What are the most notable cases of ICE agents being doxxed?

1. Summary of the results

The reviewed materials identify several notable incidents in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel have been publicly identified or tracked online, and in some cases followed to their homes. Multiple sources describe a pattern of doxxing and targeted exposure of ICE agents’ personal information tied to protest movements and activist groups, with one set of reports pointing to organized outlets in Portland—named in coverage as “Rose City Counter-Info” and a site called “The Crustian Daily”—as publishing officers’ personal details and prompting heightened concern for officer safety ^[1]. Separate reporting describes a concrete criminal case in Los Angeles where three women were indicted for allegedly following an ICE agent home and livestreaming his address, framed by federal authorities as a notable prosecution of doxxing against immigration enforcement ^{[2] [3]}. Government and lawmaker responses are documented as well: proposed or introduced legislation aimed at criminalizing or increasing penalties for publication of federal officers’ identities or for assaults against ICE personnel has been advanced or discussed in reaction to these incidents, with specific bills and requests to toughen penalties cited by Republican lawmakers ^{[4] [5]}.

The reporting also signals claims of a sharp increase in assaults on ICE personnel linked to doxxing campaigns; several pieces cite large percentage increases—figures like 700 percent and 1,000 percent are referenced in the materials—as evidence used by sponsors of tougher penalties or law enforcement spokespeople to argue for stronger protections ^{[1] [6] [5]}. Additionally, one analysis highlights concerns about technology-enabled identification—including alleged use of facial recognition by activists—as a modality of doxxing that drew specific legislative attention from senators seeking to criminalize malicious publication of federal law-enforcement identities ^[4]. Taken together, the sources present both discrete criminal cases and broader allegations of coordinated online campaigns that have driven political and prosecutorial responses.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The assembled documents do not provide independent verification of the large percentage increases cited (e.g., 700% or 1,000%), nor do they include underlying datasets, timeframes, or baseline incident counts needed to contextualize those rates; the absence of raw data in the cited materials means the magnitude of the increase cannot be independently assessed from these items alone ^{[1] [6] [5]}. Likewise, while activist outlets and named groups are accused of publishing officers’ personal information in some pieces, the sources do not uniformly present the alleged content of those posts, the timeline of publication, or subsequent outcomes (such as removal of posts or legal findings), leaving open questions about scale and persistence of the material online ^[1]. Conversely, the coverage of the Los Angeles indictment provides a clearer chain: federal prosecutors charged individuals for following and livestreaming an agent’s address—offering an example of criminal enforcement tied to doxxing—but that remains a single case among several allegations in the corpus ^{[2] [3]}.

Alternative perspectives are absent or limited in the supplied materials: there is little direct representation of statements from the named activists or platforms accused of doxxing, and limited exploration of civil-society arguments about public accountability for immigration enforcement actions or First Amendment defenses that critics sometimes raise in disputes over publicizing official conduct. Legislative responses featured in the sources are presented primarily from proponents who frame doxxing as a safety threat; counterarguments about potential overbreadth of new statutes, free-speech risks, or the need for narrow, evidence-based definitions of criminal conduct are not developed in these documents ^{[4] [5]}. That omission leaves a gap for readers seeking a fuller weighing of safety, civil liberties, and prosecutorial discretion.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original materials and framings risk amplifying alarm-driven narratives by citing very large percentage increases (700%–1,000%) without supplying denominators or time windows; such figures can be factually accurate yet misleading in the absence of baseline counts—small absolute increases can produce large percentage changes—thereby advantaging policy actors seeking stricter penalties ^{[1] [6] [5]}. Several items appear in contexts where lawmaker initiatives or prosecutorial actions are foregrounded, which signals an institutional agenda to convert reported incidents into legislative justification; for example, references to Senatorial bills or GOP-led penalty increases align the reporting with proponents’ policy aims and may underrepresent civil-liberty concerns or alternative enforcement priorities ^{[4] [5]}. At the same time, activist-linked sources are described as perpetrators in some items without corresponding published rebuttals or legal adjudications in the provided documents, creating asymmetry that can bias public perception of organized culpability ^[1].

Readers should therefore treat the declared scope of doxxing campaigns and the escalation metrics with caution: the corpus documents specific, prosecutable incidents—most notably the Los Angeles indictment and reported arrests for doxxing an ICE employee—but broader claims about coordinated networks or epidemic-level increases rest on assertions that require additional independent verification and clearer data ^{[2] [7] [1]}. Stakeholders advancing tougher laws benefit from emphasizing high percentage increases and named group culpability, while civil-liberty advocates and journalists would benefit from demand for transparent incident counts, platform takedown records, and defendants’ perspectives to fully evaluate the balance between officer safety and free-expression concerns ^{[4] [3]}.