Master Directory: Entities That Have Distanced Themselves From ICE

Quick Answer: How to Find Companies That Distanced Themselves From ICE

Companies that have distanced themselves from ICE typically do so in three ways: ending or not renewing ICE-related contracts, restricting data access or cooperation used for immigration enforcement, or issuing clear public policies that limit participation in ICE operations.

The most reliable proof is a written statement, official government action, or credible reporting documenting the termination, non-renewal, or restriction. If a company did not clearly terminate or limit ICE-related work, avoid stating it “opposes ICE” and instead describe only the specific, documented action. When in doubt, verify federal contracting claims using USAspending.gov and entity identifiers through SAM.gov. This directory lists entities with documented distancing actions and links to sources so readers can confirm the record themselves.

Below is a 25-entity master directory of organizations that have publicly distanced themselves from ICE in at least one of the following ways: ending / not renewing a relationship tied to ICE, issuing an explicit policy action that restricts federal immigration-enforcement use, or taking a documented public step that conflicts with ICE operational objectives (e.g., refusing participation, terminating data access pathways, or ending participation in deportation logistics).

Master Directory: Entities That Have Distanced Themselves From ICE

A) Transportation, travel, and logistics

1. Avelo Airlines — announced it will end participation in DHS charter deportation flights (after January 27, 2026).
   Link: Connecticut Public coverage of Avelo ending deportation flights

2. City of New Haven (CT) — formally barred use of city funds for Avelo while Avelo operated ICE deportation charters.
   Link: New Haven Register reporting on New Haven’s Avelo spending restriction

3. Puerto Ricans United Inc. (New Haven) — ended sponsorship ties with Avelo (community organization action documented in local reporting).
   Link: New Haven Register coverage noting community groups cutting ties

4. New Haven Road Race — ended sponsorship ties with Avelo (documented in local reporting).
   Link: New Haven Register coverage noting the Road Race cutting ties

5. Wilmington City Council (DE) — adopted a resolution urging the city not to enter agreements with companies collaborating with or profiting from ICE operations.
   Link: Spotlight Delaware coverage referencing the Wilmington City Council resolution

B) Media platforms and advertising channels

6. Spotify — confirmed it is not currently running ICE recruitment ads after the government campaign ended in late 2025.
   Link: The Guardian report on Spotify no longer running ICE recruitment ads

7. Spotify (trade press confirmation) — additional independent reporting confirming ads are no longer running.
   Link: Pitchfork report on ICE recruitment ads no longer on Spotify

C) Government-data pipelines and surveillance vendors (contract terminations and access restrictions)

8. Flock Safety — publicly stated it paused pilot programs with federal agencies amid misuse concerns and implemented tighter controls/filters.
   Link: AP report on Flock pausing cooperation with federal agencies

9. Flock Safety (company statement) — published an explicit statement that it does not have a contract with ICE and does not share customer data with federal agencies absent local customer control.
   Link: Flock Safety statement: “Does Flock Share Data With ICE?”

10. City of Santa Cruz (CA) — voted to terminate its contract with Flock Safety amid privacy concerns and reported ICE access issues.
    Link: KSBW coverage of Santa Cruz ending the Flock contract

11. City of Evanston (IL) — deactivated cameras and issued termination notice to Flock Safety (city government action).
    Link: City of Evanston official news release

12. Village of Oak Park (IL) — exercised termination provisions, ending use of Flock ALPR technology (official municipal posting).
    Link: Oak Park official page confirming termination of the Flock agreement

13. Oak Park Board action (local reporting) — additional reporting on the decision to cancel the Flock contract.
    Link: OakPark.com reporting on terminating the Flock contract

14. Illinois Secretary of State (Alexi Giannoulias) — ordered an end to CBP access to Illinois license-plate reader data under state law limiting immigration-enforcement sharing without a court order.
    Link: Illinois Secretary of State news release

D) Local law enforcement cooperation (termination of 287(g) or detention-related relationships)

15. Bucks County Sheriff’s Office (PA) — announced termination of its 287(g) partnership with ICE.
    Link: Bucks County Sheriff’s Office statement

16. Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office (MA) — ended its 287(g) agreement.
    Link: Boston Globe reporting on Barnstable ending 287(g)

17. Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office (MA) — ended its 287(g) agreement.
    Link: Boston Globe reporting on Plymouth ending 287(g)

18. Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (MA) — DHS/ICE ended the 287(g) agreement (documented in reporting).
    Link: Boston Globe reporting on Bristol 287(g) termination

19. Tulsa County (OK) — initiated steps to terminate a jail bed/transport contract with ICE (documented in reporting).
    Link: The Frontier reporting on Tulsa County termination notice

E) Corporate contractors that ended or declined renewals linked to ICE

20. Oneida Engineering Science & Construction Group (OESCG) — reported termination/cancellation of an ICE-related contract (via tribal enterprise; multiple outlets covered the cancellation).
    Link: Yahoo News coverage of Oneida enterprise canceling ICE contract

21. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation / KPB Services — ended a major agreement reported as tied to ICE operations.
    Link: Yahoo News coverage of Prairie Band Potawatomi ending the deal

22. Chef Software — announced it would not renew contracts with ICE/CBP after employee and public pressure.
    Link: FedScoop reporting on Chef letting ICE contract expire

23. Johns Hopkins University (Center for Law Enforcement Medicine) — announced it would not renew its ICE contract (university statement reported by campus press).
    Link: Johns Hopkins News-Letter coverage

24. City of Philadelphia — announced it would not renew its PARS agreement with ICE (official city release).
    Link: City of Philadelphia news release

25. Edelman (PR firm) — reported to have walked away from a contract with GEO Group, a major detention contractor tied to ICE detention.
    Link: Adweek reporting on Edelman stopping work with GEO Group

How to Research Whether a Company Is an ICE Contractor or Vendor (Without Guessing)

If you want your “alternatives directory” to be credible (and legally defensible), you need a repeatable method to research whether a company is actually connected to ICE contracting. The goal is not to “prove a narrative.” The goal is to document what is verifiable using official records and high-quality reporting.

Below is the exact workflow we recommend.

1) Start With the Correct Definition: “ICE contractor” vs “ICE-linked”

Before searching, decide which claim you are trying to verify:

• Direct ICE contractor = a contract award record tied to ICE or a DHS component supporting ICE work

• ICE-linked vendor = appears in credible reporting as supporting ICE-related operations (often indirect or subcontracting)

• DHS contractor = works with DHS broadly (not automatically ICE-specific)

Best practice: If you cannot confirm “ICE-specific,” use neutral language like “reported ICE-linked” or “DHS contractor.”

2) Use USAspending.gov as Your Primary Verification Tool

Go to USAspending.gov and search the company name.

When you find an award record, capture the minimum proof fields:

• Recipient name (exact spelling)

• Awarding agency and sub-agency/component

• Award ID / contract identifier

• Obligated amount

• Action date(s) and performance period (if shown)

• Award description (copy it exactly)

Rule: If your article says “ICE contractor,” you should be able to point to an award record that shows why you can responsibly say that.

3) Search Name Variations (This Is Where People Make Mistakes)

Companies often appear under:

• legal names (Inc., LLC, Corp.)

• abbreviations (e.g., “Tech Solutions” vs “TSI”)

• legacy brand names

• parent company names

• merged/acquired names

Writer instruction: Always run 3–6 variations of the name, including “parent company + subsidiary.”

4) Confirm Entity Identity on SAM.gov (UEI Cross-Check)

For identity clarity, cross-check on SAM.gov when needed.

This helps confirm:

• the correct legal entity (not just brand marketing names)

• whether similarly named recipients are different companies

• associated identifiers that reduce misattribution risk

5) Identify Whether It’s Actually ICE (Not Just “Federal Government”)

Many awards are listed under DHS or other agencies.

To avoid overstatement:

• Look for ICE-specific components where possible

• If the award is DHS-wide, do not label it “ICE contract” unless the record supports that connection

Safe phrasing when unclear:
“This company appears in federal contracting records tied to DHS; ICE-specific involvement is not always clear from public award descriptions.”

6) Watch for Subcontracting (Often Not Visible in Award Records)

Some companies provide services as subcontractors. That means:

• the company may not appear as the main award recipient

• the relationship can still be real, but harder to confirm from public databases alone

Best practice: If you only have subcontract signals, avoid definitive “ICE contractor” language and instead write:
“Reported as providing services connected to ICE operations.”

7) Use Major Media Only for Secondary Confirmation (Not as Your Only Proof)

If you use media coverage, limit it to:

• Reuters

• Associated Press

• The New York Times

• The Washington Post

Rule: Media can support context, but contracting claims should still be anchored to procurement proof whenever possible.

8) Save a “Proof Screenshot” Package (For Journalists and Defamation Defense)

For each company you list, keep a simple internal proof file:

• USAspending link (award page)

• recipient legal name used

• date captured

• award ID

• screenshot or PDF print of the award summary page

This lets HLG defend accuracy if a company disputes the label.

9) Use “Neutral Attribution Language” When You Don’t Have Full Proof

If the evidence is incomplete, write in ways that are fact-based and cautious:

Good examples:

• “This company appears in federal contracting databases under DHS procurement records.”

• “This company has been reported as supporting ICE-related operations.”

• “Public contracting records do not always specify operational end-use.”

Avoid:

• “This company supports deportations.”

• “This company funds ICE raids.”

• “This company is responsible for removals.”

Those statements often add intent and causation you cannot prove.

10) The “HLG Minimum Standard” Before Naming Any Company

Before a company is included in your directory as ICE-related, you should have at least one of:

• A clearly relevant record on USAspending.gov

• A verifiable entity identity match on SAM.gov

• A credible report from Reuters/AP/NYT/WaPo documenting the relationship

• An official statement from the company or government entity confirming the relationship exists or ended

If none exist, do not list the company as ICE-linked. Instead, write a general category alternative (“choose local providers,” “prefer independent hotels,” etc.).

How to Find Alternative Companies That Align With Your Values (and Reject Aggressive ICE Tactics in Cities and Neighborhoods)

If you want to spend money in a way that aligns with values like community safety, due process, family unity, and civil rights, the most effective strategy is not only “avoiding” certain brands—it is actively choosing businesses that commit to policies that reduce harm from aggressive enforcement tactics (especially in daily-life spaces like schools, workplaces, hospitals, and neighborhoods).

Below is a practical method to identify alternatives that align with those values—without relying on rumors or viral lists.

1) Start With “Values Filters” (What You Are Actually Looking For)

Before you switch companies, define what “alignment” means. Most readers prioritize one or more of these:

• Privacy and anti-surveillance practices (minimal data collection, strong safeguards)

• Non-cooperation with warrantless immigration enforcement

• Human-rights commitments in operations and contracting

• Community reinvestment (local hiring, local sourcing, support for immigrant neighborhoods)

• Worker protection (fair wages, non-retaliation, strong workplace policies)

• Non-discrimination policies (including language access and immigrant inclusion)

This makes your alternative search faster and more defensible.

2) Use “Policy-First” Screening (Look for Written Commitments)

A values-aligned company will often publish policies that create real-world guardrails, such as:

• Privacy policy that limits sharing data with third parties

• Transparency reports (how often they receive law enforcement requests)

• Law enforcement request guidelines (requiring valid legal process)

• Human rights policy (vendor standards and enforcement)

• Community safety commitments (de-escalation, non-cooperation unless legally required)

Rule: If a company has no written standard, it is hard to verify “alignment.”

3) Search for Practical “Alternatives To ___” Using High-Intent Queries

These searches surface companies that are already competing for switchers:

• “alternative to [brand] privacy focused”

• “local alternative to [brand] immigrant friendly”

• “ethical alternative to [brand] human rights policy”

• “community-owned alternative to [brand] near me”

• “companies that require a warrant to share customer data”

Then cross-check claims (next step).

4) Check for “Real Behavior,” Not Just Branding

A company can market values but still behave differently in practice. Look for signals of real conduct:

• Has the company ended a controversial enforcement-related relationship?

• Has it restricted data access or required stronger legal process?

• Has it published enforcement-request standards and followed them?

• Does it have a track record of responding to community concern with policy change?

Where behavior is unclear, avoid strong claims about intent.

5) Prioritize Local Ownership (It’s Often the Most Reliable Alternative)

If your goal is to reduce support for aggressive enforcement in neighborhoods, the simplest substitute is often:

• independently owned local businesses

• worker-owned cooperatives

• community development credit unions

• immigrant-owned small businesses

• local service providers with direct accountability

Local businesses can also offer better alignment because they are directly answerable to the community—not distant corporate procurement chains.

6) Use “Do No Harm” Rules When Talking About These Choices Online

If you’re sharing recommendations publicly:

• Focus on what you support (“spend local,” “support privacy-focused providers”)

• Avoid definitive accusations (“Company X is an ICE contractor”) unless you can prove it

• Don’t target employees—keep it at the corporate/policy level

• Avoid attributing motives (“they want deportations”) unless it’s explicitly stated and sourced

This protects credibility and reduces legal risk.

7) Build Your Personal “Values-Aligned Vendor List” by Category

To make your choices actionable, build a short list you can reuse:

• Travel (airline / bus / train / local car services)

• Lodging (independent hotels / small regional brands)

• Telecom (regional providers / MVNOs)

• Cloud/tech tools (privacy-oriented alternatives)

• Banking (credit unions / mission-driven banks)

• Everyday purchases (local markets, immigrant-owned businesses)

This keeps your intent from “dying on the vine” when convenience wins.

8) The Fastest “Decision Rule” When You’re Not Sure

When you can’t find enough proof to compare companies:

Choose the alternative with:

• the clearest written policy,

• the least reliance on mass data collection,

• and the strongest record of transparency.

That is the most defensible proxy for alignment with community safety and civil rights values.

Resource Directory (Verification, Protest Rights, Privacy, and Immigration Enforcement)

ICE Contract & Vendor Verification (Primary Sources)

• USAspending.gov (Federal Award Search)

• USAspending.gov (Recipient Profiles)

• SAM.gov (Entity & Contracting Portal)

• Federal Register (Official Rules + Notices)

• DHS (Department of Homeland Security)

• ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

Know Your Rights (Protest, Speech, and Police Encounters)

• ACLU – Know Your Rights: Protesters’ Rights

• ACLU – Know Your Rights (All Topics)

• NAACP – Know Your Rights

• National Lawyers Guild – Know Your Rights / Legal Observers

Digital Privacy & Surveillance (High-Authority)

• Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – Surveillance Self-Defense

• EFF – Know Your Rights

• Brennan Center – Privacy & Surveillance

Immigration Rights & Legal Support (National)

• National Immigration Law Center (NILC)

• American Immigration Council

• AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association)

• DOJ EOIR (Immigration Court)

Immigration Detention & Enforcement Oversight

• ACLU – Immigration

• NIJC (National Immigrant Justice Center)

• Detention Watch Network

Complaints, Civil Rights Reporting, and Government Oversight

• DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL)

• DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG)

• DOJ Civil Rights Division

Herman Legal Group

• How to Boycott ICE Contractors Legally

• Companies That Supply ICE: How to Identify Them, Contact Them, and Organize a Lawful Boycott

• Boycott ICE Vendors: 10 Ways to Weaken ICE Campaigns

• Companies That Do Business With ICE

• Which Companies Are Facing Boycott for Role in Trump’s Immigration Enforcement?

• Ohio Companies Serving ICE

• Texas Companies Supporting ICE (FY 2026)

• Black Friday ICE Boycott Guide 2025: Targeted Companies

• Who Profits From ICE Detention?

• Hilton, ICE, and Minneapolis-Area Hotels: What We Know

• Minnesota Ammunition Manufacturer Contracts With ICE: 2025–2026