The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Federal Protective Service (FPS) have a history of targeting Americans for their political views and activities, often exceeding their mandate to protect federal infrastructure. This article examines instances of political targeting by the FPS, raising concerns about the agency’s overreach and potential for abuse.
Overbroad Mandate and Lack of Safeguards
Congress granted DHS a broad mandate, allowing for a flexible interpretation of homeland security and public safety. This, coupled with insufficient safeguards against bias within DHS agencies, creates an environment ripe for abuse. The FPS, tasked with protecting federal facilities, has repeatedly targeted individuals and groups engaged in political speech and activities unrelated to threats against federal property.
Historical Examples of Political Targeting
Several incidents highlight the FPS’s history of political targeting:
-
2006 Extremists Action Calendar: The FPS issued a calendar listing advocacy groups and events, many unrelated to federal property, demonstrating an overreach of surveillance.
-
Occupy Wall Street (2011): Internal FPS emails reveal extensive monitoring of Occupy Wall Street protests, even those with no connection to federal facilities. The agency tracked protests across multiple states, exceeding its jurisdiction. FPS leadership explicitly requested information on protest activities regardless of location. Publicly, however, DHS claimed its involvement was limited to federal property.
-
Black Lives Matter (2015): During Black Lives Matter demonstrations in Baltimore, FPS deployed 400 officers to monitor peaceful activities, citing potential harm to federal facilities as justification. This deployment, along with the deployment of Border Patrol special forces under FPS leadership, illustrates the agency’s tendency towards excessive force in response to political expression.
-
2020 Racial Justice Demonstrations: FPS led a DHS crackdown on racial justice demonstrators in Portland, Oregon. Personnel from other agencies, including ICE and CBP special forces, were deployed under FPS authority. The agency’s operations extended beyond federal property, and its use of unmarked vehicles to detain protesters drew widespread criticism.
-
Trucker Freedom Convoy (2022): FPS issued intelligence reports on the Trucker Freedom Convoy, citing potential traffic delays for federal workers as a justification for its involvement, a concern unrelated to the protection of federal property.
-
Critics of Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision (2022): FPS responded aggressively to protests against the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In one instance, an FPS agent participated in a questionable interaction with Texas police at the home of a woman who posted critical comments online. The agency also sent a letter threatening criminal charges for “harassing/threatening language” to another individual who criticized the decision online.
Reliance on Private Companies for Surveillance
FPS utilizes private intelligence contractors like Dataminr to monitor social media, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. Dataminr’s access to vast amounts of social media data and its history of targeting Black Lives Matter protests raise concerns about potential bias and misuse of information. The opaque nature of FPS’s relationships with other intelligence firms, such as Toffler Associates and RELX Group, further complicates oversight.
Conclusion
The FPS’s pattern of targeting individuals and groups for political speech and activities raises serious questions about its respect for civil liberties and adherence to its mandate. The agency’s broad authority, coupled with a lack of transparency and reliance on private contractors, creates a potential for abuse that demands greater scrutiny and accountability. Reforming the FPS to ensure its focus remains on protecting federal infrastructure, rather than suppressing political dissent, is crucial to safeguarding fundamental rights.
