The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) within ICE is now actively investigating over 100 online critics amid accusations of doxing and threats against ICE personnel. This follows an incident involving Paigelynne Gonyea, a poll worker in Syracuse, New York, who was approached by ICE agents due to an Instagram post she made earlier that year. The post criticized an ICE agent involved in a controversial shooting.
When agents asked Gonyea to sign a notice warning against threatening federal officials, she refused, feeling it would be an admission of guilt. This led Gonyea to express concern that OPR, typically focused on internal investigations, is now targeting civilians for their online expressions.
ICE’s OPR is responsible for various oversight functions, including investigating allegations of misconduct and inspecting detention facilities. However, recent documents reveal that they are now engaging in investigations of civilians, including doxing incidents directed at ICE employees. Since the beginning of 2025, OPR has reportedly opened 131 cases regarding these online threats and doxing.
Although convictions based solely on speech are challenging, OPR is also known for issuing administrative subpoenas to tech companies in an effort to unmask critics and track online expressions against ICE employees. The practice of monitoring speech raises significant First Amendment concerns, as highlighted by legal experts.
Additionally, there are claims that the Trump administration has broadened the definition of doxing to include lawful activities such as photographing officials during their duties. Investigations into online speech come amidst various reports indicating ICE’s ongoing battles against perceived threats, including an update to privacy notices regarding the collection of data on individuals deemed as threatening to ICE personnel or facilities.
As Gonyea plans to challenge the administration’s actions in court, the broader implications of these targeted investigations could affect the rights of Americans to express themselves online. She asserts that the issue transcends her personal case, representing a significant concern for free speech rights across the country.
