Amir Makled, one of the lawyers representing pro-Palestinian protesters, had a particularly jarring experience with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents. This was just as he was coming back to the United States. After an incident at the border checkpoint recently gained national attention, attention turned toward CBP practices. Further, in light of the bill’s likely effect on privacy rights, this criticism is particularly worth parsing given the continued unrest over Israeli actions in Gaza.
As a result, on arrival, Makled was taken into custody by CBP agents who cited security risk concerns. Under current case law, CBP has wide latitude to conduct searches of electronic devices at any port of entry. Despite this layer of legal protection, the reality shows the struggle between national security imperatives and individual rights.
CBP has access to extensive databases containing personal information about travelers, which can lead to increased scrutiny for certain individuals. This practice has apparently increased over the last year since the Trump administration indicated that it would crack down on people protesting Israel’s military aggression. Very often activism has brought about tremendous, life-altering impacts. In reality, more than 600 student visas have been cancelled, often as a result of reprisal for engaging in political expression.
Throughout this intensive, invasive search of his phone, Makled was under immense duress to acquiesce to the agent’s wishes. As he explained the terrifying experience Concerns that kept him up at night, “Because they kept telling me they were only going to take the device. He continued, “And I didn’t want that to be the case. I relied on my device.
Indeed, the CBP’s power to make such invasive searches has always been predicated on their averted threats entering the homeland. This power poses significant threats to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Critics say these protections have eroded at border checkpoints. This erosion has invited in more regressive measures that would otherwise be politically unpalatable.
Hilton Beckham, CBP’s assistant commissioner, responded to Makled’s claims by asserting that they were “blatantly false and sensationalized.” He argued that Makled had agreed to a “minimal search” of his device—that the agency carried out its search within “protocols.”
The effects of this incident go beyond just one wrongful example. For Sophia Cope, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it was this very fact that made the situation more concerning. “CBP or [the Department of Homeland Security] could not show up at this attorney’s office and say: ‘give me your contact list’ without a warrant,” she stated. “That would be completely illegal. This dude deployed to the border, and they intend to repurpose this for all types of domestic surveillance and enforcement. In effect, it feels like the Fourth Amendment has completely evaporated.
Makled’s experience is emblematic of a troubling trend of activists and their legal advocates coming under increased surveillance privately and publicly. He was dismayed at agents’ threats that they would prevent him from crossing in the future. This incident underscored his profound alarm on long-term federal surveillance. He’s like, ‘Could be you’re not stopped next time,’” Makled recounted, continuing, “Could be you don’t. It depends on the agent that’s working.
Civil rights and law enforcement institutions frequently come into dramatic conflict in the United States. This tension is particularly important for those of us who are active in political movements. It’s important to note, Cope said, that the flags on travelers’ profiles can be a result of domestic investigations. They should be tied to people now facing investigation. She explained that this practice enables law enforcement to do an end-run around normal warrant procedures.
Makled’s case is not an outlier. After successfully defending other pro-Palestinian activists against similar state repression in recent years, these acute tensions stemming from protests against Israel’s violence sparked a larger federal crackdown on the people protesting this violence.