Video Blog From Gitmo

WASHINGTON — Ahead of confirmation hearings for President-elect Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, the American Civil Liberties Union is urging the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to evaluate her record on civil rights and liberties amid Trump’s promise to deport mass number of immigrants from the United States. While the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions as a matter of organizational policy, we have spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. In line with that history, we are examining and publicizing cabinet nominees’ records on civil rights and civil liberties and urging senators to seek and obtain commitments from the nominees on key concerns. “In its short history, the Department of Homeland Security has been responsible for implementing some of the worst anti-immigrant actions family separation, and is now poised to execute President Trump’s promise of mass deportations,” said Sarah Mehta, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “This is our nation’s largest domestic law enforcement agency, and under any president, DHS’ unchecked authority should be cause for alarm. Given President-elect Trump's promises, the stakes are even higher. The Senate must take seriously its ‘advice and consent’ role and get Kristi Noem on the record on important issues that impact all our communities, including surveillance, religious and racial profiling, and use of force against protestors.” The Department of Homeland Security, founded in 2002, combines an array of federal resources and agencies covering counter-terrorism operations, border security, immigration enforcement, intelligence gathering, and disaster management. The ACLU objected to its creation at the outset — warning this sprawling mandate would target immigrants and lead to racial and religious profiling. Over the years, we have sued for a range of abuses and violent conduct, including excessive force against protestors; deadly detention facilities; numerous incidents of racial profiling; and illegal arrests and detention of U.S. citizens as well as immigrants and visitors. Homeland Security was also pivotal in Trump’s most extreme policies during his first administration — including his family separation policy — and has been responsible for the expansion of invasive domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering, including facial recognition software. Kristi Noem represented South Dakota in the U.S. House of Representatives before becoming governor in 2019. In 2017, as a member of Congress she backed then-President Trump’s Muslim ban policies, although two years later as governor she allowed refugee resettlement to resume in South Dakota. During her time as governor, she has adopted Texas Gov. Abbott’s “invasion” rhetoric, referring to the U.S. border with Mexico as a “warzone” and sending National Guard troops to Texas to join the abusive Operation Lone Star. However, by and large Noem’s record on immigration and other DHS issues remains thin. If confirmed by the Senate, Noem will be charged by President-elect Trump to prioritize DHS funds on detention and deportations, even at the cost of our preparedness for and ability to respond to natural disasters. The Trump White House is also expected to dramatically increase DHS surveillance and intelligence and militarized policing in our communities — especially among our most vulnerable populations — for years to come. The ACLU is urging the Senate to get Noem on the record on key questions, including: Will you seek assistance from uniformed military personnel to conduct militarized immigration raids in our neighborhoods and build large-scale detention camps across our nation? Will you re-implement President-elect Trump’s family separation policy? Will you use the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other non-immigration DHS agencies to support mass deportations, or withhold them to punish states and localities that refuse to participate in mass deportations? What steps will you take to protect our privacy and civil liberties from federal domestic surveillance, intelligence gathering, and watchlisting? Will you prevent these powers from being used against protestors or to be targeted at perceived opponents of the president? For years, CBP, ICE, and other components of DHS purchased individuals’ data from data brokers to surveil and track us, including for immigration purposes. Last year, it was reported that DHS was expected to pause data purchases. Will you continue the pause on data purchases?

The Supreme Court will decide whether a law that effectively bans TikTok in the United States violates the First Amendment rights of more than 170 million Americans who use the social media platform. The law also allows the President to ban other foreign-owned apps deemed a national security threat, opening the door to future abuse and censorship. The ban on TikTok is set to go into effect on January 19, 2025.

The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties.

WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf