The federal government’s efforts to locate immigrants are intensifying. Monthly, private contractors receive tens of thousands of names from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), tasked with swiftly finding these individuals for targeted enforcement operations aimed at arresting and detaining them. The scale of this initiative is unprecedented, potentially involving over 1 million people, and it employs a sophisticated array of data tools, online research, and increasingly, artificial intelligence to expedite the process.
This practice, known as skip tracing, involves tracking down individuals through public records, databases, online information, and at times, physical surveillance. Historically utilized by debt collectors, bail bondsmen, and private investigators, its incorporation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement raises significant legal concerns regarding privacy, due process, and the role of private entities in governmental surveillance.
ICE’s skip tracing methodology employs government data, online research, and in-person confirmation, such as photographing individuals’ homes or workplaces, to verify their locations. This approach unveils a vast AI-assisted surveillance network targeting over a million immigrants in the United States.
Recent investigations by Scripps News reveal that ICE awarded contracts to 13 private firms for nationwide skip tracing services. These indefinite contracts, issued in December 2025, could accumulate costs of up to $1.2 billion over two years. The Intercept estimates that up to 1.5 million immigrants might be targeted through a combination of digital tools and on-the-ground surveillance.
So, how does this system function?
ICE is establishing a comprehensive network of private contractors, operating in plain clothes, tasked with the following responsibilities:
- Locating individuals
- Verifying addresses
- Taking time-stamped photographs of residences and workplaces
These contractors access personal data, including names, birth dates, addresses, and phone numbers. Each firm may handle up to 50,000 cases monthly, initially employing all available technology to locate subjects, with physical surveillance as a secondary option if needed. The operation relies on an amalgamation of government records, commercial data, and online information, though details about specific databases, data accuracy, and correction of errors remain undisclosed.
For defense attorneys, the implications are significant. Client location data may be collected, verified, and shared with ICE by third-party contractors — potentially before direct contact from ICE occurs. According to documents shared with The Washington Post, information gathered may lead to raids and enforcement actions, including arrests or deportation proceedings.
Some companies contracted by ICE have ties to military or intelligence sectors; examples include Bluehawk LLC, SOS International, and Gravitas. These firms have employed artificial intelligence and advanced data models, which have historically supported national security or private investigations, not typical civil immigration enforcement.
For instance, Bluehawk has held contracts with the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence for over a decade, focusing on intelligence collection and analysis.
Gravitas Investigations, potentially earning over $32 million from its contract, markets itself as providing “comprehensive surveillance operations,” often used in fraud and corporate investigations, blending online research and real-world tracking.
Another contractor, BI Incorporated, a subsidiary of the for-profit GEO Group, already manages immigration detention centers nationwide. Through skip tracing, this entity stands to profit by locating immigrants for later detention. Its contract alone could yield up to $121 million, separate from its detention operations, allowing the company to benefit at multiple stages of enforcement.
The federal government’s expanded contracts and the use of skip tracing raise profound concerns.
The Far Reach of AI
Certain contractors promote AI technologies capable of identifying individuals and mapping their connections to family and associates, aggregating data from public and private sources. Even when AI is not the sole method utilized, its integration helps justify and enhance the breadth of operations — enabling contractors to manage more cases rapidly across extensive areas. However, such scaling raises the likelihood of errors: recent incidents illustrate how AI tools, including facial recognition systems like Clearview AI, have misidentified individuals, resulting in wrongful arrests and lengthy detentions of innocent people.
The Incentive Structure
Under ICE contracts, companies are incentivized to act swiftly, with bonuses for verifying a person’s location within 7 or 14 days. This performance-based reward system risks jeopardizing due process, accuracy, and the ethics concerning how information is gathered, validated, and reported. As Sharon Bradford Franklin, former chair of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, stated to Scripps News, the companies are effectively functioning as ICE bounty hunters, “It’s the same kind of incentive situation.”
Lack of Oversight and Accountability
Many contracts remain undisclosed, with unclear regulations governing contractor actions. Questions linger about the level of oversight parent companies maintain over their subsidiaries. In a notable instance, the contractor Capgemini, based in Paris, initiated an internal review following concerns from French officials regarding its involvement in this program and calls for enhanced transparency.
The Ever-Expanding Surveillance System
In a broader context, skip tracing exemplifies shifting trends in data-driven immigration enforcement. Enforcement efforts are no longer the sole domain of federal agents; they increasingly involve a network of private companies, data brokers, and state and local agencies. Concurrently, the surveillance of specific populations is becoming increasingly normalized.
Skip tracing transcends the act of merely finding individuals; it represents the construction of a systematic surveillance supply chain where artificial intelligence exacerbates existing legal and ethical dilemmas. By facilitating the collection, analysis, and action on vast amounts of data, AI empowers enforcement agencies to operate on an unprecedented scale. As this network grows, it threatens to undermine privacy, amplify errors, and obscure crucial decisions regarding individuals’ lives from public scrutiny and accountability.
