The White House Press Secretary, Abigail Jackson, responded to questions from Reuters on Wednesday, September 3rd, stating that “Interfering with federal law enforcement is a criminal act. Attacking law enforcement officers and harboring criminal illegal immigrants are also illegal. Anyone who commits crimes using apps or other means will face the most severe punishment according to the law.”
Previously, six legal experts told Reuters that as long as activists do not interfere with law enforcement work, monitoring the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is basically protected under the U.S. Constitution. The courts have long recognized that recording law enforcement officers in public areas is legal.
However, more than ten activists, legal experts, and historians interviewed by Reuters all indicated that with President Trump using the massive deportation operation funded by a new $75 billion allocation by 2029, activists have become increasingly proactive in monitoring federal immigration enforcement officers, drawing attention from the federal government.
In Los Angeles, Francisco “Chavo” Romero, along with a group of immigrant rights activists, recently gathered near an ICE facility in the early hours of a summer day to track the vehicles of immigration officials and alert undocumented immigrants through social media about the whereabouts of law enforcement officers.
Romero is a member of the Immigrant Rights Organization “Community Alliance” in Los Angeles. He claims that this action is to protect the Latinx community.
However, the White House stated that whether it’s Romero or anyone else, monitoring ICE officials and issuing warnings essentially aids criminals and constitutes a crime.
Sophia Cope, a lawyer from the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Civil Liberties Team, pointed out that “If activists record ICE actions and disclose their locations to guide the public away from ICE or engage in physical interference, this may pose legal risks. If such cases go to court, this will be a key factual basis for judicial consideration.”
(This article references reporting from Reuters)