Justice Department Says Filming Immigration Raids Is 'Domestic Terrorism'

A leaked Justice Department memo directs federal prosecutors to press “domestic terrorism” charges against individuals who record immigration operations.

After leaving the Chicago area in November, U.S. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino made an unexpected return on December 16, along with several hundred federal agents and a film crew. Returning to the same aggressive tactics that sparked protests earlier this year, local officials criticized Bovino for using immigration operations as a form of political theater. 

In a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times, a spokesperson for Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson called out agents for allegedly arresting people indiscriminately and without arrest warrants. The mayor's office also criticized them for filming the raids and "[turning] these operations into a spectacle."

"This activity is occurring alongside a film crew, which appears to be using these raids to create content at the expense of traumatizing families," said the spokesperson. "These tactics are destabilizing, wrong, and must be condemned." 

But this is not the first time a federal agency has filmed immigration operations for political theater. In addition to being tasked with carrying out record levels of deportations, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under President Donald Trump has seemingly been transformed into a propaganda arm to sell the public on the president's increasingly unpopular immigration policies. Examples include a video posted on X by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem of agents raiding a South Shore apartment building on September 30 and a video posted on the DHS' official Instagram account depicting various immigration arrests.

As Bovino and the DHS have embraced the power of cinema to document immigration arrests and promote current policies, the Trump administration is also cracking down on individuals who choose to record immigration operations. In a December 4 memo, originally leaked by journalist Ken Klippenstein, the Justice Department encourages federal prosecutors to press "domestic terrorism" charges against people for "doxing" law enforcement officers. While undefined in the memo, "doxing" in this context is understood to mean the publishing of information that identifies law enforcement officers, which the Justice Department insinuates is a threatening activity used to "silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society." 

This definition mirrors previous statements by DHS officials earlier this year, including a statement made by Noem in July: "Violence is anything that threatens [agents] and their safety, so it's doxing them, it's videotaping them where they're at when they're out on operations."

However, much of what the Trump administration tries to paint as the unacceptable "doxing" of law enforcement agents is often observers merely recording on-duty officers—an activity firmly protected by the First Amendment when no physical interference or danger is present, and an important tool for holding public officials accountable. By broadly defining domestic terrorism to include something as vague as "doxing," the Trump administration has rolled out a "nationwide policy of intimidating and threatening people who attempt to observe and record DHS operations," according to David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute.

Under such a broad definition, even the DHS' own camera crews and media hired specifically to record and publish details of immigration operations could potentially be prosecuted for domestic terrorism. The only limiting factor in the memo seems to be whether the publisher is considered Trump's political ally or opponent, i.e., an "Antifa-aligned extremist," which the December 4 memo defines, in part, as someone with "extreme viewpoints on immigration," such as "mass migration and open borders." 

But the right to free speech isn't taken away when someone says or does something that the government disagrees with. Attempting to define who is and isn't protected by the First Amendment is not only unconstitutional, but also a strategy that could put even Trump's allies at the mercy of federal prosecutors.