The trillion-dollar industry that amasses and shares troves of Americans’ information is confronting a new ethical quandary — the Trump administration’s interest in wielding this data to potentially further its sweeping immigration agenda.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement published a request for information in January seeking input on how “commercial Big Data and Ad Tech providers can directly support investigations,” a request that came as the administration was pursuing efforts to expand the United States’ immigration enforcement capabilities. It appears to be the first time ICE has issued a public request on how to use this kind of data, which can include information on people’s purchases, web browsing or social media use.
ICE’s request is raising alarms for people like Brian O’Kelley, who helped create the advertising technology industry decades ago. He fears the government wants to purchase the data to open a new front for President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, even though ICE has not said publicly what it plans to do with the information.
“It’s very shocking to see it in black and white that the government is trying to use the digital advertising ecosystem to find and target immigrants,” said O’Kelley, who is the CEO of AI-advertising firm Scope3 and helped develop the online advertising exchange that the industry relies on. “It makes me very, very nervous about how people’s day-to-day use of the internet or their interactions with social media turn into being targeted. That’s terrifying.”
The adtech industry’s leading trade groups also expressed concern — partly out of fear that a public backlash could lead to regulations that threaten their business. They’re proposing rules that would allow companies to continue sharing data for business and marketing purposes, but restrict that information from being sold to law enforcement.
“This type of practice is exactly the reason that some policymakers are out promoting overbroad policies that would call for strict data minimization, banning all sale and sharing of certain information, enacting restrictions that are overly broad that prohibit the collection of data,” said David LeDuc, the vice president of public policy for the Network Advertising Initiative.
The White House referred questions to ICE. An ICE spokesperson told POLITICO that the agency respects civil liberties and privacy interests with its use of technology in investigations.
“Under President Trump, ICE is using all lawful tools to remove dangerous criminal illegal aliens from the U.S.,” ICE said in an emailed statement.
No laws prevent companies from selling this kind of information to the federal government, which described commercially available data as an “increasingly valuable” resource in a report published during the Biden administration in 2022. ICE and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, have previously purchased such data for investigations, as has DHS’ Customs and Border Protection.
In its January request, ICE said it intends to select several companies to present a live demonstration of their capabilities and services to show how the agency can use commercially available data in its investigations. The posting said the request was solely for research and information gathering.
The agency has not disclosed how many submissions it received or which companies responded by the Feb. 2 deadline.
“DHS works with many private contractors to fulfill its mission of protecting American citizens. DHS is not going to confirm or deny law enforcement capabilities or methods,” an ICE spokesperson said.
Similarly, FBI Director Kash Patel and Defense Intelligence Agency Director James Adams both told lawmakers in March that their agencies purchase data, with Patel saying that it “led to valuable intelligence.”
But O’Kelley said he is concerned that a lack of safeguards in the Trump administration makes its use of advertising data less accountable than previous administrations. Former DHS officials told the Financial Times in December that DHS had sidelined privacy safeguards; the DHS’ inspector general is also investigating ICE’s use of surveillance technology.
DHS did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
“When it’s ICE, how do you go after it? Also, people are scared of Trump, and they’re scared of retribution,” O’Kelley said.
Lawmakers have proposed bills limiting federal agencies from buying data from companies — accusing the government of using data purchases to evade Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a co-sponsor of the Government Surveillance Reform Act, which would require agencies such as ICE and the FBI to have a warrant to buy data, warned that data sales give federal agencies significant access to Americans’ personal information.
“As a result, every internet ad on a website or app could be collecting location data that ICE will use for its next operation,” Wyden said in a statement to POLITICO.
Outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has also pushed for stronger protections against government surveillance, and introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act in April to require agencies to get warrants before obtaining Americans’ online information.
His office declined to comment to POLITICO about ICE’s request for information, but pointed to the bill and noted it would limit government access to data brokers.
Both bills are stalled in Congress.
‘Growing web of surveillance’
The adtech industry has spent decades collecting information on hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. from social media profiles, apps, cell phones and web browsing activity, then using that data to sketch out networks of people’s family, friends, favorite brands and travel habits. Companies use that data to show people ads tailored to their interests and locations.
Some of that data has ended up being used for very different purposes
The U.S. military, anti-abortion activists and religious groups have purchased people’s data for various uses, including tracking targets for military operations, sending ads to people near Planned Parenthood locations and outing priests who have used gay dating apps.
Concerns about the government’s use of the information go well beyond immigration enforcement.
Critics warn that more access to this data could also give the government unprecedented detail on Americans’ political views, creating a potential tool to suppress opponents.
ICE already uses facial recognition to identify people accused of assaulting law enforcement officers, and is facing lawsuits in Maine and Minnesota alleging it uses tools such as license plate readers to find protesters’ home addresses.
ICE responded to the Maine lawsuit and told POLITICO in February the agency follows the U.S. Constitution and doesn’t maintain a database of domestic terrorists, and the Trump administration filed to dismiss the lawsuit in Minnesota.
Brian May, an adtech engineer who works with the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s Tech Lab to develop industry standards for responsible data use, told POLITICO he fears the Trump administration could use adtech’s capabilities to track entire networks of political opponents.
Advertisers already use data to map out people’s relationships, which May said can potentially be repurposed for immigration enforcement efforts as well as political goals.
“People who have political views that don’t coincide with the incumbents, people who have religious views that are different from the majority, every other attribute that distinguishes us can be used to sort us into groups and identify who we interact with,” he said.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a frequent critic of ICE’s surveillance practices, said Congress needs to rein in the agency.
“ICE’s latest interest in AdTech is yet another thread in Trump’s growing web of surveillance,” Markey said in a statement to POLITICO. “Congress must act now to rein in these dangerous surveillance tactics, and defund and abolish ICE.”
Industry groups such as the IAB and the Network Advertising Initiative told POLITICO that personal information collected for advertising purposes should not be used for ICE’s operations. Both groups have issued voluntary standards that limit how the data can be used and sold. Neither industry group has directed its members on how to respond to ICE’s request.
“Any of the information that is collected from the consumer for purposes of digital advertising can only be used for digital advertising and not for non-advertising purposes,” IAB general counsel Michael Hahn told POLITICO.
Now, industry leaders are turning to regulators to take action against companies that sell data to government agencies. At a California Privacy Protection Agency hearing in April, LeDuc urged the agency to declare it unlawful to sell data for law enforcement purposes under the state’s privacy regulations.
“It only takes a few companies willing to gather consumer data and sell it to government agencies to undermine trust in the entire digital advertising ecosystem, which is the situation we face today,” he said during the hearing.
Adtech companies including The Trade Desk and LiveRamp did not respond to requests for comment on whether they responded to ICE’s request or if they provided data to the agency.
Meta directed POLITICO to its terms and conditions for developers, which prohibits using data to provide tools for surveillance or selling its users’ data.
Google, Amazon and Apple, which also run their own advertising platforms, did not respond to requests for comment. Microsoft declined to comment.
Others staying quiet
Most professionals in the adtech industry aren’t publicly objecting to ICE’s request for information, however. That silence is likely about self-preservation, said Joseph Sacco, a partner at the Rosenberg Fortuna & Laitman law firm, which represents advertisers.
As one cautionary example, he pointed to the Defense Department’s decision in March to label the artificial intelligence startup Anthropic a risk to the Pentagon’s supply chain after the company objected to its technology being used to surveil Americans or to power autonomous weapons. That designation essentially cuts the company off from working with defense contractors and the federal government.
Other companies are “just keeping their heads down and just doing their work unless they’re actually compelled to do something,” Sacco said.
For O’Kelley, the executive who helped create the existing advertising ecosystem, he said it wouldn’t surprise him to see companies quietly help ICE. While the ICE request is for research and information purposes, the agency notes it intends to select a few companies to demonstrate its products and capabilities, pointing to the possibility of federal contracts. An ICE spokesperson told POLITICO the government may use responses to the RFI for information and planning purposes, and that it is not a request for proposals.
“I don’t know who’s responded, but I can guarantee you that people will respond because it’s money,” said O’Kelley, who now runs an AI-automated advertising firm. “There’s a lot of small, mid-sized adtech companies where they’re struggling, who are not being held accountable. Why not take millions of dollars from the government?”
