The trillion-dollar industry that collects and shares vast amounts of information on Americans is facing a new ethical dilemma — the Trump administration’s willingness to use this data to advance its massive immigration agenda.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement published ainformation requestin January seeking input on how “commercial Big Data and Ad Tech providers can directly support investigations,” a request that came as regulators were monitoring efforts toexpand US immigration enforcement capabilities. It appears to be the first time ICE has issued a public request about how to use this type of data, which could include information about people’s purchases, Internet browsing or social media use.
ICE’s request raises alarm bells for people like Brian O’Kelley, who helped shape the broadcast technology industry decades ago. He fears the government wants to buy the data to open new avenues for President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, although ICE has not publicly said what it plans to do with the information.
“It’s shocking to see in black and white that the government is trying to use the digital advertising ecosystem to find and target immigrants,” said O’Kelley, who is CEO of AI advertising firm Scope3 and helped develop the online ad exchange that the industry relies on. “It makes me very concerned about how people’s everyday use of the internet or their interactions with social media is becoming targeted. That’s scary.”
The adtech industry’s major trade groups also expressed concern — in part out of fear that public opposition could lead to regulations that threaten their businesses. They are proposing laws that would allow companies to continue sharing data for business and marketing purposes, but prevent that information from being sold to law enforcement.
“This type of practice is precisely the reason why some policymakers are out to promote foreign policies that would require strict data restrictions, prohibit the sale and sharing of certain information, impose restrictions that are very broad that prohibit the collection of data,” said David LeDuc, vice president of public policy for the Internet Advertising Initiative.
The White House referred questions to ICE. An ICE spokesperson told POLITICO that the agency respects civil liberties and privacy interests when using technology in investigations.
“Under President Trump, ICE is using all legal tools to remove dangerous criminal aliens from the United States,” ICE said in an emailed statement.
There are no laws preventing companies from selling this type of information to the federal government, which has described commercially available data as an “increasingly valuable” resource inreport published during the Biden administration in 2022. ICE and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, havepreviously purchasedsuch survey data, such as DHS’Customs and Border Protection.
In its January solicitation, ICE said it intends to select several companies to present a live demonstration of their capabilities and services to demonstrate how the agency can use commercially available data in its investigations. The letter said the request was for research and information gathering only.
The organization did not disclose how many submissions it received or which companies responded by the February 2 deadline.
“DHS works with many private contractors to fulfill its mission to protect American citizens. DHS will not confirm or deny law enforcement capabilities or methods,” an ICE spokesperson said.
Similarly, FBI Director Kash Patel and Defense Intelligence Agency Director James Adams both saidMPs in March that their organizations are buying dataPatel saying that it “led to valuable intelligence.”
But O’Kelley said he worries that the Trump administration’s lack of protections makes its use of advertising data more accountable than previous administrations. former DHS officials told itFinancial Times in Decemberthat DHS had excluded privacy protections; The DHS inspector general is also investigatingICE use of tracking technology.
DHS did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
“When it’s ICE, how do you go after it? Also, people are afraid of Trump, and they’re afraid of being punished,” O’Kelley said.
Lawmakers have proposed bills that would bar federal agencies from buying data from companies — accusing the government of using data purchases to circumvent Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a co-sponsor of the Government Surveillance Reform Act, which would require agencies like ICE and the FBI to have a warrant to buy data, warned that data sales give federal agencies valuable access to Americans’ personal information.
“As a result, every online ad on a website or app could be collecting location data that ICE will use for its next operation,” Wyden said in a statement to POLITICO.
Outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has also pushed for stronger protections against government surveillance, introducingMonitoring Accountability Actin April to require agencies to obtain warrants before accessing Americans’ online information.
His office declined to comment to POLITICO about ICE’s request for information, but pointed to the bill and noted that it would limit government access to data brokers.
Both bills are stalled in Congress.
‘Developing a surveillance network’
The adtech industry has spent decades collecting information on hundreds of millions of people in the US from social media profiles, apps, mobile phones and web browsing activities, then using that data to map people’s networks of family, friends, favorite brands and travel habits. Companies use that data to show people ads that target their interests and locations.
Some of that data has ended up being used for very different purposes
The US military, anti-abortion activists and religious groups have bought people’s data for a variety of uses, includingto monitor the objectives of military operationsto sendads to people near Planned Parenthood locationsandOuting priests who have used gay dating apps.
Concerns about the government’s use of information go beyond immigration enforcement.
Critics warn that greater access to this data could also give the government more information about Americans’ political views, creating a tool that could suppress opponents.
ICE already uses facial recognition to identify people accused of assaulting law enforcement officers, and is facingcase in MaineandMinnesota for allegedly using toolssuch as license plate readers to find the home addresses of protesters.
ICE responded to Maine’s lawsuit and told POLITICO in February that the agency follows the U.S. Constitution and does not maintain a database of domestic terrorists, and the Trump administration.filed to dismiss the case in Minnesota.
Brian May, an adtech engineer who works with the Ad Office’s Interactive Advertising Tech Lab to create industry standards for responsible data use, told POLITICO he fears the Trump administration could use the power of adtech to monitor entire networks of political opponents.
Advertisers are already using the data to classify people’s relationships, which May said could inform immigration enforcement efforts as well as political goals.
“People with political views that are not in line with the leaders in power, people with religious views that are different from the majority, every other characteristic that distinguishes us can be used to group us and determine who we are collaborating with,” he said.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a frequent critic of ICE’s surveillance practices, said Congress needs to rein in the agency.
“ICE’s latest interest in AdTech is another thread in Trump’s growing surveillance network,” Markey said in a statement to POLITICO. “Congress must act now to rein in these dangerous surveillance practices, defund and stop ICE.”
Industry groups such as the IAB and the Network Advertising Initiative told POLITICO that personal information collected for advertising purposes should not be used for ICE operations. Both groups have issued voluntary standards that limit how data can be used and sold. Neither industry group has instructed its members on how to respond to ICE’s request.
“Any information that is collected from a user for digital advertising purposes can only be used for digital advertising and not for non-advertising purposes,” IAB general counsel Michael Hahn told POLITICO.
Now, industry leaders are turning to regulators to crack down on companies that sell data to government agencies. At a California Privacy Agency hearing in April, LeDuc urged the agency to declare it illegal to sell data for law enforcement purposes under state privacy regulations.
“It only takes a few companies willing to collect consumer data and sell it to government agencies to undermine trust in the entire digital advertising system, which is what we’re facing today,” he said during the hearing.
Adtech companies including The Trade Desk and LiveRamp did not respond to requests for comment on whether they responded to ICE’s request or whether they provided data to the agency.
Meta pointed POLITICO to histerms and conditions for developerswhich prohibits using the data to provide tracking tools or the sale of its users’ data.
Google, Amazon and Apple, which also operate their own advertising platforms, did not respond to requests for comment. Microsoft declined to comment.
Others remain silent
Most professionals in the adtech industry are notprotest in publicto ICE’s request for information, however. The silence may be about self-defense, said Joseph Sacco, a partner at the law firm Rosenberg Fortuna & Laitman, which represents the advertisers.
As one example of caution, he pointed to the Defense Department’s decision in Marchlabel artificial intelligence startup Anthropic a threat to the Pentagon’s supply chainafter the company objected to its technology being used to spy on Americans or use autonomous weapons. The designation essentially cuts the company off from working with defense contractors and the federal government.
Other companies are “keeping their heads down and doing their jobs unless they are forced to do something,” the Sacco said.
For O’Kelley, the executive who helped create the existing reporting system, he said it wouldn’t surprise him to see companies quietly helping ICE. Although ICE’s request is for research and informational purposes, the agency notes that it intends to select a few companies to demonstrate its products and capabilities, indicating the potential for federal contracts. An ICE spokesperson told POLITICO the government may use responses to the RFI for informational and planning purposes, and that it is not a request for proposals.
“I don’t know who responded, but I can guarantee you that people will respond because it’s money,” said O’Kelley, who now runs an AI advertising company. “There are a lot of small adtech companies that are struggling, that are not being held accountable. Why don’t we take millions of dollars from the government?”
