For decades, scientists with big questions about biology have found answers in a tiny worm. That worm — a millimeter-long creature called Caenorhabditis elegans — has helped researchers uncover fundamental features of how cells and organisms work. The impact of that work is enormous: Discoveries made using C. elegans have been recognized with four Nobel Prizes and have led to the development of new treatments for human disease.

In a perspective piece published in the November 2025 issue of the journal PNAS, 11 biologists including Robert Horvitz, the David H. Koch (1962) Professor of Biology at MIT, celebrate Nobel Prize-winning advances made through research in C. elegans. The authors discuss how that work has led to advances for human health, and highlight how a uniquely collaborative community among worm researchers has fueled the field.

MIT scientists are well represented in that community: The prominent worm biologists who coauthored the PNAS paper include former MIT graduate students Andrew Fire PhD ’83 and Paul Sternberg PhD ’84, now at Stanford University and Caltech, respectively; and two past members of Horvitz’s lab, Victor Ambros ’75, PhD ’79, who is now at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, and former postdoc Gary Ruvkun of Massachusetts General Hospital. Ann Rougvie at the University of Minnesota is the paper’s corresponding author.

“This tiny worm is beautiful — elegant both in its appearance and in its many contributions to our understanding of the biological universe in which we live,” says Horvitz, who in 2002 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, along with colleagues Sydney Brenner and John Sulston, for discoveries that helped explain how genes regulate programmed cell death and organ development. 

Early worm discoveries

Those discoveries were among the early successes in C. elegans research, made by pioneering scientists who recognized the power of the microscopic roundworm. C. elegans offers many advantages for researchers: The worms are easy to grow and maintain in labs; their transparent bodies make cells and internal processes readily visible under a microscope; they are cellularly very simple (e.g., they have only 302 nerve cells, compared with about 100 billion in a human) and their genomes can be readily manipulated to study gene function.

Most importantly, many of the molecules and processes that operate in C. elegans have been retained throughout evolution, meaning discoveries made using the worm can have direct relevance to other organisms, including humans. 

“Many aspects of biology are ancient and evolutionarily conserved,” Horvitz, who is also a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research and Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, as well as an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. “Such shared mechanisms can be most readily revealed by analyzing organisms that are highly tractable in the laboratory.”

In the 1960s, Brenner, a molecular biologist who was curious about how animals’ nervous systems develop and function, recognized that C. elegans offered unique opportunities to study these processes. Once he began developing the worm into a model for laboratory studies, it did not take long for other biologists to join him to take advantage of the new system.

In the 1970s, the unique features of the worm allowed Sulston to track the transformation of a fertilized egg into an adult animal, tracing the origins of each of the adult worm’s 959 cells. His studies revealed that in every developing worm, cells divide and mature in predictable ways. He also learned that some of the cells created during development do not survive into adulthood, and are instead eliminated by a process termed programmed cell death.

By seeking mutations that perturbed the process of programmed cell death, Horvitz and his colleagues identified key regulators of that process, which is sometimes referred to as apoptosis. These regulators, which both promote and oppose apoptosis, turned out to be vital for programmed cell death across the animal kingdom.

In humans, apoptosis shapes developing organs, refines brain circuits, and optimizes other tissue structures. It also modulates our immune systems and eliminates cells that are in danger of becoming cancerous. The human version of CED-9, the anti-apoptotic regulator that Horvitz’s team discovered in worms, is BCL-2. Researchers have shown that activating apoptotic cell death by blocking BCL-2 is an effective treatment for certain blood cancers. Today, researchers are also exploring new ways of treating immune disorders and neurodegenerative disease by manipulating apoptosis pathways.

Collaborative worm community

Horvitz and his colleagues’ discoveries about apoptosis helped demonstrate that understanding C. elegans biology has direct relevance to human biology and disease. Since then, a vibrant and closely connected community of worm biologists — including many who trained in Horvitz’s lab — has continued to carry out impactful work. In their PNAS article, Horvitz and his coauthors highlight that early work, as well as the Nobel Prize-winning work of:

• Andrew Fire and Craig Mello, whose discovery of an RNA-based system of gene silencing led to powerful new tools to manipulate gene activity. The innate process they discovered in worms, known as RNA interference, is now used as the basis of six FDA-approved therapeutics for genetic disorders, silencing faulty genes to stop their harmful effects.
• Martin Chalfie, who used a fluorescent protein made by jellyfish to visualize and track specific cells in C. elegans, helping launch the development of a set of tools that transformed biologists’ ability to observe molecules and processes that are important for both health and disease.
• Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun, who discovered a class of molecules called microRNAs that regulate gene activity not just in worms, but in all multicellular organisms. This prize-winning work was started when Ambros and Ruvkun were postdocs in Horvitz’s lab. Humans rely on more than 1,000 microRNAs to ensure our genes are used at the right times and places. Disruptions to microRNAs have been linked to neurological disorders, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and autoimmune disease, and researchers are now exploring how these small molecules might be used for diagnosis or treatment.

Horvitz and his coauthors stress that while the worm itself made these discoveries possible, so too did a host of resources that facilitate collaboration within the worm community and enable its scientists to build upon the work of others. Scientists who study C. elegans have embraced this open, collaborative spirit since the field’s earliest days, Horvitz says, citing the Worm Breeder’s Gazette, an early newsletter where scientists shared their observations, methods, and ideas.

Today, scientists who study C. elegans — whether the organism is the centerpiece of their lab or they are looking to supplement studies of other systems — contribute to and rely on online resources like WormAtlas and WormBase, as well as the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center, to share data and genetic tools. Horvitz says these resources have been crucial to his own lab’s work; his team uses them every day.

Just as molecules and processes discovered in C. elegans have pointed researchers toward important pathways in human cells, the worm has also been a vital proving ground for developing methods and approaches later deployed to study more complex organisms. For example, C. elegans, with its 302 neurons, was the first animal for which neuroscientists successfully mapped all of the connections of the nervous system. The resulting wiring diagram, or connectome, has guided countless experiments exploring how neurons work together to process information and control behavior. Informed by both the power and limitations of the C. elegans’ connectome, scientists are now mapping more complex circuitry, such as the 139,000-neuron brain of the fruit fly, whose connectome was completed in 2024.

C. elegans remains a mainstay of biological research, including in neuroscience. Scientists worldwide are using the worm to explore new questions about neural circuits, neurodegeneration, development, and disease. Horvitz’s lab continues to turn to C. elegans to investigate the genes that control animal development and behavior. His team is now using the worm to explore how animals develop a sense of time and transmit that information to their offspring.

Also at MIT, Steven Flavell’s team in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory is using the worm to investigate how neural connectivity, activity, and modulation integrate internal states, such as hunger, with sensory information, such as the smell of food, to produce sometimes long-lasting behaviors. (Flavell is Horvitz’s academic grandson, as Flavell trained with one of Horvitz’s postdoctoral trainees.)

As new technologies accelerate the pace of scientific discovery, Horvitz and his colleagues are confident that the humble worm will bring more unexpected insights.

The James M. and Cathleen D. Stone Center on Inequality and Shaping the Future of Work officially launched on Nov. 3, 2025, bringing together scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to explore critical questions about economic opportunity, technology, and democracy.

Co-directed by MIT professors Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, and Simon Johnson, the new Stone Center analyzes the forces that contribute to growing income and wealth inequality through the erosion of job quality and labor market opportunities for workers without a college degree. The center identifies innovative ways to move the economy onto a more equitable trajectory.

MIT Provost Anantha Chandrakasan opened the launch event by emphasizing the urgency and importance of the center's mission. “As artificial intelligence tools become more powerful, and as they are deployed more broadly,” he said, “we will need to strive to ensure that people from all kinds of backgrounds can find opportunity in the economy.”

Here are some of the key takeaways from participants in the afternoon’s discussions on wealth inequality, liberalism, and pro-worker AI.

Wealth inequality is driven by private business and public policy

Owen Zidar of Princeton University stressed that owners of businesses like car dealerships, construction firms, and franchises make up a significant portion of the top 1 percent. “For every public company CEO that gets a lot of attention,” he explained, “there are a thousand private business owners who have at least $25 million in wealth.” These business owners have outsized political influence through overrepresentation, lobbying, and donations.

Atif Mian of Princeton University connected high inequality to the U.S. debt crisis, arguing that massive savings at the top aren’t being channeled into productive investment. Instead, falling interest rates push the government to run increasingly large fiscal deficits.

To mitigate wealth inequality, speakers highlighted policy proposals including rolling back the 20 percent deduction for private business owners and increasing taxes on wealth.

However, policies must be carefully designed. Antoinette Schoar of the MIT Sloan School of Management explained how mortgage subsidy policies after the 2008 financial crisis actually worsened inequality by disadvantaging poorer potential homeowners.

Governments must provide basic public goods and economic security

Marc Dunkelman of the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University identified excessive red tape as a key problem for modern liberal democracy. “We can’t build high-speed rail. You can’t build enough housing,” he explained. “That spurs ordinary people who want government to work into the populist camp. We did this to ourselves.”

Josh Cohen of Apple University/the University of California at Berkeley emphasized that liberalism must deliver shared prosperity and fair opportunities, not just protect individual freedoms. When people lack economic security, they may turn to leaders who abandon liberal principles altogether.

Liberal democracy needs to adapt while keeping its core values

Helena Rosenblatt Dhar of the City University of New York Graduate Center noted that liberalism and democracy have not always been allies. Historically, “civil equality was very important, but not political equality,” she said. “Liberals were very wary of the masses.”

Speakers emphasized that liberalism’s challenge today is maintaining its commitments to limiting authoritarian power and protecting fundamental freedoms, while addressing its failures.

Doing so, in Dunkelman’s view, would mean working to “eliminate the sowing [of] the seeds of populism by making government properly balance individual rights and the will of the many.”

People-centric politics requires regulating social media

In his keynote at the launch, U.S. Representative Jake Auchincloss (Massachusetts 4th District) connected these notions of government effectiveness and public trust to the influence of technology. He emphasized the need to regulate social media platforms.

“In my opinion, media is upstream of culture, which is upstream of politics,” he said. “If we want a better culture, and certainly if we want a better politics, we need a better media.”

Auchincloss proposed that regulation should include holding social media companies liable for content and banning targeted advertising to minors.

He also echoed the urgency and importance of the center’s research agenda, particularly to understand whether AI will augment or replace labor.

“My bias has always been: Technology creates more jobs,” he said. “Maybe it’s different this time. Maybe I’m wrong.”

Augmentation is key to pro-worker AI — but it may require alternative AI architectures

Stone Center co-director Daron Acemoglu argued that expanding what humans can do, rather than automating their tasks, is essential for achieving pro-worker AI.

However, Acemoglu cautioned that this won’t happen by itself, noting that the business models of tech companies and their focus on artificial general intelligence are not aligned with a pro-worker vision for AI. This vision may require public investment in alternative AI architectures focused on “domain-specific, reliable knowledge.”

Ethan Mollick of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania noted that AI labs are explicitly trying to “replace people at everything” and are “absolutely convinced that they can do this in the very near term.”

Meanwhile, companies have “no model for AI adoption,” Mollick explained. “There is absolute confusion.” Even so, “there’s enough money at stake [that] the machine keeps moving forward,” underscoring the urgency of intervention.

In a glimpse of what such intervention could look like, Zana Buçinca of Microsoft shared research findings that accounting for workers’ values and cognition in AI design can enable better complementarity.

“The impact of AI on human work is not destiny,” she emphasized. “It’s design.”

When the MIT Human Insight Collaborative (MITHIC) launched in fall 2024, it was designed to elevate scholars at the frontiers of human-centered research and education, and to provide them with resources to pursue their most innovative and ambitious ideas. 

At the inaugural MITHIC Annual Event on Nov. 17, 2025, faculty from across the Institute shared the progress and impact of the projects they’ve advanced this past year with support from the presidential initiative. 

In opening remarks, MIT President Sally Kornbluth noted the “incredible range of opportunities for faculty and students to ask new questions and arrive at better, bolder, and more nuanced answers, grounded in the wisdom of the humanities, arts, and social sciences,” that MITHIC has sparked in its first year. 

Kornbluth highlighted the Living Climate Futures Lab as an example of the kind of work MITHIC was designed to support. “The lab works with people in communities from Massachusetts to Mongolia who are grappling with the impacts of climate change on their daily lives — on health and food security, housing, and jobs,” she said. The initiative, which was the focus of a panel discussion during the event, received MITHIC’s inaugural Faculty-Driven Initiative (FDI) seed grant.

“Like all the projects that MITHIC supports, the Living Climate Futures Lab also embodies MIT’s singular brand of excellence: collaborative, hands-on, and is deeply relevant to the world and the people around us,” added Kornbluth. 

MIT Provost Anantha Chandrakasan welcomed the audience, noting that “MITHIC is off to a strong start, advancing work across the Institute that broadens our perspective on global challenges.

“MITHIC is about inspiring our community to think differently and work together in new ways. It is about embedding human-centered thinking throughout our research, innovation, and education,” added Chandrakasan, who serves as co-chair of MITHIC.

Keynote speaker Rick Locke, the John C. Head III Dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, spoke to the “Human Side of Enterprise,” zeroing in on the challenges and opportunities that will determine the future of management education — and how MIT Sloan can position itself at the forefront. In practice, that means the work of MIT Sloan and MITHIC can shape how new technologies like artificial intelligence will reconfigure industries and careers. 

Of equal importance, Locke said, will be how new enterprises are created and run, how people work and live, how business practices become more sustainable, and how national economies develop and adapt.

“MIT has a history of charting and paving pathways to an exciting and productive future of work that not only includes humans, but makes the most of our humanity. Together we can invent this future,” said Locke, who earned his doctorate in MIT’s Department of Political Science and later served as head of the department.

After his address, Locke joined Agustín Rayo, the Kenan Sahin Dean of the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences and co-chair of MITHIC, for a fireside chat.

Bringing the classics back to life

In a session exploring innovations in MIT education, Kieran Setiya, the Peter de Florez Professor of Philosophy, detailed what he and his colleagues are calling a “Great Books” initiative. 

As part of a three-year pilot, faculty in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy have developed a two-semester sequence that focuses on books that reward repeated reading. The courses are loosely integrated and offered as electives, filling what Setiya calls an “urgent need for students to grapple with expansive questions about human nature, human knowledge, ethics, society, and politics” at a time of rapid social and technological change.

As students explore the work of authors like Plato and Aristotle, Homer and Virgil, Virginia Woolf, W.E.B. DuBois, and Simone de Beauvoir, they develop a deeper understanding of history, culture, and social change. These attributes, Setiya says, “will make students better people and better citizens. We're not just preparing MIT students to land high-paying jobs, but to solve human problems and to make the world a better place.”

AI and its impact

During a session on the use of AI, Esther Duflo, the Abdul Latif Jameel Professor of Poverty Alleviation and Development Economics, shared research she is working on in India with co-project lead Marzyeh Ghassemi, associate professor and the Germeshausen Career Development Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS). 

Duflo explained that the team is using AI to identify undiagnosed “silent” heart attacks, aiming to improve diagnosis and treatment of heart disease, the country’s No. 1 cause of death. The research team harnessed the power of a cheap diagnostic tool — a handheld electrocardiogram (ECG) device — to collect data on 6,000 patients who visited local health camps to predict their risk of a heart attack. 

They then paired the initial data with follow-up data from a cardiac ultrasound, which was able to confirm if patients experienced one. The researchers used this paired data and their own novel algorithm to train the ECG devices to more accurately assess a patient’s risk. The results are encouraging: 

“What is remarkable compared to existing tests is that it catches young people who are less likely to have had a silent heart attack, but still have a high risk. Right now, those young people are completely excluded from the current screening, because it’s basically based only on age,” Duflo said.

Reconstructing the music of the past

The day also featured a musical demonstration using three different replicas of an ancient Paracas whistle that a team from MIT recreated in collaboration with the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA).

It was a practical example of how Mark Rau, an assistant professor in music and theater arts with a shared appointment in EECS, and Benjamin Sabatini, a senior postdoc in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, are using CT scan technology to create models of ancient instruments, measure their vibrations and acoustic parameters, and produce functional reproductions. 

The team offered a step-by-step overview of the process they’ve used to assess the instruments and create the 3D-printed plaster molds, working alongside Jared Katz, the Pappalardo Curator of Musical Instruments at the MFA, resulting in a playable replica of an instrument used centuries ago. 

“What we’re really excited about is getting these kinds of replicas in the hands of students and musicians, and having experimental engagements. We’re also really excited about the printed replicas that allow the collection to be activated in new ways,” Katz explained.

The event featured Q&A opportunities throughout the day, as well as a reception at the close of the day. MITHIC’s second call for proposals this fall yielded nearly 80 submissions, which are under review for funding in 2026. 

A new call for proposals for the SHASS+ Connectivity Fund will be held in spring 2026. SHASS+ supports projects led by a SHASS scholar and a collaborator from another part of the Institute. Another call for proposals for the next FDI seed grant will also take place in spring 2026. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a new budget under the current administration, and they are going on a surveillance tech shopping spree. Standing at $28.7 billion dollars for the year 2025 (nearly triple their 2024 budget) and at least another $56.25 billion over the next three years, ICE's budget would be the envy of many national militaries around the world. Indeed, this budget would put ICE as the 14th most well-funded military in the world, right between Ukraine and Israel.  

There are many different agencies under U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that deal with immigration, as well as non-immigration related agencies such as Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ICE is specifically the enforcement arm of the U.S. immigration apparatus. Their stated mission is to “[p]rotect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety.” 

Of course, ICE doesn’t just end up targeting, surveilling, harassing, assaulting, detaining, and torturing people who are undocumented immigrants. They have targeted people on work permits, asylum seekers, permanent residents (people holding “green cards”), naturalized citizens, and even citizens by birth. 

While the NSA and FBI might be the first agencies that come to mind when thinking about surveillance in the U.S., ICE should not be discounted. ICE has always engaged in surveillance and intelligence-gathering as part of their mission. A 2022 report by Georgetown Law’s Center for Privacy and Technology found the following:

• ICE had scanned the driver’s license photos of 1 in 3 adults.
• ICE had access to the driver’s license data of 3 in 4 adults.
• ICE was tracking the movements of drivers in cities home to 3 in 4 adults.
• ICE could locate 3 in 4 adults through their utility records.
• ​​ICE built its surveillance dragnet by tapping data from private companies and state and local bureaucracies.
• ICE spent approximately $2.8 billion between 2008 and 2021 on new surveillance, data collection and data-sharing programs. 

With a budget for 2025 that is 10 times the size of the agency’s total surveillance spending over the last 13 years, ICE is going on a shopping spree, creating one of the largest, most comprehensive domestic surveillance machines in history. 

How We Got Here

The entire surveillance industry has been allowed to grow and flourish under both Democratic and Republican regimes. For example, President Obama dramatically expanded ICE from its more limited origins, while at the same time narrowing its focus to undocumented people accused of crimes. Under the first and second Trump administrations, ICE ramped up its operations significantly, increasing raids in major cities far from the southern border and casting a much wider net on potential targets. ICE has most recently expanded its partnerships with sheriffs across the U.S., and deported more than 1.5 million people cumulatively under the Trump administrations (600,000 of those were just during the first year of Trump’s second term according to DHS statistics), not including the 1.6 million people DHS claims have “self-deported.” More horrifying is that in just the last year of the current administration, 4,250 people detained by ICE have gone missing, and 31 have died in custody or while being detained. In contrast, 24 people died in ICE custody during the entirety of the Biden administration.

ICE also has openly stated that they plan to spy on the American public, looking for any signs of left-wing dissent against their domestic military-like presence. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said in a recent interview that his agency “was dedicated to the mission of going after” Antifa and left-wing gun clubs. 

On a long enough timeline, any surveillance tool you build will eventually be used by people you don’t like for reasons that you disagree with.

On a long enough timeline, any surveillance tool you build will eventually be used by people you don’t like for reasons that you disagree with. A surveillance-industrial complex and a democratic society are fundamentally incompatible, regardless of your political party. 

EFF recently published a guide to using government databases to dig up homeland security spending and compiled our own dataset of companies selling tech to DHS components. In 2025, ICE entered new contracts with several private companies for location surveillance, social media surveillance, face surveillance, spyware, and phone surveillance. Let’s dig into each.

Phone Surveillance Tools 

One common surveillance tactic of immigration officials is to get physical access to a person’s phone, either while the person is detained at a border crossing, or while they are under arrest. ICE renewed an $11 million contract with a company called Cellebrite, which helps ICE unlock phones and then can take a complete image of all the data on the phone, including apps, location history, photos, notes, call records, text messages, and even Signal and WhatsApp messages. ICE also signed a $3 million contract with Cellebrite’s main competitor Magnet Forensics, makers of the Graykey device for unlocking phones. DHS has had contracts with Cellebrite since 2008, but the number of phones they search has risen dramatically each year, reaching a new high of 14,899 devices searched by ICE’s sister agency U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) between April and June of 2025. 

If ICE can’t get physical access to your phone, that won’t stop them from trying to gain access to your data. They have also resumed a $2 million contract with the spyware manufacturer, Paragon. Paragon makes the Graphite spyware, which made headlines in 2025 for being found on the phones of several dozen members of Italian civil society. Graphite is able to harvest messages from multiple different encrypted chat apps such as Signal and WhatsApp without the user ever knowing. 

Our concern with ICE buying this software is the likelihood that it will be used against undocumented people and immigrants who are here legally, as well as U.S. citizens who have spoken up against ICE or who work with immigrant communities. Malware such as Graphite can be used to read encrypted messages as they are sent, other forms of spyware can also download files, photos, location history, record phone calls, and even discretely turn on your microphone to record you. 

How to Protect Yourself 

The most effective way to protect yourself from smartphone surveillance would be to not have a phone. But that’s not realistic advice in modern society. Fortunately, for most people there are other ways you can make it harder for ICE to spy on your digital life. 

The first and easiest step is to keep your phone up to date. Installing security updates makes it harder to use malware against you and makes it less likely for Cellebrite to break into your phone. Likewise, both iPhone (Lockdown Mode) and Android (Advanced Protection) offer special modes that lock your phone down and can help protect against some malware.

The first and easiest step is to keep your phone up to date.

Having your phone’s software up to date and locked with a strong alphanumeric password will offer some protection against Cellebrite, depending on your model of phone. However, the strongest protection is simply to keep your phone turned off, which puts it in “before first unlock” mode and has been typically harder for law enforcement to bypass. This is good to do if you are at a protest and expect to be arrested, if you are crossing a border, or if you are expecting to encounter ICE. Keeping your phone on airplane mode should be enough to protect against cell-site simulators, but turning your phone off will offer extra protection against cell-site simulators and Cellebrite devices. If you aren’t able to turn your phone off, it’s a good idea to at least turn off face/fingerprint unlock to make it harder for police to force you to unlock your phone. While EFF continues to fight to strengthen our legal protections against compelling people to decrypt their devices, there is currently less protection against compelled face and fingerprint unlocking than there is against compelled password disclosure.

Internet Surveillance 

ICE has also spent $5 million to acquire at least two location and social media surveillance tools: Webloc and Tangles, from a company called Pen Link, an established player in the open source intelligence space. Webloc gathers the locations of millions of phones by gathering data from mobile data brokers and linking it together with other information about users. Tangles is a social media surveillance tool which combines web scraping with access to social media application programming interfaces. These tools are able to build a dossier on anyone who has a public social media account. Tangles is able to link together a person’s posting history, posts, and comments containing keywords, location history, tags, social graph, and photos with those of their friends and family. Penlink then sells this information to law enforcement, allowing law enforcement to avoid the need for a warrant. This means ICE can look up historic and current locations of many people all across the U.S. without ever having to get a warrant.

These tools are able to build a dossier on anyone who has a public social media account.

ICE also has established contracts with other social media scanning and AI analysis companies, such as a $4.2 million contract with a company called Fivecast for the social media surveillance and AI analysis tool ONYX. According to Fivecast, ONYX can conduct “automated, continuous and targeted collection of multimedia data” from all major “news streams, search engines, social media, marketplaces, the dark web, etc.” ONYX can build what it calls “digital footprints” from biographical data and curated datasets spanning numerous platforms, and “track shifts in sentiment and emotion” and identify the level of risk associated with an individual. 

Another contract is with ShadowDragon for their product Social Net, which is able to monitor publicly available data from over 200 websites. In an acquisition document from 2022, ICE confirmed that ShadowDragon allowed the agency to search “100+ social networking sites,” noting that “[p]ersistent access to Facebook and Twitter provided by ShadowDragon SocialNet is of the utmost importance as they are the most prominent social media platforms.”

ICE has also indicated that they intend to spend between 20 and 50 million dollars on building and staffing a 24/7 social media monitoring office with at least 30 full time agents to comb every major social media website for leads that could generate enforcement raids. 

How to protect yourself 

For U.S. citizens, making your account private on social media is a good place to start. You might also consider having accounts under a pseudonym, or deleting your social media accounts altogether. For more information, check out our guide to protecting yourself on social media. Unfortunately, people immigrating to the U.S. might be subject to greater scrutiny, including mandatory social media checks, and should consult with an immigration attorney before taking any action. For people traveling to the U.S., new rules will soon likely require them to reveal five years of social media history and 10 years of past email addresses to immigration officials. 

Street-Level Surveillance 

But it’s not just your digital habits ICE wants to surveil; they also want to spy on you in the physical world. ICE has contracts with multiple automated license plate reader (ALPR) companies and is able to follow the driving habits of a large percentage of Americans. ICE uses this data to track down specific people anywhere in the country. ICE has a $6 million contract through a Thomson Reuters subsidiary to access ALPR data from Motorola Solutions. ICE has also persuaded local law enforcement officers to run searches on their behalf through Flock Safety's massive network of ALPR data. CBP, including Border Patrol, also operates a network of covert ALPR systems in many areas. 

ICE has also invested in biometric surveillance tools, such as face recognition software called Mobile Fortify to scan the faces of people they stop to determine if they are here legally. Mobile Fortify checks the pictures it takes against a database of 200 million photos for a match (the source of the photos is unknown). Additionally, ICE has a $10 million contract with Clearview AI for face recognition. ICE has also contracted with iris scanning company BI2 technologies for even more invasive biometric surveillance. ICE agents have also been spotted wearing Meta’s Ray-Ban video recording sunglasses. 

ICE has acquired trucks equipped with cell-site simulators (AKA Stingrays) from a company called TechOps Specialty Vehicles (likely the cell-site simulators were manufactured by another company). This is not the first time ICE has bought this technology. According to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, ICE deployed cell-site simulators at least 466 times between 2017 and 2019, and ICE more than 1,885 times between 2013 and 2017, according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News. Cell-site simulators can be used to track down a specific person in real time, with more granularity than a phone company or tools like Webloc can provide, though Webloc has the distinct advantage of being used without a warrant and not requiring agents to be in the vicinity of the person being tracked. 

How to protect yourself 

Taking public transit or bicycling is a great way to keep yourself off ALPR databases, but an even better way is to go to your local city council meetings and demand the city cancels contracts with ALPR companies, like people have done in Flagstaff, Arizona; Eugene, Oregon; and Denver, Colorado, among others. 

If you are at a protest, putting your phone on airplane mode could help protect you from cell-site simulators and from apps on your phone disclosing your location, but might leave you vulnerable to advanced targeted attacks. For more advanced protection, turning your phone completely off protects against all radio based attacks, and also makes it harder for tools like Cellebrite to break into your phone as discussed above. But each individual will need to weigh their need for security from advanced radio based attacks against their need to document potential abuses through photo or video. For more information about protecting yourself at a protest, head over to SSD.

There is nothing you can do to change your face, which is why we need more stringent privacy laws such as Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Tying All the Data Together 

Last but not least, ICE uses tools to combine and search all this data along with the data on Americans they have acquired from private companies, the IRS, TSA, and other government databases. 

To search all this data, ICE uses ImmigrationOS, a system that came from a $30-million contract with Palantir. What Palantir does is hard to explain, even for people who work there, but essentially they are plumbers. Palantir makes it so that ICE has all the data they have acquired in one place so it’s easy to search through. Palantir links data from different databases, like IRS data, immigration records, and private databases, and enables ICE to view all of this data about a specific person in one place. 

Palantir makes it so that ICE has all the data they have acquired in one place so it’s easy to search through.

The true civil liberties nightmare of Palantir is that they enable governments to link data that should have never been linked. There are good civil liberties reasons why IRS data was never linked with immigration data and was never linked with social media data, but Palantir breaks those firewalls. Palantir has labeled themselves as a progressive, human rights centric company historically, but their recent actions have given them away as just another tech company enabling surveillance nightmares.

Threat Modeling When ICE Is Your Adversary 

 Understanding the capabilities and limits of ICE and how to threat model helps you and your community fight back, remain powerful, and protect yourself.

One of the most important things you can do is to not spread rumors and misinformation. Rumors like “ICE has malware so now everyone's phones are compromised” or “Palantir knows what you are doing all the time” or “Signal is broken” don’t help your community. It’s more useful to spread facts, ways to protect yourself, and ways to fight back. For information about how to create a security plan for yourself or your community, and other tips to protect yourself, read our Surveillance Self-Defense guides.

How EFF Is Fighting Back

One way to fight back against ICE is in the courts. EFF currently has a lawsuit against ICE over their pressure on Apple and Google to take down ICE spotting apps, like ICEBlock. We also represent multiple labor unions suing ICE over their social media surveillance practices. 

We have also demanded the San Francisco Police Department stop sharing data illegally with ICE, and issued a statement condemning the collaboration between ICE and the malware provider Paragon. We also continue to maintain our Rayhunter project for detecting cell-site simulators. 

Other civil liberties organizations are also suing ICE. ACLU has sued ICE over a subpoena to Meta attempting to identify the owner of an account providing advice to protestors, and another coalition of groups has thus far successfully sued the IRS to stop sharing taxpayer data with ICE. 

We need to have a hard look at the surveillance industry. It is a key enabler of vast and untold violations of human rights and civil liberties, and it continues to be used by aspiring autocrats to threaten our very democracy. As long as it exists, the surveillance industry, and the data it generates, will be an irresistible tool for anti-democratic forces.

Related Cases: EFF v. DOJ, DHS (ICE tracking apps)

The New York City Wegman’s is collecting biometric information about customers.

Scientists are racing to rescue hundreds of datasets, websites and federal reports that have been deleted by the administration.

“The idea that American oil companies are just lining up to go invest in Venezuela is just flatly wrong,” he told POLITICO's E&E News.

New research into the deadly blazes reveal changes to blood chemistry. But it could take decades to find the full effects.

Connecticut and Rhode Island are requesting a preliminary injunction to block the department's suspension of Revolution Wind.

The move follows a 2024 legal settlement with climate activists. The state has less than 20 years to meet its decarbonization goal.

The Trump administration is looking for ways to lure energy investors back to the oil-rich South American country, despite the high risks.

Suburbs on the fringes of centers including Sydney, Melbourne and Perth now house at least 6.9 million inhabitants where homes adjoin highly flammable grasslands, says a report.

As part of a ceremony, an Orthodox Christian priest cast a cross into the visibly depleted waters of Lake Marathon, an artificial reservoir north of Athens.

Authorities declared a 14-day emergency response period to speed the delivery of aid, evacuations and infrastructure repairs.

A new study, which includes solutions for extreme heat, flooding, wildfires and droughts, adds to the growing conversation around adaptation.

Waiting in an airport for a connecting flight is often tedious. A new study by MIT researchers shows it’s bad for business, too.

Looking at air travel and multinational firm formation over a 30-year period, the researchers measured how much a strong network of airline connections matters for economic growth. They found that multinational firms are more likely to locate their subsidiaries in cities they can reach with direct flights, and that this trend is particularly pronounced in knowledge industries. The degree to which a city is embedded within a larger network of high-use flights matters notably for business expansion too.

The team examined 142 countries over the period from 1993 through 2023 and concluded that pairs of cities reachable only by flights with one stopover had 20 percent fewer multinational firm subsidiaries than cities with direct flights. If two changes of planes were needed to connect cities, they had 34 percent fewer subsidiaries. That equates to 1.8 percent and 3.0 percent fewer new firms per year, respectively.

“What we found is how much it matters for a city to be embedded within the global air transportation network,” says Ambra Amico, an MIT researcher and co-author of a new paper detailing the study’s results. “And we also highlight the importance of this for knowledge-intensive business sectors.”

Siqi Zheng, an MIT professor and co-author of the paper, adds: “We found a very strong empirical result about the relationship of parent and subsidiary firms, and how much connectivity matters. The important role that connectivity plays to facilitate face-to-face interactions, build trust, and reduce information asymmetry between such firms is crucial.”

The paper, “Air Connectivity Boosts Urban Attractiveness for Global Firms,” is published today in Nature Cities.

The co-authors are Amico, a postdoc at the MIT-Singapore Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART); Fabio Duarte, associate director of MIT’s Senseable City Lab; Wen-Chi Liao, a visiting associate professor at the MIT Center for Real Estate (CRE) and an associate professor at NUS Business School at the National University of Singapore; and Zheng, the STL Champion Professor of Urban and Real Estate Sustainability at CRE and MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning.

The study analyzes 7.5 million firms in 800 cities with airports, comprising a total of over 400,000 international flight routes. The research focused only on multinational firms, and thus international flights, excluding domestic flights in large countries.

To conduct the analysis and build their new database, the researchers used flight data from the International Civil Aviation Organization as well as firm data from the Orbis database, run by Moody’s, which has company data for over 469 million firms globally. That includes ownership data, allowing the researchers to track relationships between companies. The study included firms located within 37 miles (60 kilometers) of an airport, and accounted for additional factors influencing new-firm location, including city size.

By analyzing industry types, the researchers observed that air connectivity matters relatively more in knowledge industries, such as finance, where face-to-face activity seems to matter more. Alternately, a knowledge-industry firm with auditors periodically showing up to conduct work can lower costs by being more reachable.

“We were fascinated by the heterogenity across industries,” Liao says. “The results are intuitive, but it surprised us that the pattern is so consistent. If the nature of the industy requires face-to-face interaction, air connectivity matters more.” By contrast, for manufacturing, he notes, road infrastructure and ocean shipping will matter relatively more.

To be sure, there are multiple ways to define how connected a city is within the global air transportation network, and the study examines how specific measures relate to firm growth. One measure is what the paper calls “degree centrality,” or how many other places a city is connected to by direct flights. Over a 10-year period, a 10 percent increase in a city’s degree centrality leads to a 4.3 percent increase in the number of subsidiaries located there.

However, another kind of connectedness is even more strongly associated with subsidiary growth. It’s not just how many cities one place is linked to, but in turn, how many direct connections those linked cities themselves have. This turns out to be the strongest predictor of subsidiary growth.

“What matters is not just how many neighbor [directly linked] cities you have,” Duarte says. “It’s important to choose strategically which ones you’re connected to, as well. If you tell me who you are connected to, I tell you how successful your city will be.”

Intriguingly, the relationship between direct flights and multinational firm growth patterns has held up throughout the 30-year study period, despite the rise of teleconferencing, the Covid-19 pandemic, shifts in global growth, and other factors.

“There is consistency across a 30-year period, which is not something to underestimate,” Amico says. “We needed face-to-face interaction 30 years ago, 20 years ago, and 10 years ago, and we need it now, despite all the big changes we have seen.”

Indeed, Zheng adds, “Ironically, I think even with trade and geopolitical frictions, it’s more and more important to have face-to-face interactions to build trust for global trade and business. You still need to reach an actual place and see your business partners, so air connectivity really influences how global business copes with global uncertainties.”

The research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Singapore within the Office of the Prime Minister of Singapore, under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise program, and the MIT Asia Real Estate Initiative. 

Age verification mandates are spreading fast, and they’re ushering in a new age of online surveillance, censorship, and exclusion for everyone—not just young people. Age-gating laws generally require websites and apps to collect sensitive data from every user, often through invasive tools like ID checks, biometric scans, or other dubious “estimation” methods, before granting them access to certain content or services. Lawmakers tout these laws as the silver-bullet solution to “kids’ online safety,” but in reality, age-verification mandates wall off large swaths of the web, build sweeping new surveillance infrastructure, increase the risk of data breaches and real-life privacy harms, and threaten the anonymity that has long allowed people to seek support, explore new ideas, and organize and build community online.

Join EFF's Rindala Alajaji and Alexis Hancock along with Hana Memon from Gen-Z for Change and Cynthia Conti-Cook from Collaborative Research Center for Resilience for a conversation about what we stand to lose as more and more governments push to age-gate the web. We’ll break down how these laws work, who they exclude, and how these mandates threaten privacy and free expression for people of all ages. The conversation will be followed by a live Q&A. 

EFFecting Change Livestream Series:
The Human Cost of Online Age Verification
Thursday, January 15th
12:00 PM - 1:00 PM Pacific
This event is LIVE and FREE!

Accessibility

This event will be live-captioned and recorded. EFF is committed to improving accessibility for our events. If you have any accessibility questions regarding the event, please contact events@eff.org.

Event Expectations

EFF is dedicated to a harassment-free experience for everyone, and all participants are encouraged to view our full Event Expectations.

Upcoming Events

Want to make sure you don’t miss our next livestream? Here’s a link to sign up for updates about this series: eff.org/ECUpdates. If you have a friend or colleague that might be interested, please join the fight for your digital rights by forwarding this link: eff.org/EFFectingChange. Thank you for helping EFF spread the word about privacy and free expression online. 

Recording

We hope you and your friends can join us live! If you can't make it, we’ll post the recording afterward on YouTube and the Internet Archive!

Can an organization ever be truly meritocratic? That’s a question Emilio J. Castilla, the NTU Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, explores in his new book, “The Meritocracy Paradox: Where Talent Management Strategies Go Wrong and How to Fix Them” (Columbia University Press, 2025). Castilla, who is co-director of MIT’s Institute for Work and Employment Research (IWER), researches how talent is managed inside organizations and why — even with the best intentions — workplace practices often fail to deliver fairness and effectiveness.

Castilla’s book brings together decades of research to explain why organizations struggle to achieve meritocracy in practice — and what leaders can do to build fairer, more effective, and higher-performing workplaces. In the following Q&A, he unpacks how bias can unintentionally seep into hiring, evaluation, promotion, and reward systems, and offers concrete strategies to counteract these dynamics and design processes that recognize and support merit.

Q: One central argument of your book is that true meritocracy is not easy for organizations to achieve in practice. Why is that? 

A. A large body of research has found that bias and unfairness can creep into the workplace, affecting talent management processes such as who gets interviewed for jobs, who gets hired, what kind of performance evaluations employees receive, and how employees are rewarded. So it’s not easy for an organization to be truly meritocratic.

In fact, research I conducted with Stephen Benard found that, ironically, emphasizing that an organization is a meritocracy may lead decision-makers to behave in more biased ways. Specifically, in our study, we found that when participants were told they were making decisions for an organization that emphasized meritocracy, they were more likely to recommend higher bonuses for male employees than for their equally-performing female peers, compared to when meritocracy wasn’t emphasized. We called this phenomenon the “paradox of meritocracy,” and it may stem from managers paying less attention to monitoring their own biases when they are assured the organization is fair.

A study I conducted with Aruna Ranganathan PhD ’14 further showed that managers’ understanding of what constitutes “merit” varies widely — even within the same organization. There is no universally agreed-upon definition, and our research found that managers often apply the concept of merit in ways that reflect their own experiences as employees. This variability can lead to inconsistent, and sometimes inequitable, outcomes.

Q. What are some of the things organizations can do to make their talent management practices more meritocratic?

A. The encouraging news is that making your organization’s talent management processes fairer and more meritocratic doesn’t have to be complex or expensive. It does, however, require buy-in from top management. The key factors, my research in organizations has shown, are organizational transparency and accountability.

To improve organizational transparency, you need to be very explicit and open about the criteria and procedures you use in talent management processes such as hiring, evaluation, promotion, and reward decisions. That’s because research has shown that having clear and specific merit-based criteria and well-defined processes can help reduce biases.

On the accountability side, you need to have at least one person responsible for monitoring the organization’s talent management processes and outcomes to ensure fairness and effectiveness. In practice, companies often give this responsibility to a group from different parts of the organization. Research has shown that knowing that your decisions will be reviewed by others causes managers to think carefully about their decisions — something that can reduce the impact of unconscious biases in the workplace.

Q. How realistic is it to think that organizations can ever be true meritocracies — and why do you nonetheless believe meritocracy is worth striving for?

A. It’s true that organizations are unlikely to ever be perfectly meritocratic. Still, striving for meritocracy and fairness in your talent management strategies is beneficial, and you should be aware of the pitfalls. Employers that hire, reward, and advance the most talented and hard-working employees, regardless of their demographic background, are likely to benefit in the long run. That’s the promise and enduring appeal of meritocracy.

Many in the United States may not realize that one of the world’s earliest formal meritocracies emerged in China during the Han and Qin dynasties more than 2,000 years ago. As early as 200 B.C.E., the Chinese empire began developing a system of civil service exams in order to identify and appoint competent and talented officials to help administer government operations throughout the empire.

Those Chinese emperors were on to something. Once an organization reaches a certain size, leaders won’t achieve the most effective performance if they make talent management decisions based on non-meritocratic factors such as nepotism, aristocracy/social class, corruption, or friendship. When it comes to choosing a guiding principle for people management decisions within an organization, meritocracy beats a lot of the alternatives.

Massachusetts is uniquely positioned to become a leader in climate tech, said Emily Reichert MBA ’12, the CEO of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) and former CEO of Greentown Labs, to members of the MIT community at a seminar in November. 

Reichert outlined the interconnectedness of economic development and clean energy innovation in MassCEC’s efforts to advance the energy transition and address climate change, as part of the MITEI Presents: Advancing the Energy Transition speaker series. An MIT Sloan School of Management alumna, Reichert stepped aside as the agency’s CEO in late November and the MITEI speaker series was her final presentation in that role.

“There’s not another [agency] in the country exactly like us focused on innovation and economic development for clean energy and climate tech,” stated Reichert. Created in 2008, MassCEC is the state’s economic development agency dedicated to the growth of the clean energy and climate tech sector. Reichert stressed that economic development is just as much about businesses as it is about the jobs they create.

The organization’s economic development plan is built on its knowledge of the commonwealth’s infrastructure, talent capabilities, academic resources, startup culture, and regional strengths. Reichert explained that there are four areas at the core of MassCEC’s work.

First, bringing emerging climate-tech ideas out of the laboratory and into the world. To do this, MassCEC provides grants, internships, and has a small investment fund that is co-invested with different investors in the area. “We are increasingly focusing on the longer-term growth trajectory of these young companies,” said Reichert, adding that the hope is for these startups to stay, grow, and create jobs in Massachusetts.

Second, MassCEC aims to accelerate decarbonization by taking commercialized technologies and helping to get them into as many homes and businesses as possible. This can often require specialized knowledge of Massachusetts’ infrastructure, given that the state has relatively older buildings and unique structures, such as triple-deckers. One example is finding a way to make charging technology available to electric vehicle owners when they don’t have a single-family home with a garage.

MassCEC is also focused on enabling the large-scale deployment of offshore wind. “It’ll be 400,000 homes that are powered by the clean energy that’s being generated by offshore wind right off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. MassCEC’s role is to support the port infrastructure from which we marshal those offshore wind projects,” stated Reichert. “We also support innovation that is needed to do all the things that support the offshore wind industry, in general.”

Finally, Reichert reiterated that MassCEC’s overarching goal is to support clean energy workforce development through job creation, as well as professional development opportunities such as providing internships, training for high school and community college students, and supporting students returning to school for a second career in clean energy.

Reichert emphasized that Massachusetts is particularly well-equipped to house this level of climate-tech innovation since the state is already a leader in the life sciences. The Healey-Driscoll administration charged MassCEC with spearheading the state’s Climatetech Economic Development Strategy and Implementation Plan, a 10-year strategy to position Massachusetts as a global climate tech leader and drive a more equitable and resilient climate future.

To complement this plan and further position the state as an epicenter for energy innovation, the Healey-Driscoll administration also passed the Mass Leads Act, which established the Climatetech Tax Incentive Program, an annual tax incentive to be administered by MassCEC. “This is the money piece,” said Reichert. “How we do it. How we implement it.”

To unlock Massachusetts’ full potential, MassCEC uses a regional approach to take advantage of the strengths held in each area of the state. “We have a fantastic ecosystem. We have more startups per capita than any other state,” said Reichert. The quantity of startups is in large part due to the strengths of the Greater Boston region, with its strong venture capital community and good research institutions, said Reichert, who also highlighted MIT as a key factor. MIT spinout companies like Sublime Systems, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Boston Metal, and The Engine are all part of MassCEC’s ecosystem.

For the agency, retaining talent in Massachusetts is just as important as supporting its development. “How can we help companies to do their processes, find their facilities, build their facilities, do their demonstrations, do their testing, and find the talent?” asked Reichert. “How can we reduce the time and money barriers to all of that, and therefore make it as easy as possible and as inexpensive as possible for the company to stay here and grow here?”

Reichert expressed her confidence in climate-tech innovation’s ability to endure the changing energy landscape. “The rest of the world is going in this direction. We can decide not to compete as a country, or we can decide that we want to compete and that we want to be part of the future,” said Reichert. “Innovation isn’t going anywhere. I think when you have places like MIT, who are very focused on climate innovation and the energy transition, that activity helps move the ball forward.”

This speaker series highlights energy experts and leaders at the forefront of the scientific, technological, and policy solutions needed to transform our energy systems. Visit MITEI’s Events page for more information on this and additional events.

This guide was co-written by Andrew Zuker with support from the Heinrich Boell Foundation.

The U.S. government publishes volumes of detailed data on the money it spends, but searching through it and finding information can be challenging. Complex search functions and poor user interfaces on government reporting sites can hamper an investigation, as can inconsistent company profiles and complex corporate ownership structures. 

This week, EFF and the Heinrich Boell Foundation released an update to our database of vendors providing technology to components of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protections (CBP). It includes new vendor profiles, new fields, and updated data on top contractors, so that journalists and researchers have a jumping-off point for their own investigations.

Access the dataset through Google Sheets (Google's Privacy Policy applies) or download the Excel file here. 

This time we thought we would also share some of the research methods we developed while assembling this dataset.

This guide covers the key databases that store information on federal spending and contracts (often referred to as "awards"), government solicitations for products and services, and the government's "online shopping superstore," plus a few other deep-in-the-weeds datasets buried in the online bureaucracy. We have provided a step-by-step guide for searching these sites efficiently and help tips for finding information. While we have written this specifically with DHS agencies in mind, it should serve as a useful resource for procurement across the federal government. 

1. Procurement Sites: FPDS.gov and USASpending.Com  Federal Procurement Data System - fpds.gov

The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) is the best place to start for finding out what companies are working with DHS. It is the official system for tracking federal discretionary spending and contains current data on contracts with non-governmental entities like corporations and private businesses. Award data is up-to-date and includes detailed information on vendors and awards which can be helpful when searching the other systems. It is a little bit old-school, but that often makes it one of the easiest and quickest sites to search, once you get the hang of it, since it offers a lot of options for narrowing search parameters to specific agencies, vendors, classification of services, etc. 

How to Use FDPS
To begin searching Awards for a particular vendor, click into the “ezSearch” field in the center of the page, delete or replace the text “Google-like search to help you find federal contracts…” with a vendor name or keywords, and hit Enter to begin a new search. 

A new tab will open automatically with exact matches at the top. 

Four “Top 10” modules on the left side of the page link to top results in descending order: Department Full Name, Contracting Agency Name, Full Legal Business Name, and Treasury Account Symbol. These ranked lists help the user quickly narrow in on departments and agencies that vendors do business with. DHS may not appear in the “Top 10” results, which may indicate that the vendor hasn’t yet been awarded DHS or subagency contracts.

For example, if you searched the term “FLIR”, as in Teledyne FLIR who make infrared surveillance systems used along the U.S.-Mexico border, DHS is the 2nd result in the “Top 10: Department Full Name” box. 

To see all DHS contracts awarded to the vendor, click “Homeland Security, Department of” from the “Top 10 Department Full Name” module. When the page loads, you will see the subcomponents of DHS (e.g., ICE, CBP, or the U.S. Secret Service) in the lefthand menu. You can click on each of those to drill down even further. You can also drill down by choosing a company. 

Sorting options can be found on the right side of the page which offer the ability to refine and organize search results. One of the most useful is "Date Signed," which will arrange the results in chronological order. 

You don't have to search by a company name. You can also use a product keyword, such as "LPR" (license plate reader). However, because keywords are not consistently used by government agencies, you will need to try various permutations to gather the most data. 

Each click or search filter adds a new term to the search both in the main field at the top and in the Search Criteria module on the right. They can be deleted by clicking the X next to the term in this module or by removing the text in the main search field.

For each contract item, you can click "View" to see the specific details. However, these pages don't have permalinks, so you'll want to print-to-pdf if you need to retain a permanent copy of the record. 

Often the vendor brand name we know from their marketing or news media is not the same entity that is awarded government contracts. Foreign companies in particular rely on partnerships with domestic entities that are established federal contractors. If you can’t find any spending records for a vendor, search the web for information on the company including acquisitions, partnerships, licensing agreements, parent companies, and subsidiaries. It is likely that one of these types of related companies is the contract holder. 

USA Spending - usaspending.gov

The Federal Funding and Accountability Act (FFATA) of 2006 and the DATA Act of 2014 require the government to publish all spending records and contracts on a single, searchable public website, including agency-specific contracts, using unified reporting standards to ensure consistent, reliable, searchable data. This led to the creation of USA Spending (usaspending.gov). 

USA Spending is populated with data from multiple sources including the Federal Procurement Data System (fpds.gov) and the System for Awards Management (sam.gov - which we'll discuss in the next section). It also compiles Treasury Reports and data from the financial systems of dozens of federal agencies. We relied heavily on Awards data from these systems to verify vendor information including contracts with the DHS and its subagencies such as CBP and ICE. 

USA Spending has a more modern interface, but is often very slow with the information often hidden in expandable menus. In many ways it is duplicative of FPDS, but with more features, including the ability to bookmark individual pages. We often found ourselves using FPDS to quickly identify data, and then using the "Award ID" number to find the specific record within USA Spending. 

USA Spending also has some visualizations and ways to analyze data in chart form, which is not possible with the largely text-based FPDS. 

How to Use USA Spending

To begin searching for DHS awards, click on either “Search Award Data” on the navigation bar, or the blue “Start Searching Awards”button. 

On the left of the Search page are a list of drop down menus with options. You can enter a vendor name as a keyword, or expand the “Recipient” menu if you know the full company name or their Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number. Expand the “Agency Tab” and enter DHS which will bring up the Department of Homeland Security Option.

In the example below, we entered “Palantir Technologies” as a keyword, and selected DHS in the Agency dropdown:

For vendors with hundreds of contracts that return many pages of results, consider adding more filters to the search such as a specific time period or specifying a Funding Agency such as ICE or CBP. In this example, the filters “Palantir Technologies” and “DHS” returned 13 results (at the time of publication). It is important to note that the search results table is larger than what displays in that module. You can scroll down to view more Awards and scroll to the right to see much more information. 

Scroll down outside of that module to reveal more info including modules for Results by Category, Results over Time, and Results by Geography, all of which can be viewed as a list or graph. 

Once you've identified a contract, you can click the "Prime Award ID" to see the granular details for each time. 

From the search, you can also select just the agency to see all the contracts on file. Each agency also has its own page showing a breakdown for every fiscal year of how much money they had to spend and which components spent the most. For example, here's DHS's page.

2. Contracting Opportunities  - SAM.gov  

So far we've talked about how to track contracts and spending, but now let's take a step back and look at how those contracts come to be. The System for Award Management, SAM.gov, is the site that allows companies to see what products and services the government intends to buy so they can bid on the contract. But SAM.gov is also open to the public, which means you can see the same information, including a detailed scope of a project and sometimes even technical details. 

How to Use Sam.gov

SAM.gov does not require an account for its basic contracting opportunity searches, but you may want to create one in order to save the things you find and to receive keyword- or agency-based alerts via email when new items of interest are posted. 

First you will click "Search" in the menu bar, which will bring you to this page: 

We recommend selecting both "Active" and "Inactive" in the Status menu. Contracts quickly go inactive, and besides, sometimes the contracts you are most interested in are several years old. 

If you are researching a particular technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles, you might just type "unmanned" in the Simple Search bar. That will bring up every solicitation with that keyword across the federal government.

One of the most useful features is filtering by agency, while leaving the keyword search blank. This will return a running list of an agency's calls for bids and related procurement activities. It is worth checking regularly. For example, here's what CBP's looks like on a given day: 

If you click on an item, you should next scroll down to see if there are attachments. These tend to contain the most details. Specifically, you should look for the term "SOW," the abbreviation for "Statement of Work." For example, here are the attachments for a CBP contracting opportunity for "Cellular Covert Cameras": 

The first document is the Statement of Work, which tells you the exact brand, model, and number of devices they want to acquire: 

The attachments also included a "BNO Justification." BNO stands for "Brand Name Only," and this document explains in even more detail why CBP wants that specific product:

If you see the terms "Sole Source" in a listing, that also means that an agency has decided that only one product meets its requirements and it will not open bidding to other companies. 

In addition to contracting, many agencies announce "Industry Day" events, usually virtual, that members of the public can join. This is a unique opportunity to listen in on what contractors are being told by government purchasing officials. The presentation slides are also often later uploaded to the SAM.gov page. Occasionally, the list of attendees will also be posted, and you'll find several examples of those lists in our dataset.

3. The Government's "Superstore" - gsaadvantage.gov

Another way to investigate DHS purchasing is by browsing the catalog of items and services immediately available to them. The General Services Administration operates GSA Advantage, which it describes as "the government's central online shopping superstore." The website's search is open, allowing members of the public to view any vendors' offerings–including both products and services– easily as they would with any online marketplace. 

For example, you could search for "license plate reader" and produce a list of available products: 

If you click "Advanced Search," you can also isolate every product available from a particular manufacturer. For example, here are the results when you search for products available from Skydio, a drone manufacturer.

If you switch from "Products" to "Services" you can export datasets for each company about their offerings. For example, if you search for "Palantir" you'll get results that look like this:

This means all these companies are offering some sort of Palantir-related services. If you click "Matches found in Terms and Conditions," you'll download a PDF with a lot of details about what the company offers. 

For example, here's a a screengrab from Anduril's documentation: 

If you click "Matches Found in Price List" you'll download a spreadsheet that serves as a blueprint of what the company offers, including contract personnel. Here's a snippet from Palantir's: 

4. Other Resources

Daily Public Report of Covered Contract Awards - Maybe FPDS isn't enough for you and you want to know every day what contracts have been signed. Buried in the DHS website are links to a daily feed of all contracts worth $4 million or more. It's available in XML, JSON, CSV and XLSX formats. 

DHS Acquisition Planning Forecast System (APFS) - DHS operates a site for vendors to learn about upcoming contracts greater than $350,000. You can sort by agency at a granular level,  such as upcoming projects by ICE Enforcement & Removal Operations. This is one to check regularly for updates. 

DHS Artificial Intelligence Use Case Inventory - Many federal agencies are required to maintain datasets of "AI Use Cases." DHS has broken these out for each of its subcomponents, including ICE and CBP. Advanced users will find the spreadsheet versions of these inventory more interesting. 

NASA Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP) - SEWP is a way for agencies to fast track acquisition of "Information Technology, Communication and Audio Visual" products through existing contracts. The site provides an index of existing contract holders, but the somewhat buried "Provider Lookup" has a more comprehensive list of companies involved in this type of contracting, illustrating how the companies serve as passthroughs for one another. Relatedly, DHS's list of "Prime Contractors" shows which companies hold master contracts with the agency and its components. 

TechInquiry - Techinquiry is a small non-profit that aggregates records from a wide variety of sources about tech companies, particularly those involved in government contracting.