The Federal Protective Service (FPS), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for securing over 9,000 federal facilities across the nation. However, the agency has a history of exceeding its mandate and engaging in political targeting, monitoring individuals and groups for their political speech and activities, even when unrelated to threats against federal infrastructure. This article examines several instances of this overreach, highlighting the agency’s concerning surveillance practices.
FPS Surveillance: Targeting Activists and Demonstrators
Throughout various administrations, the FPS has demonstrated a pattern of targeting Americans based on their political views. This behavior has manifested in several high-profile instances:
The “Extremists Action Calendar”
In 2006, the FPS created a document titled “Civil Activists and Extremists Action Calendar.” This document listed various advocacy groups and planned events, with a significant portion focusing on protests unrelated to federal property. This suggests an overreach of the agency’s mandate, which should focus on protecting federal buildings, not monitoring general political activity.
Occupy Wall Street Monitoring
Internal FPS emails from 2011 reveal extensive surveillance of Occupy Wall Street protesters, even in instances where demonstrations had no connection to federal facilities. The monitoring extended across multiple states, including Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Despite publicly stating its involvement was limited to protecting federal property, the FPS actively gathered intelligence on protests with no federal nexus, demonstrating a clear discrepancy between its public statements and internal practices.
Response to Black Lives Matter Demonstrations
During the 2015 Black Lives Matter demonstrations in Baltimore, the FPS deployed 400 officers to monitor peaceful activities, citing concerns that unrest might damage federal facilities. This deployment, along with the involvement of Border Patrol special forces under FPS leadership, raises questions about the proportionality of the response and the agency’s tendency to escalate situations where federal interests were minimally impacted.
Crackdown on 2020 Racial Justice Protests
Following the murder of George Floyd, the FPS spearheaded a DHS campaign to suppress racial justice protests in Portland, Oregon. This involved the deployment of ICE and CBP personnel, including special forces typically assigned to border security. The agency’s actions, which included the controversial use of unmarked vehicles to detain protesters, drew widespread criticism for exceeding its jurisdiction and employing heavy-handed tactics.
Monitoring the Trucker Freedom Convoy
The FPS issued numerous intelligence reports on the 2022 Trucker Freedom Convoy, expressing concerns about potential traffic delays affecting federal employees. This justification appears tenuous, as traffic disruption, while inconvenient, does not directly threaten the security of federal buildings. It suggests the FPS uses broad interpretations of its mandate to justify surveillance of activities with minimal connection to federal property.
Response to Critics of the Dobbs Decision
The FPS responded aggressively to public dissent following the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade. The agency’s actions, including confrontations with protestors and a threatening letter sent to an individual who posted hyperbolic comments on social media, highlight its tendency to overreact to perceived threats and potentially chill free speech.
The Federal Protective Service and Private Surveillance
The FPS has engaged private intelligence contractors like Dataminr to monitor social media and track protests. This reliance on private companies raises concerns about transparency and accountability, as these firms operate with minimal oversight. The use of such technology, coupled with the FPS’s history of political targeting, poses significant threats to civil liberties and freedom of expression.
The Federal Protective Service’s repeated engagement in political targeting and surveillance raises serious questions about its adherence to its mandate and its respect for civil liberties. These actions necessitate greater oversight and accountability to ensure the agency operates within constitutional bounds and protects the rights of all Americans.
