The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) internal campaign against U.S. citizens—characterized by the systematic use of mobile facial recognition, the expansion of domestic terrorism definitions to include First Amendment-protected activities, and the pursuit of denaturalization for naturalized citizens—represents a paradigm shift in post-9/11 surveillance. This evolution is functionally redefining the boundaries of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by leveraging commercial data "loopholes" and new executive authorities to bypass traditional warrant requirements.

1. Redefining "Search" Through Mobile Biometrics and Geofencing

The deployment of the Mobile Fortify app in May 2025, used over 100,000 times by February 2026, has effectively turned the public square into a biometric checkpointHow ICE is using facial recognition in Minnesota | Technology - The Guardiantheguardian +1. By allowing agents to scan faces and fingerprints instantly against databases of 200 million images, DHS is challenging the "reasonable expectation of privacy" established in Carpenter v. United StatesFace Recognition and the ‘Trump Terror’: A Marriage Made in Hell | American Civil Liberties Unionaclu +1.

• Erosion of Anonymity: While Carpenter required a warrant for seven days of location data, DHS now argues that "non-consensual surveillance" without a court order is lawful when it does not intrude upon a reasonable expectation of privacy—a standard they apply to public face scansDHS/ICE/PIA-061 HSI Surveillance Technologiesdhs .
• The Geofence Split: In 2024 and 2025, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits diverged on whether geofence warrants (collecting location history of all users in an area) constitute a search. The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Smith analogized this to Carpenter, warning of "near perfect surveillance," while the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Chatrie originally held that such data is voluntarily shared and subject to the third-party doctrineGeofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment | Congress.gov | Library of Congresscongress .
• Commercial Data Loopholes: DHS continues to purchase location data from brokers to circumvent Carpenter, arguing that the Fourth Amendment does not regulate open-market transactionsLAUNDERING DATA: HOW THE GOVERNMENT'S ...columbialawreview +1.

2. Expansion of Domestic Terrorism and First Amendment Retaliation

The administration has utilized National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7) and the September 2022 Executive Order designating "Antifa" a domestic terrorist organization to recategorize dissent as a national security threatDesignating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization – The White Housewhitehouse +1.

• Labels as Intimidation: Border Czar Tom Homan and other officials have explicitly threatened to use a "domestic terrorist" database to "make famous" those who record or protest ICE operations by sharing their data with employers and schools ICE’s Unconstitutional Double Standard for Protesters | Lawfare lawfaremedia .
• Retaliatory Labeling: In Hilton v. Noem (2026), plaintiffs allege that DHS officials labeled U.S. citizens recording immigration enforcement in Maine as "domestic terrorists" to chill their First Amendment rightsDefending Maine communities from federal surveillance and intimidationprotectdemocracy +1.
• The "Doxing" Threshold: A December 2025 memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi defined "organized doxing of law enforcement" as domestic terrorism, a move critics argue criminalizes the journalistic act of identifying federal agents in publicDOJ Issues Sweeping New Domestic Terrorism Directive: What the Attorney General’s December 4 Memorandum Means for You | Enforcement Edge | Blogs | Arnold & Porterarnoldporter +1.

3. The Weaponization of Denaturalization and Voter Fraud Inquiries

DHS has shifted from targeted enforcement to a broad campaign investigating naturalized U.S. citizens for alleged pre-naturalization voting.

• The Referral Pipeline: As of February 2026, the DOJ has established a "denaturalization referral pipeline" processing 100 to 200 cases per monthVoter Fraud Alert Can USCIS Take Your Citizenship Backyoutube .
• Material Misrepresentation: The government utilizes INA section 340, arguing that voting (even if due to clerical errors or motor-voter registration) constitutes a "willful misrepresentation" on the N-400 applicationVoter Fraud Alert Can USCIS Take Your Citizenship Backyoutube +1.
• Data Aggregation: In Idaho, cross-referencing state rolls with federal data initially tagged 760 potential non-citizens, though further review narrowed this to a dozen cases, highlighting the high risk of "erroneous deprivation" of citizenship rightsDHS is hunting for any US citizens who may have voted before being naturalized | CNN Politicscnn .

4. Jurisdictional Erosion and the Failure of Accountability

The fatal shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis in January 2024/2026 have exposed a collapse of inter-agency and federal-state cooperationRenee Nicole Good: Who was the woman killed by ICE in Minneapolis?bbc +1.

• Blocking State Oversight: The FBI and DHS have blocked the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) from accessing evidence or the scene of the shootings, asserting federal agents are "not subject to state jurisdiction"Trump and Minnesota feud impacts ICE shooting investigation - NPRnpr +1.
• Caging of Bivens: The Supreme Court’s decisions in Egbert v. Boule (2022) and Hernandez v. Mesa (2020) have virtually eliminated the ability of citizens to sue federal agents for damages, with the Court ruling that First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment claims in the "border/immigration" context are new contexts where only Congress can provide a remedy Reckoning With Bivens | Lawfare lawfaremedia .
• Qualified Immunity Codification: Legislative efforts like the Qualified Immunity Act of 2025 seek to codify these protections into statute, ensuring that "reasonable" good-faith errors by agents are shielded from litigationSenator Jim Banks Introduces the Qualified Immunity Act of 2025senate .

5. Due Process and the Redress Crisis

The Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), which has grown to over 1.2 million names, continues to be upheld by appellate courts despite district court findings that its redress procedures are a "due process nightmare"Biden’s Domestic Terrorism Strategy Entrenches Bias and Harmful Law Enforcement Power | American Civil Liberties Unionaclu +1.

• Judicial Deference: In El-Hady v. Kable, the Fourth Circuit joined the Sixth and Tenth Circuits in upholding the TSDB, ruling that enhanced airport screening (even delays up to 3 hours) is a "qualified" burden on the right to travel and does not violate the Due Process Clause Case Summary: Fourth Circuit Upholds Terrorism Watchlist Database | Lawfare lawfaremedia .
• Speculative Harm: Following the precedent of Laird v. Tatum (1972) and Clapper v. Amnesty International (2013), modern courts increasingly dismiss surveillance challenges because the "chilling effect" is deemed too speculative to establish standingLaird v. Tatum (1972) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia - Free Speech Centermtsu +1.

In summary, the DHS internal campaign is reshaping legal standards by moving toward a "preventative" surveillance model that treats peaceful observation as a predicate for terrorism labeling. This shift is solidified by a judiciary that increasingly defers to executive national security claims and a legal framework that provides "rights without remedies" for U.S. citizens targeted by federal agency overreachQualified Immunity: Achieving a Better Balance - Boston Bar Associationbostonbar +1.