Senators Edward Markey, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley – all Democrats – have issued a pointed demand to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to immediately halt its expanding and questionable use of facial recognition in its hunt for undocumented immigrants.
In their letter to Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons the senators singled out Mobile Fortify, a smartphone application that allows ICE agents to scan faces and run biometric checks in real time.
The three senators say the app represents not just another enforcement gadget, but rather a dangerous escalation in government surveillance with sweeping implications for privacy and civil liberties.
“ICE’s increased use of facial recognition tools inside the United States is particularly concerning given the known limitations of this technology,” the three lawmakers said in a statement.
Their demand comes on the heels of House Committee on Homeland Security Democrats having demanded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) turn over legal and technical details about ICE’s smartphone app, escalating congressional scrutiny of the agency’s street-level use of facial recognition.
The three senators’ attempt at intervention comes as ICE continues to expand its surveillance capabilities far beyond the traditional bounds of immigration enforcement.
ICE has quietly built one of the largest and most sophisticated domestic surveillance arsenals in the federal government, tapping into commercial data brokers, drawing from DMV databases, deploying cell-site simulators, and experimenting with a range of biometric technologies.
In their letter, Markey, Wyden, and Merkley warned that Mobile Fortify epitomizes the risks of such unchecked expansion, turning an agent’s phone into a roving biometric checkpoint.
“In the absence of meaningful regulation of the government’s use of facial recognition tools, the public is likely to be increasingly subject to ongoing, real-time surveillance,” they said, emphasizing that “this Big Brotherism means that individuals may be less able to move, assemble, or appear in public without the federal government identifying and tracking them … undermining the very core of our democracy.”
The senators demanded that ICE stop using the tool and provide detailed information by October 2 on how it was developed, tested, and deployed. Their list of questions reads like an indictment of secrecy.
The push comes amid a broader reckoning over the role of biometric technologies in American life, where civil liberties groups have warned that face-scanning and mobile ID checks are creeping into everyday spaces without meaningful oversight.
For ICE, an agency already infamous for aggressive tactics and opaque systems, the adoption of Mobile Fortify crystallizes critics’ fears of a biometric surveillance state operating in the shadows.
Meanwhile, ICE is doubling down rather than scaling back. Through contracts with private vendors the agency has expanded its access to commercial databases, allowing it to track financial transactions, cell phone locations, and even utility records.
Against this backdrop, Mobile Fortify represents a new frontier. Instead of relying on large, centralized systems, the app places biometric identification directly in the hands of agents in the field. By simply pointing a phone’s camera, an officer can scan a face and run it against government databases.
Critics say the tool collapses the traditional boundary between investigative work and on-the-spot surveillance, enabling a form of biometric stop-and-frisk.
The senators’ letter highlights well-documented concerns about facial recognition accuracy. Numerous studies, including from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have shown that some facial recognition systems perform poorly on people of color, women, and younger individuals. False matches can lead to wrongful arrests, prolonged detentions, or worse.
When deployed by ICE, those risks are magnified: immigrants and undocumented individuals are already among the most vulnerable populations, often lacking the resources to challenge government mistakes.
Markey and his colleagues pressed ICE to disclose whether it had tested Mobile Fortify’s error rates, especially across demographic groups. Without such transparency, they argued, the app could perpetuate systemic bias and erode trust in law enforcement.
They also questioned whether any internal legal review had examined the constitutional implications of pointing a camera at people in public spaces to run biometric scans.
The chilling effect on free speech and assembly looms large. Civil liberties groups warn that when communities know they can be scanned and identified at protests or rallies, many may choose not to show up at all.
In their letter, the senators echoed this concern, noting that constant facial recognition surveillance risks turning the U.S. into a country where exercising basic rights comes with the fear of government tracking.
One of the central complaints driving the senators’ letter is the opacity of ICE’s surveillance programs. Time and again, details about the agency’s tools have come not from voluntary disclosures but from leaks, lawsuits, or investigative reporting. Mobile Fortify appears to be no different.
The senators said ICE has not publicly explained how the app was developed, who contracted it, or what internal rules govern its use. This lack of transparency, they assert, makes it difficult for Congress, let alone the public, to understand what powers are being exercised in their name.
ICE has defended its use of advanced technology as necessary for national security and immigration enforcement. Officials argue that biometric tools help confirm identities quickly and accurately, especially in contexts where individuals may use false documents.
They also point to the need to track individuals who have outstanding deportation orders or criminal records.
These justifications though sidestep Markey and his colleagues’ central concern over ICE’s unchecked expansion of surveillance authority without public debate or clear statutory limits.
Mobile Fortify is only one piece of a much larger mosaic. ICE has been at the center of a federal push to integrate biometric and identity management across agencies. DHS’s Office of Biometric Identity Management already contains hundreds of millions of biometric records.
ICE agents tap into this system regularly, and new tools like Mobile Fortify appear designed to streamline that access.
Meanwhile, ICE has embraced partnerships with private companies supplying facial recognition and analytic software. Contracts with vendors like Clearview AI and Palantir have given the agency powerful new ways to link disparate data points, from mugshots to social media profiles.
In some cases, ICE has relied on state fusion centers to share and analyze surveillance data alongside state and local law enforcement, further blurring jurisdictional lines.
The cumulative effect is an agency with a surveillance apparatus far broader than most Americans realize. While the Federal Bureau of Investigation must generally obtain warrants and justify surveillance within criminal investigations, ICE operates under civil enforcement authority that provides wider latitude and fewer procedural safeguards.
Senator Markey has long been one of the Senate’s most vocal critics of biometric surveillance. He has sponsored bills to restrict federal use of facial recognition, emphasizing the need for democratic oversight before such technologies become entrenched.
In this case, he is not alone. The involvement of Wyden, Merkley, and others reflects growing concern in Congress about ICE’s role as a driver of surveillance expansion. Civil liberties organizations have applauded the letter, framing it as a necessary check on an agency that often escapes public scrutiny.
Whether ICE will heed the call is another matter. The agency has historically resisted attempts to roll back its technological capabilities, citing operational needs and national security imperatives.
Even when Congress has raised questions, ICE has tended to respond with carefully worded assurances rather than substantive change. Without binding legislation, critics fear the agency will simply continue expanding its tools, adjusting only at the margins.
The senators’ deadline of October 2 gives ICE little time to prepare answers, and it remains unclear how forthcoming the agency will be. Advocates hope the inquiry will generate momentum for stronger legislative action such as restricting the use of facial recognition in federal immigration enforcement altogether.
Some lawmakers have floated proposals to ban the technology outright in law enforcement, though those efforts have stalled in the face of industry lobbying and national security arguments.
Article Topics
biometric identification | biometrics | DHS | facial recognition | ICE | Mobile Fortify | U.S. Government | video surveillance