House Oversight subcommittee hears split views on using technology to track immigrants and bolster enforcement

The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation convened on March 1, 2025, in Washington, D.C., for a hearing on how modern technology can be used to strengthen immigration enforcement and interior monitoring.

The hearing brought sharply divergent views. Committee members and former enforcement officials urged broader use of digital tracking, biometric identification and data modernization to locate and remove noncitizens ordered deported; other witnesses cautioned that operational limits, legal barriers and privacy safeguards shape what technology can realistically accomplish.

Former ICE enforcement official John Fabricatorre, testifying first, said agencies need an updated, enterprise data platform and wider use of tools that he said helped past operations, including a mobile fingerprint device referred to in testimony as “Eddie.” “The time to act is now,” Fabricatorre said, arguing that improved data sharing and machine‑learning tools would allow officers to “target and apprehend with precision.”

Dr. Doug Gilmore, a retired Homeland Security Investigations official, described both successful and poorly implemented efforts. He highlighted a DHS Center for Countering Human Trafficking upgrade that digitized continued‑presence processing and cut adjudication from more than a year to as little as three weeks, saying, “Technology can improve productivity, mitigate risks, improve morale, and reduce fatigue.” At the same time, Gilmore said restrictions and siloing often prevent technologies such as facial and pattern recognition from being used broadly.

Simon Hankinson of the Heritage Foundation focused on Alternatives to Detention (ATD). He cited testimony and studies stating ATD enrollment and retention numbers the panel discussed during the hearing: roughly 7.5 million people on ICE’s non‑detained docket, about 184,000 tracked with ATD, and a claim that many ATD participants are unenrolled before their cases conclude. Hankinson said, “It is unacceptable to have millions of foreign nationals in the midst of deportation proceedings and not know where they are,” and argued for wider and stricter monitoring.

Deborah Fleischaker, a former DHS official, urged a more restrained view of what technology can deliver on its own. She warned that removals require coordination with foreign governments, travel documents and detention capacity, and said that ICE already has access to multiple government databases — including jail booking data, state DMV records and the National Crime Information Center — but needs better analysis and prioritization of that information: “ICE doesn’t need additional data to do its job, but it does need help analyzing, sorting, and prioritizing the data to which it already has access.”

Committee members probed witnesses on specific tools and real‑world outcomes. Multiple witnesses and members raised the CBP One application as an example of both utility and misuse: several panelists testified that the app improved scheduling at ports of entry but that criminal actors exploited it in some cases. Members and witnesses also discussed the Alternatives to Detention program, GPS ankle monitors, facial recognition, and the challenge of data silos across DHS components.

Members pressed witnesses with examples and statistics offered in testimony and during the question period, including assertions that millions of entries went unrecorded, tens of billions of dollars flow through cartel operations, and a string of high‑profile criminal cases cited as connected to failures in tracking or monitoring. Witnesses described operational constraints in prior years — including moratoria on arrests and limits on agency cooperation — and urged funding for both personnel and technology. Fabricatorre and Gilmore recommended increased detention capacity, more Enforcement and Removal Operations officers, and investment in integrated data platforms.

The subcommittee also heard cautionary notes about rapid scale‑ups. Fleischaker warned that quickly expanding detention without appropriate vetting and oversight of contractors risks harm to detainees and legal violations. She emphasized that technology is not a substitute for diplomatic steps and logistical realities required for removal.

The hearing record will include submitted written statements, and members were given five legislative days to submit additional materials and written questions. The subcommittee chair closed the hearing with standard procedures for follow up.