Journalists push back against parent companies' contracts with ICE - Poynter

More than 200 journalists at Law360, a legal news outlet, and its sister publications have signed a letter demanding that their parent company RELX drop its contract with the Department of Homeland Security.

The letter, which was signed by more than 80% of the union representing editorial staff at Law360 and regulation news site MLex, states that the $22.1 million contract “raises imminent human rights concerns” given recent actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency within DHS. The five-year contract, signed in 2021, gives DHS access to a database of public records compiled by RELX’s LexisNexis Risk Solutions.

Separately, several journalists at Reuters signed on to an internal letter by employees across parent company Thomson Reuters calling on the corporation to explain “what human rights and civil liberties due diligence” it has taken in signing several contracts with DHS amounting to tens of millions of dollars.

Both Thomson Reuters and RELX are massive corporations that generate billions of dollars of revenue, in part through their information and data analytics tools. Their news operations make up a comparatively small portion of their business, but some reporters are still pushing back against their companies’ actions — sometimes defying traditional expectations that journalists refrain from publicly taking partisan stances.

“We are deeply concerned that RELX is directly aiding the separation of families, the removal of children from schools and the death of individuals in detention centers,” reads the letter sent by unionized journalists at Law360. “LexisNexis Risk Solutions’ database gives ICE the ability to find migrants where they work and identify their family members, according to privacy and legal experts’ analysis of contract documents.”

In the letter, the journalists call on RELX to decline to renew its contract with DHS once it expires in May. They also demand that RELX conduct a review of how the 2021-2026 contract has impacted “human rights and the rule of law.”

RELX did not respond to a request for comment. An old FAQ page that has since been taken down states that the contract allows DHS to use an “investigation tool” by LexisNexis Risk Solutions to promote “public safety.” The tool is not used to prevent legal immigration, separate families or deport people unless they pose a “serious threat” to public safety, according to the FAQ.

“Under the Biden Administration policies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not use the technology to track individuals that may have committed minor offenses,” the FAQ reads. “It is strictly used for identifying individuals with serious criminal backgrounds.”

The journalists’ letter points out that under President Donald Trump’s administration, ICE has taken on a much more aggressive stance toward detaining and deporting immigrants. At times, U.S. citizens have been assaulted and detained. The vast majority of individuals arrested by ICE under Trump did not have charges or convictions for violent criminal offenses, CBS News reported last month.

Journalists at Law360 said they first became aware of the contract in 2021 thanks to reporting from The Intercept. At the time, more than 100 people signed an internal letter to leadership criticizing the contract, but “nothing much came of it,” said Emily Lever, a Law360 bankruptcy reporter.

The recent ICE raids in Minneapolis reignited conversations about that contract among unionized journalists, and a small group set about drafting the letter. Though some members initially hesitated to sign the letter over concerns about how future employers might view the effort, the letter ultimately garnered signatures from more than 80% of the union. (The union decided not to make the list of signatures public.)

“There obviously were many discussions among union members who are reporters who have said, ‘I wouldn’t normally sign onto this, but this is out of hand. This goes beyond just a bias thing,’” said Amy Rowe, a senior copy editor. “The law is what we cover, and ICE is acting illegally. So we just think this is a circumstance when we would deviate from the ‘stay neutral, stay objective’ idea.”

Many newsrooms have policies against expressing partisan opinions and engaging in political activity. But in recent years — especially in the wake of the 2020 racial reckoning — some have started to question traditional ideas about objectivity and neutrality in journalism. Still, it is relatively rare for journalists at legacy outlets to do so, and many avoid publicly speaking about contentious political issues.

But the Trump administration’s immigration policies may prove to be an exception. Over the past year, journalism organizations including newsrooms, unions and professional associations have increasingly spoken out against ICE agents’ brutal tactics, especially in the context of press freedom issues. Federal agents have repeatedly assaulted and detained journalists covering immigration raids and protests. One reporter, Mario Guevara, was held in detention for more than 100 days before being deported to El Salvador — the country he had fled two decades ago over death threats for his reporting.

Lever said she does not see an ethical conflict in signing the letter. She covers bankruptcy and said the spectrum of political issues that could constitute a conflict of interest is “pretty narrow.” She added that as a worker and as someone who enjoys the protections of a union — the Law360 Union is the only unionized division within RELX — she felt a need to take a public stand and use the leverage she has.

“I’m a journalist, yes, but I’m also a worker,” Lever said. “And it’s workers that are being abducted in fields and factories and slaughterhouses. The most vulnerable workers in this country are being targeted.”

At Thomson Reuters, employees from across the company sent an internal letter to top leaders highlighting “ethical, legal, and human rights concerns” regarding three of its contracts with DHS, said Scott DiSavino, a Reuters reporter who covers North American power and natural gas markets. It was not a union effort, though “several” union journalists, including himself, signed it.

The letter demands that Thomson Reuters confirm the status of its contracts — some of which are due for renewal in the coming months — and to explain what oversight it exercises over how DHS uses the company’s tools. One contract that is of particular concern is an agreement giving DHS access to data collected by license plate readers.

“Even when governed by policy, (license plate recognition) access is an enabling technology for large-scale location inference,” the letter reads. “Used in the immigration enforcement context, employees are concerned it increases the likelihood of family separation, targeting of community members who assist their neighbors, and community fear.”

A Thomson Reuters spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement that the company does not comment on specific customer contracts.

“We continue to work with our customers, providing technology and services that support investigations into areas of national security and public safety, such as child exploitation, human trafficking, narcotics and weapons trafficking and financial crime,” the spokesperson wrote. “We remain committed to this mission while maintaining strong safeguards that ensure our products and services are used in accordance with our contractual terms and applicable law.”

The letter also asks that Reuters start disclosing its contractual relationships with DHS and ICE in all stories about the two agencies. The disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is generally considered good practice in journalism.

“Each of us as employees, and employees across America, have a connection to somebody who has been directly affected by the actions of ICE,” the letter reads. “The detrimental actions of ICE, and the DHS’s lack of oversight and direct falsehoods regarding the situation in Minnesota and other cities, makes us question if our investigative products and services are being used in accordance with our mission and values, as well as in accordance with the law and our nation’s constitution.”