AI Tool Unmasks Masked ICE Officers, Sparking Fierce Debate in Washington

A new wave of artificial intelligence is challenging the anonymity of federal agents. An immigration activist has begun deploying AI to identify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers who wear masks during arrests, igniting a fresh, complex debate over surveillance technology and government accountability.

The AI-Powered Unmasking Campaign

Dominick Skinner, an immigration activist based in the Netherlands, leads a volunteer group that claims to have publicly identified at least 20 masked ICE officials. Skinner told POLITICO that his experts can “reveal a face using AI, if they have 35 percent or more of the face visible.” This innovative use of AI adds a critical dimension to the ongoing discussions surrounding ICE’s masking practices and the proliferation of government surveillance tools.

The project is part of a larger initiative called the ICE List, which has already published the names of over 100 ICE employees, ranging from field agents to back-office bureaucrats. This campaign, along with similar anti-ICE efforts, has garnered significant media attention and scrutiny from Homeland Security officials.

Conflicting Views on Masking and Identification

ICE maintains that its agents wear masks for safety, to prevent harassment while performing their duties. However, critics view masked agents as a potent symbol of unchecked government power. This divide has spurred a flurry of legislative proposals on Capitol Hill.

Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee on border management, firmly stated that ICE agents “don’t deserve to be hunted online by activists using AI.” Conversely, some Democrats, despite their concerns about ICE masking, express unease about the use of vigilante technology to identify law enforcement. Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.), co-sponsor of the VISIBLE Act—a bill aimed at requiring ICE officials to clearly identify themselves—has “serious concerns about the reliability, safety and privacy implications of facial recognition tools,” whether used by law enforcement or external groups, an aide told POLITICO.

ICE spokesperson Tanya Roman reiterated that masks “are for safety, not secrecy,” and argued that such public listings endanger officers’ lives. “These misinformed activists and others like them are the very reason the brave men and women of ICE choose to wear masks in the first place, and why they, and their families, are increasingly being targeted and assaulted,” Roman stated, without commenting on the accuracy of Skinner’s identifications. The Department of Homeland Security echoed these concerns, criticizing the ICE List project for potentially doxing federal officers.

Legislative Responses and the Doxxing Debate

In response to these identification efforts, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on privacy and technology, introduced the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act in June. This bill seeks to criminalize the publication of a federal officer’s name with the intent to obstruct a criminal investigation. Blackburn emphasized that Skinner’s project underscores the necessity of her bill, warning that “Those who oppose the rule of law are weaponizing generative AI against ICE agents,” which could expose them to threats from transnational criminal gangs like MS-13.

Ironically, Senator Blackburn has previously raised concerns about government use of facial recognition, highlighting the complex and often contradictory stances lawmakers take on surveillance technologies. A spokesperson for Blackburn clarified that while she opposes public use of AI-assisted facial recognition to identify ICE officials, she supports its use by police.

The Legal Grey Area and Technological Nuances

Crucially, Skinner’s project currently operates within the bounds of existing U.S. law, exposing a significant gap in federal regulation concerning surveillance and privacy. The International Biometrics + Identity Association, an industry trade group, published ethical standards for facial recognition providers in 2019, advocating for informed consent in data collection. However, Skinner argues these guidelines don’t apply to his efforts, as his group uses facial recognition tools rather than providing the technology itself.

Skinner declined to specify the AI model used but explained that the tool generates its “best guess” of an unmasked officer’s appearance from ICE arrest video screenshots. These AI-generated images are then used by volunteers on reverse image search engines like PimEyes, which scans millions of online images, often linking to social media profiles. PimEyes did not respond to inquiries for comment.

Jake Laperruque, Deputy Director for the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Security and Surveillance Project, voiced concerns about the technology’s reliability, stating that “it’s a rather unreliable application of the technology when you stop actually scanning the face and start scanning an artificial image.” Skinner acknowledges these flaws, admitting that about 60 percent of AI-generated results lead to incorrect social media matches. To mitigate this, a group of volunteers rigorously verifies each identification through another process before any names are published online.

Accountability, Privacy, and the Path Forward

Despite the risks, Skinner asserts that the ICE List does not endanger officers, as it only publishes names and avoids personal addresses or contact information. While he concedes that a name alone could lead to personal data, he explicitly discourages doxing, viewing it as counterproductive to his anti-ICE mission. “I don’t believe in public justice, but I do believe in public shaming and public accountability,” Skinner said.

The current legislative landscape remains fragmented. While Democrats push for identification requirements for officers and Republicans propose anti-doxxing laws, no significant federal legislation has advanced to regulate public use of facial recognition or prevent companies from selling individuals’ personal information. Privacy experts contend that robust data protection laws would be a more effective safeguard for officers than masks or bans on publishing names. “If someone doesn’t want [their information] online, they should be able to get it scrubbed reasonably. That’s what needs to be tackled here, not the idea that law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties can be identified,” Laperruque argued.

The ongoing battle between AI-driven transparency and calls for law enforcement privacy highlights the urgent need for comprehensive federal action on digital surveillance and personal data protection.