Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

First Amendment

The Feds Used Threats To Silence Their ICE-Tracking Speech. Now They're Fighting Back.

A lawsuit argues that Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem coerced Apple and Meta to censor two popular ICE-monitoring tools, which violates Americans' right to freedom of expression.

Autumn Billings | 2.13.2026 11:40 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
FIRE lawsuit plaintiffs and Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem | Crescent Peak Photography/Michael Brochstein/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/AdMedia/SIPA
(Crescent Peak Photography/Michael Brochstein/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/AdMedia/SIPA)

When the Trump administration's immigration crackdown began last year, several entrepreneurs and concerned citizens established support groups and apps to track the movement of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. These efforts were quickly squelched by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who are now facing a lawsuit as a result.

The federal lawsuit, filed this week by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression (FIRE), argues that both Noem and Bondi have "repeatedly threatened to prosecute individuals and entities for disseminating information…about ICE operations," a violation of Americans' right to freedom of expression.

Such threats began last July, when the Trump administration condemned CNN for reporting about an app called ICEBlock, which used crowdsourcing to track ICE activity, and accused such platforms of endangering the lives of immigration officers. After officials called for CNN to be investigated, Noem told a reporter, "We're working with the Department of Justice to see if we can prosecute [CNN] for that, because what they're doing is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement.…We're going to actually go after them and prosecute them." Bondi also threatened prosecution when she told Fox News that the creator of ICEBlock "better watch out."

By early October, tech companies began removing apps like ICEBlock and Eyes Up—which was founded by Kreisau Group LLC, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit—from their app stores. With Eyes Up, users were able to document and preserve evidence of government abuses of power by uploading and archiving pre-existing videos, live recording and uploading new content, and viewing videos uploaded by others. 

Even though Americans have the right to record public law enforcement activity and to share those recordings, Apple yielded to Bondi and Noem's demands by removing Eyes Up from the Apple App Store last year. The company cited guideline violations for the removal, but according to the complaint, such violations had not been previously mentioned. FIRE argues that "Apple reasonably understood Bondi and Noem's course of conduct to convey a threat of adverse government action against Apple in order to suppress Kreisau Group's speech," in violation of the First Amendment. 

After coercing Apple, Bondi and Noem moved on to Meta, Facebook's parent company. In mid-October, Bondi took credit for the removal of a popular Facebook group called "ICE Sightings – Chicagoland," which was started by Kassandra Rosado, the second plaintiff in the case. Even though Meta cited guideline violations for the removal, Bondi openly bragged in an X post that "outreach" from the Justice Department is what truly led to the removal of the social media group, according to the lawsuit. She also accused the group of doxing and targeting ICE agents, and vowed she would "continue engaging tech companies to eliminate platforms where radicals can incite imminent violence against federal law enforcement."

But Rosado didn't create the social media group to incite violence, but to keep her community safe and informed, according to FIRE. As a small business owner and U.S. citizen of Mexican descent living in the Chicago area, Rosado launched the group to share information, including photos and videos, of nearby ICE operations. 

Rosado's group grew rapidly after reports circulated about ICE's use of excessive force—including two ICE-involved shootings—and arrests of citizens and legal immigrants alike amid "Operation Midway Blitz," the federal immigration crackdown in Chicago, last fall. By October 2025, the group had nearly 100,000 members, many of whom used the page's shared information to safely avoid areas where ICE was active. Others used the group to voice their opinions about ICE's tactics. 

Although both Apple and Meta cited guideline violations for the removals of Eyes Up and "ICE Sightings – Chicagoland," neither company, according to FIRE, signaled that these platforms were in danger of being shut down before the Justice Department made its "outreach." Both instances involve government officials unconstitutionally using their position of power to coerce private companies to do what the federal government cannot: suppress the protected speech of Americans. 

More unsettlingly, these actions target political opinions that disagree with the Trump administration's immigration policies. Although officials have denounced the existence of ICE-sighting groups for posting operation details and endangering the lives of officers, neither Bondi nor Noem has threatened to prosecute social media accounts that share videos and photos of operations in a pro-ICE way—including ICE's own social media accounts. 

The First Amendment protects Americans from government actions that abridge free speech, which includes the right to report and share information about law enforcement. By taking credit for successfully jawboning Apple and Meta into complying with its unconstitutional demands, the government has, by extension, taken credit for violating the constitutional rights of Americans.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: DOJ’s Antitrust Chief Resigns Amid Accusations of Corruption Among Top Officials

Autumn Billings is an assistant editor at Reason.
First AmendmentFree SpeechImmigrationTrump AdministrationDepartment of Homeland SecurityCivil LibertiesCoercionAppleFacebookDepartment of JusticeLawsuitsFederal CourtsICE
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (50)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   4 months ago

    …coerced Apple and Meta to censor two popular ICE-monitoring tools,

    Are we certain it wasn’t just “jawboning “?

    1. rswallen   4 months ago

      It is funny to see almost everyone switch sides on whether jawboning is acceptable depending on which President is doing it.

      1. Fu Manchu   4 months ago

        Don't come here for principled libertarian stances because you won't find many.

        1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   4 months ago

          Definitely not from you, eh comrade?

        2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   4 months ago

          Sarc, tell us again about how using massive searches against non violent J6ers to throw 20 years at them was good.

          Tell us about how Mackey was justified being convicted.

          Tell us again how vaccine cards are no big deal.

          Then when done with us explain to us what criminal conspiracy to disrupt legal execution of the law is to you.

      2. Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   4 months ago

        Reason: "Private companies."

      3. mad.casual   4 months ago

        Welcome to 1996, your "Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material is the 1A of the internet" badge is on the table beneath the portrait of Joe Lieberman(I - Conn.). There are red ones and blue ones, but if you flip them over they're the opposite color on the other side.

  2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   4 months ago

    These are the sites that also worked with foreign groups to provide training on how to impede ICE, including up to physical impedement, no? Used to have a word for that.

    Are these sites responsible for misidentification of drivers and citizens not associated with ICE as well? Or does that not matter?

    1. Fu Manchu   4 months ago

      Note your weasel words. "Worked with" - how? "Training" - is training illegal? "Misidentification" - are mistakes illegal? What here justifies jawboning? Oh yeah right, your guy is king so the government can do no wrong. Faggot

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   4 months ago

        Poor drunken hobo baby. Are you taking it out on Jesse because the tall handsome cop came back and beat the shit out of you again for hassling your ex?

      2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   4 months ago

        Training soldiers to disrupt a government is conspiracy by definition dumdum.

        Have you bothered to read through their manuals? It is pretty fucking clear. The groups even label what job each conspirators has in their chats. You are aware of this right?

  3. Incunabulum   4 months ago

    I thought it was just private companies doing what they choose to do that just happens to be exactly what the government wants them to do?

    1. MWAocdoc   4 months ago

      Although it might be too subtle for you, there is a difference between the government threatening a private company if they don't comply; and the company making a business decision based on social factors not involving official arm-twisting. The government is forbidden by the Bill of Rights to censor speech and, therefore, it is forbidden from forcing others to censor speech. The fact that government officials violate the Constitution all the time with impunity should not be mistaken for precedent allowing the misbehavior.

  4. Social Justice is neither   4 months ago

    So are we going to see the same rejection of anti-stalking and harassment laws, or is it only ICE and their families you think are valid targets for harassment and harm?

  5. DesigNate   4 months ago

    They were doing a fair bit more than “tracking” ICE movements. And their fail/success rate for harassing non-ICE agents is higher than ICE’s fail/success rate for mistakenly detaining US citizens.

    But I guess a massive surveillance state is fine as long as it’s the private sector.

    1. Fu Manchu   4 months ago

      Rights are for the government, not the people. That's why it's okay for ICE to work with Flock to track everyone, but it's not okay for the public to track the government.

      1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   4 months ago

        Sarc, why do you continue to double down on your ignorance. The evidence is public. The groups have been exposed for their conspiratorial actions. They goals are clear.

        Yet even when these groups fuck up and go after non ice agents you do nothing but defend them.

        I asked above. What liability should they have against misidentification? Reminder. You defended 1.5B over an opinion.

        All you do is defend the crimes and violence of your allies.

    2. MWAocdoc   4 months ago

      The government violating the law and the Constitution is not symmetric with private citizens violating the law, so your narrative here just shows your ignorance. The government should NEVER arrest ANYONE without probable cause. Seeing a swarthy man at work on a construction site is NOT probable cause to arrest him no matter how many times you make snarky comments ridiculing those of us who insist upon government officials acting constitutionally.

      If a private citizen breaks the law, they can be investigated, arrested, charged, tried and punished for the crime if found guilty using due process. Who will protect innocent people from government officials who break the law and skip the due process part?

  6. Rick James   4 months ago

    A lawsuit argues that Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem coerced Apple and Meta to censor two popular ICE-monitoring tools, which violates Americans' right to freedom of expression.

    Now roll the clock back 6 years and literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!!! re-do ALL of your fucking COVID coverage.

    1. Fu Manchu   4 months ago

      If that's a Les Grossman reference, I dig it

      1. Ersatz   4 months ago

        ????
        got to give you good sport points for that

    2. mad.casual   4 months ago

      FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!!!

      Who here's an IT pogue? You? Hit that writer in the face *really* *fucking* *hard*.

  7. Gaear Grimsrud   4 months ago

    Yeah users of these apps are setting up autonomous zones and threatening anyone attempting to use a public roadway. Also rioting at hotels and Target stores. They explicitly train users in confrontation AKA incitement to violence. Both of the individuals killed by Ice agents in Minneapolis were affiliated with these or similar organizations. Sorry Autumn. No sympathy from me.

    1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   4 months ago

      Sarc manchu applauds these actions.

    2. Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   4 months ago

      And now setting a building on fire to prevent ICE from buying it. (A sale that may have already been rejected.)

  8. Vernon Depner   4 months ago

    There is no First Amendment right to interfere with and obstruct law enforcement operations. People go to jail for that every day and the courts are OK with that. There is no right to keep people "safe" from being detained by law enforcement—that is specifically illegal. There is no right to harass, follow, and threaten people in the streets—we have laws against street harassment and stalking. There is no right to incite imminent violence against targeted individuals—the courts have specifically ruled that that is an exception to freedom of speech.

    1. Fu Manchu   4 months ago

      The apps don't in and of themselves do any of that. Your justification for banning the apps could be used to ban just about anything because people could use pretty much anything in illegal ways.

      1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   4 months ago

        The makers of the apps are working directly with the groups violating laws retard.

        The app are also libelous from false information causing disruptions and threats to non government agents dumdum.

        Why do you defend every act from the violent left?

        Please tell me the non criminal use of these apps.

      2. Vernon Depner   4 months ago

        Possession of criminal tools is illegal.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 months ago

          Guess that means all cell phones are illegal now!

          1. Vernon Depner   4 months ago

            It is certainly possible to commit a crime by using a phone. Wire fraud, telephone harassment, importuning of minors, "junk" calling with automatic dialers, and transmitting illegal pornography by phone are all specific violations of federal law. If you were not severely retarded, you would realize that that does not mean all phones are criminal tools, just as one can be found guilty of possession of criminal tools for hanging around a bike rack with bolt cutters, but that doesn't mean all bolt cutters are prohibited.

      3. LIBtranslator   4 months ago

        Except service pistols. Anything a minion does with a service pistol is kewl, 'cause qualified immunity made it so. It's the 00 of the 20s, right?

    2. MWAocdoc   4 months ago

      How come you're perfectly okay with citing court rulings when they agree with your opinions, but outraged when court decisions violate your political and social positions? Citing court rulings is only valid when the courts are acting in accord with the words and intent of the Constitution of the United States of America. Pointing out when private citizens violate the law and obstruct justice while ignoring the egregious violations of the Constitution by the government officials they are obstructing is disingenuous at best and treasonous at worst.

  9. TrickyVic (old school)   4 months ago

    Maybe Apple and Meta don't really want a role in promoting government obstruction.

    1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   4 months ago

      Too much liability.

    2. LIBtranslator   4 months ago

      Apple has taken to annoying me like that sodding Microsoft staple used to.

    3. MWAocdoc   4 months ago

      Nice spin, but this isn't about business decisions that Apple and Meta make or whether they're good decisions or bad decisions. It's about government officials threatening and pressuring Apple or Meta to comply, whether they wanted to or not anyway; or whether it worked or failed.

  10. Fu Manchu   4 months ago

    It's only free speech if you agree with the president.

    1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   4 months ago

      Not a free speech issue retard.

      Weird this is the time you try to defend it after cheering efforts against Mackey, j6, Alex Jones and defending covid censorship.

  11. Uncle Jay   4 months ago

    The left believes they should be able to have access to ICE's movements as well CIA's identities, and police activities.
    Next up: The left's demand for all military operations in advance in order to bring peace to the world and much needed information for the enemies of America.

    1. Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   4 months ago

      We already had that with General Milley who would have warned China about a US attack.

      1. damikesc   4 months ago

        I am beyond livid that they did not recall him to military service and court martial the ever loving shit out of him.

  12. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   4 months ago

    So you are good with using facial recognition against activists?
    It would be used to keep us safe from violent activists.
    Activists who travel from one location to another.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 months ago

      So you are good with using facial recognition against activists?
      It would be used to keep us safe from violent activists.

      Suuuuuuuure it would. Until it's used against you.

      1. Z Crazy   4 months ago

        If it keeps us safe from illegalkind, it is worth it./

      2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   4 months ago

        So you’re saying we should get rid of the democrats so that can never happen?

        I agree!

  13. mad.casual   4 months ago

    I know you wouldn't know it from reading Reason but social media actually is a weapon of war or can be used as one.

    Before the break of dawn on the morning of Nov. 6, more than 500 pro-Palestine activists gathered at the Port of Tacoma to block the loading of the MV Cape Orlando, a U.S. military cargo vessel believed to be transporting weapons to Israel.

    Starting at 5 a.m., protesters spread out along East 11th Avenue, the road running alongside port facilities, holding four separate pickets in an attempt to prevent longshore workers from starting their shift. According to a log obtained from the website of ILWU Local 23 — the union that represents longshore workers at the Port of Tacoma — shifts to load the Cape Orlando were scheduled at 7 and 8 a.m. ILWU Local 23 did not respond to a request for comment.
    ...
    According to Alon Lapid, one of the organizers of the “Block the Boat” protest, the demonstration presented a potential health or safety hazard to longshore workers, leading them to call out of their shifts. Organizers said that one worker aboard the Cape Orlando also walked off in solidarity with the protesters.

    Lapid said that U.S. military personnel ended up loading the ship instead, which departed around 9 p.m., significantly later than the original expected departure at noon. While this wasn’t a total victory, they said, it is still significant.

    “We were able to materially delay this boat by half a day, which is incredibly significant in regards to naval logistics and global shipping,” Lapid said. “But is definitely only a partial victory, and is only the first step of many as we continue to feel called to take up more direct actions targeting the most direct manifestations of U.S. military support for the Israeli genocide of Palestine.”

    The activists didn't know what was on that boat. It doesn't really matter. It doesn't even really matter which side you're on in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The activists didn't seem to care about any of the other shipping they interrupted either. In the past, if you wanted to stop a similar boat, you had to fire a missile, deploy forces and coordinate some sort of physical interdiction or blockade, or otherwise physically coordinate agents to physically penetrate and disrupt supporting infrastructure.

    Now you just have to convince stochastic martyrs that they're fighting a holy war by harassing local police, harassing neighbors, and firebombing warehouses.

    Elon has shown this multiple times and even Reason and DNC-aligned retards believed the Russian hackers allegations. So you *know* it to be true or at the very least highly probable in principle. So, the continued selective interpretation makes you look less like an activist *or* someone actually concerned with free speech, and more like a dedicated enemy. The same sort of enemy that would sign contracts with the Native Americans in bad faith and then exploit the duplicity to strip them of their possessions and drive them off their land.

    Whether it's because you own stochastic martyrs deem you unworthy or your opposition rightly regards you as dishonest, subversive, and more trouble than you're worth, you're going to get yourself put up against a wall, shot, and dumped in a ditch. And, honestly, both sides would have very valid points.

  14. Truthteller1   4 months ago

    I cannot believe someone is this stupid, but this is tReason.

  15. damikesc   4 months ago

    Can we agree that the developers of the app look like the cuntiest bunch of cunts on Earth?

    Few people need a slapping more than those two.

  16. ravenshrike   3 months ago

    Discovery will certainly be fun. How many different ways can conspiracy and terrorism laws be applied is the question du jour.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Surging Antisemitism Threatens Jews and America

J.D. Tuccille | 6.1.2026 7:00 AM

Introducing Reason's America 250 Issue

Katherine Mangu-Ward | From the July 2026 issue

Brickbat: Who's Laughing Now?

Charles Oliver | 6.1.2026 4:00 AM

Psychic Soldiers, Mind Readers, and Dolphin Drones: The Cold War's Weird Paranormal History

Arthur McFarlane | 5.31.2026 8:00 AM

The FCC Wants Warning Labels for Shows With 'Transgender' Content

Joe Lancaster | 5.31.2026 7:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks