On October 22, 2025, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James launched an online portal inviting residents to submit photos, videos and descriptions of federal immigration-enforcement actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New York. The call to action came in the wake of a high-profile ICE raid on Manhattan’s Canal Street, during which several people, including vendor-street sellers, were detained and allegations of over-broad questioning and possible rights violations emerged. James said in her announcement: “Every New Yorker has the right to live without fear or intimidation. If you witnessed and documented ICE activity yesterday, I urge you to share that footage with my office. We are committed to reviewing these reports and assessing any violations of law.”
At the same time, on the federal side, Robert Garcia (D-CA) announced that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee plan to launch a “master ICE tracker” — a website that would aggregate reports from the public of ICE operations that could then be reviewed or monitored. According to Garcia: “Over the course of the next couple of weeks… we’re going to be essentially tracking every single instance that we can verify (location of ICE agents).” This initiative has drawn criticism from Republicans and the Department of Homeland Security, which warned the tracker “looks like obstruction of justice.”
The situation underscores the growing friction between state-level oversight efforts and federal immigration enforcement authority. On one hand, New York’s AG is positioning her office as an accountability mechanism for ICE operations in the state; on the other, the federal agency views such monitoring efforts as interfering with its lawful duties. Advocates of the portal say it offers a way for community members to document possible civil-rights violations; critics argue that publicizing agent movements or creating a tracker could endanger law-enforcement operations or personnel.
As this evolves, key issues remain: What standards will be used to evaluate the uploaded footage? How will privacy and due-process concerns be balanced with oversight? And to what degree can state offices legally scrutinize or challenge federal enforcement actions? The answers to those questions will have implications not just for New York, but for the broader battles over immigration enforcement and federal-state power.
