reached for comment, warned in its report about persistent online threats aimed at ICE officers, highlighting posts on social media apps like X and TikTok that include messages calling for Americans to stockpile weapons and “shoot back.” While some posts were judged to contain “explicit threats,” most appear to reflect cathartic outrage over the Trump administration’s punitive immigration enforcement tactics, with intelligence analysts noting that many of the users were “discussing hypothetical scenarios.” Nevertheless, the analysts flagged the sheer volume and tone of the content as a genuine officer safety concern. This highlights the challenge intelligence agencies face in distinguishing between hyperbole or venting online and credible threats, but also raises questions about the threshold for initiating monitoring and investigation of public online discourse.
Each document is marked for law enforcement eyes only—a warning not to discuss details with the public or press. This classification further limits public understanding and oversight of how these intelligence activities are conducted and what criteria are used to deem civilian activities worthy of monitoring.
Monitoring of the 'No Kings' Protests
A separate report obtained by WIRED and dated mid-May shows the Central California Intelligence Center (CCIC) monitoring plans for the upcoming “No Kings” protests. It identifies Sacramento, Fresno, and Stockton, among dozens of other protest sites. The information is widely available online, including on the No Kings website, which publicly outlines the protest's goals and planned locations.
The bulletin notes the protests are promoted as a “nonviolent action,” but says the agency plans to produce additional intelligence reports for “threat liaison officers.” It concludes with boilerplate language that states the CCIC recognizes the right of citizens to assemble, speak, and petition the government, but frames the need to gather intelligence on “First Amendment-protected activities” as essential to “assuring the safety of first responders and the public.” This phrasing is common in intelligence documents discussing monitoring of protests, attempting to balance civil liberties with security concerns, but it often leaves open the question of where the line is drawn and what specific activities trigger intelligence interest beyond simply monitoring publicly available information.
Roughly 2,000 protests were scheduled to take place nationwide concurrent with a military parade in Washington, DC, expected to feature 6,600 US Army soldiers, 150 military vehicles, including 28 M1 Abrams tanks, rocket launchers, and precision-guided missiles. The juxtaposition of widespread civilian protests against immigration policy with a large-scale display of military power in the capital created a potent backdrop for the "No Kings" movement.
Protests have erupted in Los Angeles and cities nationwide over the past week in response to a Trump-ordered immigration crackdown and the deployment of federal troops, including Marines and National Guard units, to support law enforcement. This deployment of military personnel in a domestic law enforcement capacity is highly unusual and controversial, raising significant legal and ethical questions about the role of the military within the United States.
Demonstrators are pushing back against what they view as an authoritarian show of force—as surveillance drones fly overhead and armored vehicles roll through immigrant-heavy neighborhoods. Tensions have flared between protesters and police, fueling concerns about surveillance, civil liberties, and the legality of using military force to suppress civil unrest. The presence of military assets, typically associated with foreign conflicts, in American cities during protests against government policy is a stark visual representation of the escalating nature of immigration enforcement and the government's response to dissent.
The use of military-grade equipment and limits on troop authority have emerged as key flashpoints in a broader debate over executive power and immigration enforcement. While the Posse Comitatus Act generally restricts the use of the US military for domestic law enforcement purposes, there are exceptions, and the interpretation and application of these restrictions in the context of immigration and civil unrest are subjects of ongoing legal and political debate.
The No Kings organizers frame the demonstrations as a nationwide day of defiance: “From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we’re taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like.” Their framing positions the protests not just as opposition to specific immigration policies but as a broader stand against perceived authoritarian tendencies within the government.
The Intersection of Technology, Transparency, and Surveillance
The monitoring of civilian-made ICE tracking tools highlights the complex interplay between technology, transparency, and government surveillance in the digital age. As government agencies increasingly use technology for surveillance and enforcement, citizens and activists are leveraging technology to counter these efforts, enhance transparency, and protect vulnerable communities. The development of tools to track ICE movements is a direct response to the perceived lack of transparency and the aggressive nature of immigration raids.
These tools, while simple in concept, rely on crowdsourced information – reports from individuals witnessing ICE activity. Platforms like Padlet provide an accessible way for communities to pool this information geographically and in near real-time. This decentralized, bottom-up approach to information sharing is difficult for authorities to control or shut down entirely, leading to the intelligence community's focus on monitoring the tools and the individuals using them.
The intelligence bulletins' concern about "malicious actors" using these maps to target law enforcement, while presented as a security justification for monitoring, is viewed by civil liberties groups as a potential pretext for monitoring legitimate civilian activity. The lack of publicly available evidence supporting the claim of widespread use of these maps for targeting officers, contrasted with the documented use of the maps by civilians seeking to avoid encounters, fuels this skepticism.
The active law enforcement investigation mentioned by NCRIC is particularly concerning to transparency advocates. It suggests that the act of creating or using these maps, or perhaps the act of reporting ICE sightings, could potentially be viewed as aiding or abetting illegal activity, or even as a form of obstruction. The lack of transparency surrounding this investigation raises fears that it could be used to intimidate or prosecute individuals involved in community defense efforts.
The WSIC report's focus on online rhetoric, including posts discussing hypothetical scenarios or expressing outrage, further illustrates the broad scope of intelligence monitoring. While online threats against law enforcement are a legitimate concern, the monitoring of general expressions of anger or hypothetical discussions raises questions about the boundaries of free speech and the potential for intelligence agencies to chill legitimate political discourse. The sheer volume of such content, as noted by the analysts, may be overwhelming, but volume alone does not equate to credible threat.
The classification of these intelligence documents as "law enforcement eyes only" prevents public scrutiny and debate about the appropriateness and effectiveness of these monitoring activities. Without transparency, it is difficult to assess whether the monitoring is narrowly tailored to address genuine security threats or if it constitutes unwarranted surveillance of political dissent and community organizing.
Protests, Military Deployment, and Civil Liberties
The monitoring of the "No Kings" protests occurs within a broader context of heightened tensions surrounding immigration enforcement and the government's response to public dissent. The protests themselves are a direct reaction to aggressive ICE tactics and the controversial deployment of military assets in domestic settings. The use of federal troops, surveillance drones, and armored vehicles in areas with significant immigrant populations is perceived by many as an escalation of force that blurs the lines between law enforcement and military action.
The concerns raised by protesters and civil liberties advocates about surveillance and digital privacy are amplified by the knowledge that intelligence agencies are actively monitoring their activities, both online and offline. The use of surveillance drones during protests, as reported in Los Angeles, adds another layer to these concerns, suggesting a comprehensive approach to monitoring public gatherings.
The debate over the legality of using military force to suppress civil unrest is a critical aspect of the current situation. While the government may argue that military support is necessary to maintain order and protect personnel, critics argue that such deployments are inappropriate for domestic law enforcement and can have a chilling effect on the right to protest. The intelligence monitoring of protest planning, even when publicly available, adds to the perception that the government views these demonstrations primarily through a security lens, potentially overlooking their political and social significance.
The "No Kings" movement's framing of their actions as a rejection of authoritarianism resonates with concerns about the expansion of executive power and the use of federal agencies, including ICE and potentially the military, in ways that critics argue undermine democratic principles and civil liberties. The protests are not merely about immigration policy but also about the nature of governance and the rights of citizens and residents in the face of increasingly militarized enforcement.
The image accompanying this article, showing ICE agents guarding a federal building in Los Angeles, serves as a visual reminder of the federal presence that is the subject of both the civilian tracking efforts and the protests. This image, sourced from Getty Images via Wired, captures the environment in which these dynamics are playing out.
Conclusion: Transparency, Security, and the Future of Civil Discourse
The monitoring of civilian ICE tracking tools and the "No Kings" protests by US intelligence agencies highlights a significant challenge facing democratic societies: how to balance national security concerns with the fundamental rights to privacy, free expression, and assembly. While intelligence agencies have a legitimate role in monitoring credible threats, the documents obtained by Property of the People raise serious questions about the scope and focus of their activities, particularly when they involve monitoring publicly available information and constitutionally protected activities.
The classification of civilian transparency tools as potential "strategic threats" and the initiation of law enforcement investigations related to them suggest a concerning trend towards viewing community-led efforts for information sharing and mutual aid through a security-centric lens. This approach risks criminalizing or chilling legitimate activities aimed at protecting vulnerable populations and holding government agencies accountable.
The ongoing "No Kings" protests and the government's response, including the deployment of military assets and intelligence monitoring, are indicative of the deep divisions and heightened tensions surrounding immigration policy in the United States. The protests are a manifestation of public discontent, and the government's surveillance of these movements, even under the guise of ensuring safety, can be perceived as an attempt to suppress dissent.
Ultimately, the revelations from these documents underscore the critical importance of transparency and public oversight of intelligence activities. Without clear guidelines, public accountability, and a robust defense of civil liberties, there is a risk that the tools and techniques developed to counter terrorism and foreign threats could be turned inward, monitoring and potentially stifling legitimate domestic political activity. The debate over ICE tracking tools and protest monitoring is not just about technology or immigration; it is about the fundamental nature of the relationship between the government and its people in an increasingly digital and politically charged environment.
The future of civil discourse and activism in the US may well depend on how these tensions are resolved – whether transparency and civil liberties are protected, or if security concerns lead to an expansion of surveillance that chills public participation and dissent.