The Trump administration quietly erased a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy on facial recognition from its public website while deepening its embrace of the controversial technology, including a multimillion-dollar contract with Clearview AI, a company legally barred from selling its software to law-enforcement agencies in Illinois.

That ban stems from a landmark settlement under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, a 2008 law that requires informed consent for the collection of biometric identifiers such as fingerprints or facial scans.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups sued Clearview AI in 2020, arguing that its massive database of photographs scraped from social media platforms violated residents’ privacy rights.

The resulting settlement blocked most businesses and state or local law enforcement agencies in Illinois from using the technology, but did not block federal agencies, including DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Meanwhile, ICE has deployed a smartphone tool called Mobile Fortify which lets agents scan a person’s face or fingerprints during street encounters to verify identity and immigration status. Internal ICE documents state that persons photographed are not given “an opportunity to decline collection,” even if they are U.S. citizens.

Procurement records show ICE issued a purchase order to Clearview in September 2024 for forensic software services with a ceiling of about $1.1 million. A year later, this past September 5, the agency awarded a follow-on contract with an initial obligation of $3.75 million toward a total value reported at $9.2 million.

That award coincided with ICE’s “Midway Blitz,” a large-scale immigration enforcement operation across the Chicago area that continues today.

Independent reporting found ICE now holds “at least $3.6 million worth of contracts” with Clearview to provide software capable of matching names, social-media profiles, and other personal identifiers.

Federal contract databases also list Clearview agreements with the FBI (a $18,000 license), the U.S. Army (a $75,000 purchase order), the U.S. Marshals Service, and Customs and Border Protection.

In February, DHS removed from its website the text of Directive 026-11, Use of Face Recognition and Face Capture Technologies, issued in September 2023 under the Biden administration.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board’s (PCLOB) May 9 staff report, Use of Facial Recognition Technology by the Transportation Security Administration, noted the deletion and said, “DHS did not clarify whether DHS Directive 026-11 still applies to DHS components or whether there are specific plans to issue an updated policy that would address the same issues.”

DHS officials said the removal reflected routine website maintenance, not a policy change. “They do not represent a change in policy,” a spokesperson said. “DHS continually reviews issuances to strengthen clarity and accuracy.”

But the absence of public documentation leaves lawmakers and watchdogs uncertain about the department’s standards for biometric use, including requirements for training, accuracy testing, and civil liberties safeguards.

Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, has pressed for stronger guardrails on federal use of facial recognition technology. In a September 11 letter, Senators Edward Markey, Ron Wyden, and Jeff Merkley joined Durbin and other Democrats in demanding that ICE halt deployment of a new facial recognition app and explain its legal basis and privacy protections.

Clearview AI has been the subject of multiple lawsuits and global regulatory actions. In Illinois, a federal judge approved a class action settlement in March allowing plaintiffs a 23 percent equity stake in Clearview, an arrangement valued at $51.75 million based on the company’s $225 million valuation.

Internationally, regulators in Canada and Europe fined or banned Clearview for violating data protection laws.

Clearview executives have long sought to expand federal business. In 2022, the company’s then-CEO Hoan Ton That said the goal was to move from six-figure to multi-million-dollar government contracts. Critics argue the deeper issue is not the cost but the erosion of privacy.

Read More