DHS Tells Reporter That Filming ICE Officers ‘Sounds Like Obstruction Of Justice’
from the deliberately-wrong-about-the-law dept
ICE activity has increased exponentially since Trump’s return to office, bringing with it an exponential increase in rights violations committed by federal officers. Multiple lawsuits have been filed and, without exception, courts have safeguarded the rights of people to peacefully protest and document federal officers as they perform their duties.
Meanwhile, the people running DHS and its components continue to claim that merely recording officers is a criminal act. But it’s not. It’s protected by the Constitution whether ICE likes it or not. Under Trump, ICE and DHS are taking a bold new stance against recording officers, telling those with boots on the ground deliberately false things, like this:
[T]he guidance urges officers to consider a range of nonviolent behavior and common protest gear—like masks, flashlights, and cameras—as potential precursors to violence, telling officers to prepare “from the point of view of an adversary.”
Protesters on bicycles, skateboards, or even “on foot” are framed as potential “scouts” conducting reconnaissance or searching for “items to be used as weapons.” Livestreaming is listed alongside “doxxing” as a “tactic” for “threatening” police. Online posters are cast as ideological recruiters—or as participants in “surveillance sharing.”
That guidance was released to federal officers back in July. The rhetoric has only ramped up since then, with DHS officials publicly stating that they’re going to treat protected First Amendment activity as a crime. The responses delivered by these officials following this July reporting was indicative of their mindset:
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters in July that it was “violence” to be “doxing” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reiterated the point in August that “videotaping ICE law enforcement and posting photos and videos of them online is doxing our agents.… And we will prosecute those who illegally harass ICE agents.”
A memorandum issued at the beginning of December provided guidance for DOJ prosecutors seeking to punish people for utilizing their constitutional rights. According to the memo, people who follow officers to observe, record, or protest their actions are to be treated as criminal obstructionists, if not as actual domestic terrorists.
When reached for comment on this memo by CJ Ciaramella of Reason, the DHS doubled down on its decision to treat this right as a crime:
In response to a question from Reason asking if the department considered following or recording a federal law enforcement officer to be obstruction of justice, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said in an emailed statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: “That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Filming or even being in the general area of federal officers engaged in their public duties isn’t “obstruction.” Neither is identifying officers — officers who, by the way, should be wearing stuff that makes them identifiable, rather than the blend of army surplus and balaclavas that further separates them from accountability.
And, of course, the DHS refers to that especially meaningless stat (“1150% increase in assaults”), as though that somehow justifies its decision to use the Constitution as a door mat. All that actually means is that there have been 115 more “assaults” as compared to 2024. Back when the DHS was touting its “690% increase in assaults” as an argument against preventing ICE officers from wearing masks, it was comparing 79 alleged assaults through the first six months of this year against the 10 that had been committed from January-June 2024.
That’s just an empty stat that allows DHS spokespeople to trot out a gaudy number that will grab eyeballs but otherwise just allows the MAGA-cooked to continue to pretend “Democrat cities” are being destroyed by violent anti-ICE protests.
Even if it were true that it’s exceptionally dangerous to be an ICE officer at this point in time, that doesn’t justify pretending the First Amendment simply doesn’t exist. Actual assaults are criminal acts. Filming federal officers who don’t want to be filmed definitely isn’t.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, dhs, ice, kristi noem, mass deportation, rights violations, tricia mclaughlin, trump administration


Comments on “DHS Tells Reporter That Filming ICE Officers ‘Sounds Like Obstruction Of Justice’”
I guess one of the requirements for working for DHS is the ability to constantly and consistently hyperbolise one’s claims.
Filming agents: “Obstruction of justice!”
Driving closely past agents: “Domestic terrorism!”
Re:
Masked thugs disappearing American citizens: “Nothing to see here!”
Re: Apparently, filming ICE from one's own front porch is terroism.
Just saw a YouTube video this morning, in which a guy was assaulted and arrested on his own front porch, when he didn’t obey a fully kitted ICE “officer”s order to stop recording and to go inside — even while he was explaining that the order wasn’t legal and the ICE mercenary didn’t have that authority.
Of course filming is obstructing Justice
Justice is supposed to be blind. Filming makes it see things it is not supposed to see.
How is the government supposed to be comfortable putting its thumbs and more on the scales when Justice is peeking out from under its blindfold?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Don’t block roads (yes, that’s obstruction, as are many other things)
If told to get out of your car, do so, or that’s resisting arrest.
If you drive in any way toward an officer, that’s assault with a deadly weapon, and they can shoot you, legally, and it will be your fault the whole time.
Re:
Derp. Lick the boot harder.
Re:
Doesn’t justify murder.
ICE had no authority to arrest her, and it doesn’t justify murder even if they did.
Good, because she was driving away from an officer.
Re:
Why are you hiding Jonathan? Why did DHS go to your home and get all of your belongings out?
Re:
Being in a road is a crime worthy of summary execution? Every command a cop gives is the law, and failure to instantly comply with all orders (no matter how contradictory) is a crime worthy of summary execution? Moving in the direction of a cop from any distance at any speed is a carte blanche for summary execution during and for some nebulous time frame after the motion has ceased or diverted?
Do you ever ask yourself if this qualifies as the “freedom” America is so famous for?
Re:
Oh be quiet, gnat. You don’t have the mental capacity to participate in, much less win, an argument around here.
Re:
Even here in Canada, we know that your nutshell legal summary is simply wrong.
It starts out half right, and gets wronger in every point.
Maybe, after all, it should be illegal to even talk about ICE.
DHS reports will then be like “Nothing has happened in Minnesota on Jan 7 at 9:37 AM”, and “Nothing to see here” boards in front of ICE facilities.
Just start calling them what they are at this point.
Trump’s gestapo.
It also sounds like them filming with their phones is violence against me then.
*from the No The Fuck It Isn’t Department
“Recording ICE” — I think why an ICE agent was recording–on his own smartphone–his interaction with the person he was about to murder is evidence of intent and premeditation. Why would DHS be so concerned about others recording them when they’re clearly doing it to themselves?
Maybe DHS needs to get their hearing checked.
Given the possibility of peoples’ civil rights being violated, prohibiting filming might be the true obstruction of justice, intended to facilitate such civil rights violations.
At this stage I’m slightly surprised that ICE hasn’t deported the Department of Justice for insufficient zeal in persecuting Trump’s enemies
Well, that sure sounds like setting up a situation where officers murder innocent civilians, hoping to intimate others into submitting to unlawful authority, while also inspiring more protests such that greater force can be brought to bear with the excuse that the protesters are the ones causing the violence
And it sure seems like that’s working.
As ever: Fascists can not be reasoned with. Only exterminated. Do it now, or do it with much greater difficulty in ten, twenty, or fifty years.
Your choice.
Per ususal: A fascist cannot be reasoned with. It can only ever be stopped. If not permanently, then you’ve only kicked that can down the road.
Your choice when to do this: Now, before there are hundreds of thousands of the brownshirts, or in twenty years, when there are
“Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them.”
Man, those are rookie numbers! You gotta pump those number up.
Re:
The funny thing is, they’re trying so hard to make it sound like there’s thousands upon thousands of assaults happening to ICE agents around the country. But if we assume for a moment that ICE agents were the victims of, oh, let’s say 10 assaults in the period before this “increase in assaults”, the percentage increase would still only amount to 115 assaults. It’s a lot like Trump’s math on reducing prices on drugs: The bigger the number, the more it’s bullshit.
And that also doesn’t get into what ICE considers to be an “assault” in this context. Is it actually being beaten by someone, or do hurt feelings count as well? 🙃
Re: Re:
In my opinion, only actually beaten up counts. And there should absolutely be way, way more of it.
Re: Re:
And hey, there’d be zero assaults if they weren’t out brutalizing people. Stay home, ICE. You can get that number down. Oh, but that wouldn’t justify more crackdowns on rights and freedoms.
Re:
You just don’t know what it’s like to walk the streets as an ICE agent. The person you’re walking by could pull out A PHONE and aim it at you. Some of these phones have FULLY AUTOMATIC recording with UNLIMITED DATA STREAMING plans.
And we’re not even talking about people in shadowy windows with zoom lenses. Last week I heard about an agent who was just minding their business, kicking in some 110 pound teenager’s head, when he saw the glint of a 700mm f/8 Canon aimed at him. Never saw the shot coming.
Dude had a wife and kids.
I mean, he still does. But he did, too.
Noem is pretty much scared shitless that her thugs will be caught out shooting and killing more people when they raid and grab.
Sounds like a self-inflicted problem to me
If you don’t want people trying to identify and record the actions of your goons maybe don’t have them doing everything they can to hide their identities and engaging in behavior that even they know they can’t defend?
No; filming ICE isn't obstruction of justice -- but shit like *this* is.
The DOJ is the party that’s obstructing justice.
They are refusing to investigate ICE “officer” Jonathon Ross’s murder of of Renee Good — but they ARE investigating Renee Good’s widow.
Re: Step 1: Declare the concusion. Step 2: Find/create supporting evidence
Investigations are for when you need to find more information to make an informed decision, why would they investigate the murderer that they’ve already cleared when they can look for/manufacture dirt to try to use to justify the murder to the public?
Re:
And they lost at least a half-dozen prosecutors for doing so.
Re: Re:
Losing prosecutors with a brain and/or conscience is a feature, not a bug. Saves them work.
First Rule of Cops: No witnesses.
As a reminder: If the police are allowed to hallucinate reasons to gun down anyone they feel like, “anyone” includes you, even if you’re a Trump voter, even if you think you know all the steps to avoid getting gunned down.
I don’t expect empathy from most people, but I do expect self-preservation.
Re:
I don’t expect empathy from most people, but I do expect self-preservation.
You shouldn’t, if republicans had a working sense of self-preservation they wouldn’t keep voting for people that keep screwing them over. They vote for hate and suffering and the only time they demonstrate even a sliver of regret is when they personally are impacted, and even then so long as they believe someone they hate is suffering more they’re likely to consider it an acceptable price.
if this goes on...
The more I read, see and hear about the whole situation, the more I think of the short-story Robert Heinlein wrote in the 50’s ‘If this goes on’
Math
“(“1150% increase in assaults”), as though that somehow justifies its decision to use the Constitution as a door mat. All that actually means is that there have been 115 more “assaults” as compared to 2024.”
No. What it means is that there are 11 and 1/2 times more assaults.
10 last year = 115 this year or 105 more
100 last year = 1 150 this year or 1 050 more.
Big difference between what is thought to be truth here and what reality actually is.
Re:
The real questions you’re failing to address here: How many assaults did ICE face in 2024, and has ICE defined “assault” in a way that allows it to count as assaults acts that didn’t before count as “assault” so it could pad the numbers for the sake of hyperbolizing the threat to ICE agents?
Re: Re:
It isn’t my story. I was correcting an error made in the story.
Re: Re: Re:
If you can’t answer the questions, don’t put yourself in a position to be asked those questions.
Re: Re: Re:2
You are in same position asking the questions.
Correcting a mistake in a writing doesn’t make me responsible for the whole writing. Not sure where you get that idea
Re: Re: Some examples of how ICE commonly defines "assault" in official reports (listing not complete):
“They hit my fist with their face.”
“They stuck their neck between the ground and my knee.”
“They didn’t fall down the first time I shoved them.”
“They scratched my front bumper with the side of their car — repeatedly.”
“They bumped the rear of my vehicle with their vehicle when I brake-checked them.”
“They demanded to see a proper, signed, judicial warrant.”
“They were videoing our illegal actions.”
Re:
Numbers don’t matter if the definitions are loose or instances are fabricated. They claim assault to press charges even when no assault occurred. We’ve seen this in dismissed charges and failures of grand juries to indict in multiple jurisdictions. You’re memorizing shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave and pretending you know the truth.
Re: Re:
Talk to author of the story who included the numbers
Re: Re: Re:
Except Tim (the author) also said: “that especially meaningless stat…” in reference to the numbers. He included them as a part of the critique of the outright lies that the administration is pushing. And you, an admitted non-American with no skin in the game, is pushing bullshit.