Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Grants And Local Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts tell Boston council DHS UASI grant terms push surveillance and ICE cooperation
Summary
Witnesses at the council hearing warned that DHS's Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding comes with written spending priorities — including large minimums for law‑enforcement and border‑related activities — that can steer cities toward surveillance technologies and information sharing that harm immigrant communities.
Boston — At a June 4 hearing before the Boston City Council Committee on Civil Rights, surveillance‑technology researchers and policy advocates warned that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) UASI grant conditions create pressure for localities to spend on police‑oriented surveillance and to facilitate information sharing with federal partners.
Ali Finn, a researcher at the AI Now Institute, told councilors that the UASI program requires grantees to dedicate a defined share of funds to law‑enforcement terrorism‑prevention activities (testimony referenced a 35% figure) and that recent program updates add allocations related to border enforcement and election security. "UASI purports to support emergency response, but in reality diverts critically needed funding from actual emergency services and public health," Finn said, adding that Boston has historically proposed UASI budgets that exceed the minimum law‑enforcement allocation.
Why it matters: Witnesses said the UASI application process and approved equipment lists make it difficult for cities to accept funds without also adopting surveillance technologies — including camera networks, ALPRs and digital‑forensics tools — that can be accessed by federal partners. Finn said that accepting UASI funds often requires at least one project supporting a local fusion center and that DHS priorities can be used to compel spending on projects cities might otherwise decline.
Council reaction and options: Councilors asked whether Boston could apply for UASI funds while protecting immigrant communities. Finn and other panelists said the program's written requirements and approved expenditure lists limit the city's ability to isolate emergency‑management spending from surveillance purchases or federal information‑sharing arrangements; they urged the council to explore alternative local funding for emergency management and to insist on specific reporting, auditing and contractual guardrails if the city pursues UASI funds.
Next steps: Council members asked for a follow‑up hearing that includes BRIC and administration representatives before any council vote on related grants. No grant action occurred at the session.
