In the midst of an immigration crackdown in Portland, Maine, last January, a concerning incident unfolded that has sparked a broader debate about federal surveillance and civil liberties. Xenia Pantos, a pediatric occupational therapist, and their spouse, Carly Williams, a nonprofit consultant, found themselves at the center of this controversy after a routine observation of federal immigration agents led to an unsettling encounter.
Pantos, driving their spouse’s car to work, noticed masked federal agents and vehicles with tinted windows. Out of concern for the immigrant community, they stopped to observe from a distance. What followed was an unexpected chain of events that would leave the couple questioning the extent of federal data collection and its implications.
An Unsettling Encounter and the Threat of a Domestic Terrorist Watch List
Pantos maintained a safe distance from the agents and did not interact with them. However, they noticed an agent photographing another observer’s license plate. Hours later, Williams received a call from a blocked number. A deep male voice identified the caller as being from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and inquired about the vehicle’s usage. The caller then warned Williams that Pantos’ actions could lead to their addition to a domestic terrorist watch list.
The caller’s threat left Williams terrified, as she recounted in an interview with NPR. DHS declined to comment on the couple’s account when approached by NPR. This incident is not isolated; it is part of a broader pattern of federal agencies collecting information on protesters and observers, even when no arrests are made.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Stance on Data Collection
For months, DHS officials have denied maintaining a database tracking U.S. citizen protesters or a database of domestic terrorists. However, anecdotes like that of Pantos and Williams suggest otherwise. In an unpublicized letter sent to members of Congress in April, recently departed acting ICE director Todd Lyons acknowledged that the agency collects information on individuals suspected of potential violations of law, including interference with ICE operations or officer safety matters.
Lyons denied that ICE maintains a database of protesters or that DHS maintains a separate, standalone database of individuals who were encountered but not arrested. However, he admitted that ICE collects essential biographic and biometric information and situational details at protests involving alleged criminal conduct. This information is maintained as official government records, according to Lyons.
Civil liberties experts argue that Lyons’ letter is the clearest official acknowledgment yet by federal immigration officials that they may be routinely collecting and preserving information on protesters and observers who are not arrested. JoAnna Suriani, a lawyer at Protect Democracy, represents Pantos, Williams, and other observers in Maine in a federal lawsuit alleging violations of their First Amendment rights.
The Broader Implications of Federal Surveillance
Since the Trump administration‘s immigration crackdown, peaceful protesters and observers recording federal immigration operations have faced threats of criminal charges for impeding or interfering with law enforcement operations. Many cases brought against activists have been dismissed or resulted in acquittals. DHS officials have asserted that recording federal agents and posting the videos amounts to doxxing and is a threat to their safety.
Observers in several states, including Minnesota and Tennessee, have reported that agents photographed their faces and license plates, later determining their identities and where they lived. Federal agents have access to a suite of surveillance tools, including facial recognition technology, and can access vehicle registration records using a car’s license plate. Some observers have also reported that their Global Entry status was revoked after interacting with federal immigration officials.
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) has been vocal about his concerns regarding law enforcement tracking protesters. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that information on people exercising their rights is not kept by large federal departments. Frost plans to continue pressing DHS for answers about how the information ICE is collecting is used and shared within the department.
The organization FIRE, which advocates for freedom of expression, has sued DHS and ICE for access to records on whether they are maintaining a database of protesters. The couple’s experience highlights the broader implications of federal surveillance and the need for transparency and accountability in data collection practices.
