ICE Watchdog Probes Online Critics of Agency

Voting had already begun when federal agents showed up at a polling station in Syracuse, New York, during the state’s June primaries. Their target was Paigelynne Gonyea, a poll worker who says they confronted her over an Instagram post from January that allegedly “doxed” an ICE agent. The post in question, she explains, simply credited the Minnesota Star Tribune for identifying Jonathan Ross , the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good during a federal operation in Minneapolis this winter , and called for his indictment.

The agents handed Gonyea a warning notice stating it was illegal to “threaten to assault, kidnap and/or murder” federal officials or their immediate family members in an effort to interfere with official duties. The form also demanded she remove the post “and/or discontinue” the behavior. Gonyea refused to sign. “My signature would have been an admission of guilt,” she says.

ICE did not respond to requests for comment.

The encounter, first reported by Syracuse.com, rattled Gonyea for many reasons. But one detail stood out: the warning notice came from ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). “That office is supposed to be for internal investigations,” she notes, “and now they’re using their own internal departments on American civilians.”

OPR is designed to serve as an internal watchdog. Its duties include inspecting detention facilities, investigating allegations of employee and contractor misconduct, and processing security checks for new applicants. The office’s website also mentions protecting against “external threats” by managing building badge access and maintaining network security. But recent court documents suggest OPR has increasingly turned its attention to civilians for what they say online.

In a court declaration filed in April, an ICE official stated that between January 2025 and March 2026, OPR investigated 131 cases involving “incidents of doxing and threats directed towards ICE employees nationwide.”

How many of those cases led to criminal charges remains unclear. WIRED identified just one instance where OPR received credit for investigative work: a case in which the Justice Department accused a California man of harassing an ICE attorney and her mother. The man, who pleaded guilty, allegedly began his harassment campaign in January 2024 , well before President Trump took office , and had previously lived in the same building as the mother. ICE did not answer questions about whether other cases resulted from OPR’s investigations or how many additional cases have been opened since March.

“It takes a lot to actually convict someone for their speech, and it’s only possible in very limited circumstances,” says Laura Moraff, a staff attorney at the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “People do have a First Amendment right to criticize the government and to do that online and to do that anonymously.”

OPR was also behind at least one of the recent administrative subpoenas sent to tech companies in an effort to unmask online critics. In court filings, lawyers for the poster argued the subpoena , which demanded the poster’s name, address, telephone number, and other details , violated their right to free speech. The government withdrew the subpoena rather than litigate its merits.