Amazon and ICE
Executive summary
Amazon — primarily through Amazon Web Services (AWS) — is a major cloud provider whose infrastructure has been used by companies supplying software and data tools to ICE, prompting activists and employees to accuse the company of “powering” deportation systems; the relationship is mostly indirect (Amazon as host, not always as direct ICE contractor) and contested both by advocacy groups and by ambiguity in procurement records [1][2][3]. Employee protests, petitions, and coalition reports have sustained pressure for change, while reporting and government solicitations show AWS and Microsoft remain core options for ICE’s cloud needs, leaving real accountability and financial flows murky [4][5][6].
1. How Amazon fits into ICE’s tech stack: hosting, not always direct contracts
Investigations commissioned by immigrant-rights groups and reported in major outlets outline a clear technical relationship: Palantir’s Investigative Case Management (ICM) system, used by ICE, has been hosted on AWS, making Amazon’s cloud the backbone for data storage and processing even when software contracts run to other vendors like Palantir [1][2]. Multiple reports emphasize that federal hosting rules forced vendors to choose federally authorized cloud providers, which created the incentive structure for Palantir to run ICM on AWS rather than putting money directly from ICE into Amazon’s coffers [1][5]. That distinction — host versus prime contractor — is material because public contract disclosures and revenue trails for subcontracted cloud services are often inconsistent [5].
2. Activists, employees and civil-society campaigns framing Amazon as complicit
Grassroots campaigns and NGOs such as Mijente and the Immigrant Defense Project have mounted protests, petitions and research reports arguing Amazon “powers” ICE by hosting mission-critical systems and marketing technologies that could be repurposed for immigration enforcement; those groups helped organize mass petitions, rallies and calls for Amazon to drop ties with DHS and ICE [2][7][8]. Whole Foods and other Amazon employees publicly demanded the company cease indirect business with ICE and Palantir, reflecting internal dissent that mirrors earlier tech-industry pushback over law-enforcement contracts [9][1]. These actions fueled public scrutiny and media accounts that portray AWS as an enabler of surveillance and deportation infrastructure [3].
3. Amazon’s products beyond hosting—and the contested Rekognition story
Reporting and employee letters have asserted that Amazon sought to sell its Rekognition facial recognition product to law enforcement and ICE, provoking alarm about potential deportations without due process; sources tie employee pressure over Rekognition to calls for the company to halt such sales [1][9]. At the same time, analyses of procurement data and ICE statements complicate the claim that ICE directly purchased Rekognition: some public records show no formal ICE contract for facial recognition, and Amazon’s sales efforts and third-party subcontracting further blur a direct sales narrative [3][4]. That ambiguity means concrete evidence of Rekognition being used by ICE in operational deportations is limited in the public record cited here [3].
4. Policy pressure, corporate reluctance, and the unresolved accountability gap
Despite protests and employee letters, reporting through 2022–2023 and later solicitations indicates AWS and Microsoft remained anticipated bidders for large ICE cloud deals, and tech employees’ objections frequently failed to change corporate contracting decisions, underscoring the limited leverage of internal dissent without binding policy changes or procurement reform [4][6][5]. Advocates call for Amazon to refuse to host tools that enable deportation operations; Amazon’s public responses in the cited reporting are often limited or absent, and procurement opacity — subcontracting and marketplace models — hampers public visibility into how much revenue or control flows from ICE to cloud providers [5][6]. The evidence assembled by activists and journalists shows a pattern of indirect enabling rather than a simple, single-contract causal line, and available sources do not provide a complete accounting of contracts, dollars or operational use of specific Amazon products inside ICE workflows [2][5].